[00:00:00] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:27] Chris Carr: Hello everybody and welcome to Espresso Martini. Matt, how are you? [00:00:31] Matt Fulton: I'm good, Chris. Uh, I'm about to start, uh, hurling cruise missiles at the squirrels in my garden, but other than that, we're [00:00:37] Chris: nice. [00:00:37] Matt: We're good. Yeah. [00:00:39] Chris: So you got a big campaign lined up for the, for the week, the, the [00:00:42] Matt: cheeky bastards. Keep digging around the, the. Keep digging around my flowers and if they keep at it, I'm gonna, um, respond at a time and place with my choosing. [00:00:52] Chris: Fair enough, fair enough. Well, they're, they're, they could be quite dangerous 'cause they can eat your electrical cables and things, can't they? Oh [00:00:57] Matt: yeah. I guess I haven't, I haven't, I haven't had any issues with that, but I don't know. It's crazy. You can't even finish your coffee in the morning. Gil, people violating your territorial sovereignty. [00:01:05] Chris: How dare they, how dare they? Oh dear. Actually, uh, once had a friend who, um, had a squirrel problem where they lived and they ended up having to take anti-anxiety medication 'cause the sound was driving them up the wall. So [00:01:17] Matt: it's like squirrels? [00:01:18] Chris: Yeah, the squirrels. They could just hear. On the roof all the time. Wow. And it was at weird times of the day. It just gave him anxieties. So I'm like, okay. It's [00:01:25] Matt: like a, that's like a, like a very Hitchcock kind of thing. I don't know. It's like totally drive someone nuts in. They're, [00:01:30] Chris: yeah. I think that's Poe, the squirrels coming to a cinemas. [00:01:35] Matt: Yeah. Rap, rap rapping at my chamber door. Yeah. [00:01:38] Chris: Yeah. Oh my goodness. Well, I remember seeing the birds for the first time a long time ago, and every time I walked past a flock of birds, I'm a bit cautious. So, uh, [00:01:45] Matt: yeah. When the teacher got her eyes packed out, that traumatized me as a kid. I remember watching it, or I remember seeing it and being, I was little and being telling my mom like, oh, I wanna watch that. And she was like, it'll scare the crap outta you. I'm like, no, I wanna watch it. And then I did. And a spoiler alert It did. It did. It did scare the crap outta me. [00:02:01] Chris: So you were right, mom. Yeah. Yeah. Well, not power cinema man. It can, uh, it could leave a lasting impression, especially when you are young. Mm-hmm. Wow. Today we've got a jam packed episode. We are gonna be looking at the UK local elections and the rise of Reform uk. We'll be looking at the Australian and Canadian elections and then we'll be wrapping up looking at the firing or demotion of Tim Waltz. So, um, we will start with the UK local elections and the rise of reform. Um, so I'm gonna draw on two articles. We've got one by not, um, we've got one by Andrew Marford, a new statesman called Does Farage Own the Future. And then we've got a piece from The Guardian called Farage Claims Reform UK Local Election Gains, the Beginning of the End for the Tories, and it's by Peter Walker, Alina Courier, and Kiran. Stacy and I ho we got all the names right there. Apologies if I didn't. Nigel Farage's Reform UK has transitioned from a protest group to a major political force winning a parliamentary by-election and over 600 local council seats. It's a breakthrough in both labor and conservative strongholds, and it signals a dramatic shift in voter alignment. The Torys suffered catastrophic losses losing all, all 15 councils that they were defending and falling to fourth place in the national vote projections. Internal unrest is growing with doubts over the party's direction and leadership. While labor remains the largest opposition force, it faces growing threats. Reform is drawing support from economically disillusioned working class voters while star's party is seen outta touch on cost of living issues like winter fuel cuts. Criticism is also mounting over the party's strategic complacency. Farage has embraced Trump-like messaging, attacking diversity, environmental policies and asylum accommodations whilst pledging to block such initiatives in reform run councils. This represents a shift from populist rhetoric to actionable policy threats we've gained by the liberal Democrats and Greens alongside reforms as surged. The UK is rapidly becoming a multi-party system. This could usher in unstable conditions and increase political volatility unless labor successfully projects a confident future facing vision of economic revival and social stability before both the next, um, local elections and the next general election. Um, so Matt, I dunno what your thoughts were on this from state side. I dunno how that's sort of being covered or not. [00:04:42] Matt: Yeah, well this is one of the things I, you know. Normally we would not cover a local uk uh, election council, uh, elections and such. Um, but it, it, I I suggested that we, that we take a look at this a bit, just, I mean, uh, um, if, if you're here in the US I mean media here, you wouldn't really hear about it, I think unless you much, unless you like, seek it out. I mean, we have our, we have our own stuff going on, um, at the moment, but it, it, it, it, it's one of those things, and I mean, at least how, how I see as, as the American side of it. I mean, um, there's a different parts of UK politics, like, I don't know, like NHS spinning or something that I don't, I don't really have opinion on and I wouldn't weigh in on 'cause it's just not, it's just frankly not really my business. But I. Some stuff like, I don't know, um, Trident or defense spending or international affairs or, you know, Brexit or something. I was no fan of Corbin and the kind of personalities he elevated when he controlled labor, and I thought if he got to number 10, it would be, um, a catastrophe. So stuff like that. Yeah. I'm gonna, I'll, I I, I, I have an opinion and I'll, and I'll say so, but I wanted to sort of, um, you know, take a look at this with you to get your sense and explain a bit about what happened here and what's going on. The potential of the uk having a multi-party system, um, is certainly a, a first, at least in my knowledge of British history, um, and would shake things up a bit, but I mean. Moreover, I see, um, echoes of the very recent past, you know, voters become exasperated with drama and dysfunction of a sitting, uh, of a sitting conservative government and vote them out in favor of a center left government, promising stability, maturity, and a return to normalcy. That government immediately is slapped in the face with the realities of governing, um, and stumbles a bit. Voters are dissatisfied by it, uh, and then drift toward a far more unpleasant, destructive, faux populous movement. I mean, I, I've seen this movie before and it wasn't a good one. That's not to say that, you know, that's what's gonna happen here. I mean, the next general election is until, what, 2029. So there's plenty of time, but [00:06:47] Chris: a lot of things can happen between now and then. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it's definitely, it's definitely been a wake up call for labor. I, my, so I, um. You know, I, I, at this, you know, in the last general election, I voted towards labor 'cause I felt that they were the best equipped to deal with things. Um, I wasn't a fan of labor under Jeremy Corbin, so I refused to vote for labor then. So that's just being transparent about where I'm kind of coming from. Um, I think that labor have suffered a bit from a communications issue. Mm-hmm. Because like the winter fuel allowance, which is one of the sticking points for voters at the moment. So from my understanding with the, the Winter Fuel Allowance that was brought out, um, by the conservatives during 2022 and the kind of the fuel crisis and increased fuel costs that were coming because of the consequences of the war in Ukraine, um, it wasn't means tested, so it kind of meant everybody. Would blanketly get this money. And there were quite a few people who didn't really need the Winter fuel allowance. So in a way it kind of was wasting money. So the labor who are sort of trying to cut costs so they can reinvest those costs in hopefully social services. But also now again with increase, uh, increasing kind of national security issues, defense has now become a priority, et cetera, which again, from a left wing perspective is never traditionally popular. Mm-hmm. The, the, with the Winter Fuel Allowance, the way. They just executed this plan where they removed, they, they basically made, it means tested. I don't think they communicated it very well. And so it kind of led to headlines where basically people under the perception that very poor people were gonna be robbed the Winter fuel allowance when if they went through the means testing system, they wouldn't, the people who would lose it are the people who likely didn't need it. I, I learned about it from Rory Stewart on the rest is politics. It took a former conservative MP to explain it on the rest of politics for me to kind of fully understand it, cats and [00:08:51] Matt: dogs, et cetera. [00:08:51] Chris: Yeah. And it just shows that there was a messaging problem there. Yeah. And I think this is a traditional left wing issue. Uh, messaging has always been poor. Um, and in fact the, when messaging was quite good was probably during Tony Blair's time under Alistair Campbell. He kind of knew how to, um, put things for both good and bad in a way that people understood, which I think labor post, um. Post Blair have become a little bit allergic to sometimes. And obviously, um, you know, using spin docs as et cetera, sort of seen as a negative. But communication's very important from sort of a political perspective. [00:09:28] Matt: You make a good point there. I mean, looking back at this, in the analogy of the Biden administration, I mean, arguably, uh, good policies, good outcomes, if not immediate and, and flashy outcomes. Horrible messaging. [00:09:42] Chris: Yeah. [00:09:43] Matt: Yeah. [00:09:44] Chris: And they, and they almost refused to defend or point out, right. Or explain the positives. Like the economy in the US was in a very strong point until unfortunately recently with some things that are kind of going on. [00:09:55] Matt: Yeah. At least compared to everybody else coming out of COVID together, you know, [00:09:59] Chris: and yet in this US and speaking web of US friends and then going to the US after elections, et cetera, the perception was that everybody was a lot poorer. Um, and so the Democrats didn't want to talk about the successes of the economy because a lot of people felt poorer. But the problem is they let the negative perceptions take over. Um, so, you know, and I can't speak for Americas that live in America, but it's, how do you know? There's a cost of living issue that's happening here as well. Oh, yeah. Um, and, and how we fix that is out of my remit. Um, but there is a big problem, and I, you know, I think I've said this before, that this cost of living crisis is technically a national security one too. Because it is allowing, you know, history has shown us this before because if you look to Nazi Germany, um, you know, it, it came outta a massive cost of living issue as a result of reparations from World War I. And that got exploited and that, you know, when people feel poor and vulnerable, um, you know. Unfortunately, bad decisions get made sometimes. And certainly I've seen, I mean unfortunately like this, did, you know, there's been a lot of anti-immigration rhetoric that has been around as long as I can remember in different forms, and it's difficult to say whether it's got worse or better. 'cause I I, since the nineties, there's always, or the late nineties, there's always been problems like with the um, uh, asylum camps in. Cali, et cetera, was the, in the nineties was the big thing that people used to talk about. And coming home from France, and then obviously it's grown because of the war in Syria, et cetera. Um, and then other Mediterranean countries are now sort of dealing with a huge, um, influx of people. And this has all become sort of weaponized. So where we're at politically today is not too dissimilar from 2013 and 2014. So I had a, I was just trying to remember the buildup to the 2015 elections. Um, so the, in 20 13, 20 14, the local elections, UIP achieved unexpected success, which obviously signaled a growing kind of public backlash against the political establishment. Um, so in 2013, uh, u KIPP won hundred 47 seats across county councils in England making significant inroads into traditional conservative areas. And in the following year, in 2014, they got 166 councils, council seats, um. And then they significantly topped the European Parliament elections of 27.5% of the vote. So, you know, these local elections typically are seen as a protest vote. Um, so what tends to happen with local elections is, um, typically a lot of, um, younger people don't bother voting. 'cause they don't see it as important. Um, and that, that's always been a problem with local elections. Then, um, the people who are really committed to voting tend to use it as a protest vote. Mm-hmm. No. So they're really annoyed with whoever's sitting in power. They will vote for the opposite. Um, and if they're not happy with the opposite, they'll vote for the op. You know, the next one along, and this is where I think UIP benefited and I think now reformer benefiting. And the problem is then it does have a knock on effect on policy. So this will, so there'll be conversations going on right now, both in the Labor Party and the conservative headquarters about what can we do to appeal to the person who voted for reform? And generally then they end up learning bad lessons. And so, especially from a labor perspective, because I. Uh, the hardcore of labor are gonna wanna adopt more right wing populist policies regarding anti-immigration, et cetera. But you might start to see the party might start to adjust its rhetoric on immigration and say, we're gonna be harder on this, that, and the other. Um, I know Stama set up a, a, a special task force with MI five to crack people tra trafficking. Mm-hmm. Because obviously there are, um, the Russian government has used, um, the weaponization of asylum as a, a bit of a tactic to disrupt European politics. You know, we talked about this in my episode, um, with Philip Ab Barge, um, when he talked about how, um, the, the Wagner Group and Russian mercenaries are kind of actually steering certain people towards Europe and things to cause this crisis. A [00:14:22] Matt: few, um. A few years ago, uh, Lukashenko government in Belarus were essentially, you know Yes. Hurting migrants from Africa and elsewhere toward the Polish border. Yeah, definitely. [00:14:33] Chris: So they, they do see it unfortunately is getting weaponized by Russia a little. It doesn't explain everything, don't get me wrong, not everybody. Mm-hmm. Not every asylum secret here 'cause of Russia, et it's a whole range of things, but Right. But Russia do very well. They look at a problem and look how to, you know, use existing issue to kind of heighten other problems, destabilize. That's what they do. It's a very effective thing. And that's why I think Staus up is MI five thing, because there are these people trafficking networks that are da, that have tangential links to the Russian government, et cetera, Russian money at least. Um, so, so that obviously in a way looks tough and might appeal to sort of right wing voters. And it may well have helped him with the election. I don't know. Um, so. There's this danger that U Kip can kind of, sorry, not U kip. That reform can start setting the tone for the next election. So I think it's next year's local elections that will be bigger than this year's. Right. Next year's gonna be much bigger. Right. And I suspect you'll probably still see reform doing well, but I think it will affect the conservatives more directly than labor. I think there will still be an indirect problem for labor because there are definitely working class traditional working class communities who are seen as traditionally voting labor who have moved away from labor. I mean in 20, the 2019 general election. Some of the people who were involved with the 1980s minor strike who were very anti Thatcher, very pro-labor, became very anti-labor and ended up voting for the conservatives. So just shows some of the journey some people voters have been on. Um, and then you get coastal communities that, um, jobs are scarce. And then the problem is with that then, um, right wing parties kind of then make it out that, you know, Johnny Foreigners coming in to take your jobs. And certainly with the, um, with the EU situation changing for us positively, in the early, sort of late nineties, early two thousands, you did get an influx of people from Eastern Europe who started to take over and work cheaper on sort of more manual jobs, like being a plumber, decorator a painter. And suddenly that did kind of create a new level of competition in the marketplace that had an effect on, should we say British born, um. Working class people who relied on those jobs. So there, there's always been some tension with that. Um, and, and, you know, and, uh, then reform of being able to exploit that, uh, you know, and, and the, so the problem is with groups like reform, et cetera, I think the, the, um. They do, everything's, there's a half truth in almost everything they talk about, right? But they're the wrong people, in my opinion, to deal with it because they're then coming up with draconian methods that are gonna be very unfair. Um, and, you know, not ultimately gonna be good for anybody other than them. And Nigel Raj, himself, I mean. He's, in my opinion, is such a lone, horrible figure. And he, and I find him a bit of a joke. Yes. Because he's a very wealthy man personally. Yeah. Who, who has, you know, who's, um, I think spends, uh, you know, he, he sort of portrays this, he's a former banker who likes to portray himself as a sort of man of the country and the man of the working class. You often see him sort of dressed in kind of tweed clothing, which signifies the country connection. Then holding up a pint of London pride, which I guess for him signifies the working class connection. And he frequently see him. He's [00:18:02] Matt: performative and pandering. [00:18:03] Chris: Yeah. And hes frequently see him in pubs around the country of this horrible grin holding up one of these London prides as if he is the man of the people. And a lot of people seem to fall for it, and I find it fascinating. [00:18:14] Matt: Well, so I have I answered of two big, two big questions around, around this Yeah. Around these events, uh, these, these, um, yeah. Uh, outcomes. I mean, so. Farage was certainly one of the loudest pied pipers for Brexit, um, around, yes. And a lot of the promises that were made in that campaign, um, were not kept, uh, the, the road after it was quite a bit bumpier than I think even supporters of it would've, would've, would've expected. Um, this, well, may I [00:18:42] Chris: just say both Raj and Boris Johnson? Yeah. Just basically vanished right after they got the vote, got the result they wanted, and took zero responsibility in [00:18:52] Matt: anything to that point, you know? Okay. Brexit apparently was supposed to stop Johnny Farner from coming in, you know, the Slovenian plumber from taking all the jobs. Um mm-hmm. Does that memory not linger in the mind of, of voters? Or are they just on to, you know, more immediate, pressing economic concerns that are driving this? [00:19:11] Chris: Well, this is it, and I, I, I think again, like with the rise of Trump and the second Trump term, I think people just forget, or it becomes a cognitive dissonance where people choose to forget, um, and choose not to acknowledge these things. And also. Again, this sort of sense of sticking it to whoever's in charge. This idea like RA's bang on about the elites, et cetera. I mean, I, I think he is a member of the elite. Always has been. I think he represents all that's wrong with the elite, to be honest with you. But he, uh, claims he is not. Um, and so I think people just, for whatever reason, people would buy into him and his philosophy don't understand that and just choose to forget certain things or they, or they just don't keep track of politics the way it's the other thing actually, a lot of people don't keep track of politics. A lot of people don't even think about it. Right. Until there's an election. Yeah. They just don't. Yeah. And if you are. Media diet is, um, a combination of sort of right wing YouTubers, the uh, right wing newspapers. Then you're gonna immediately think that Stara is doing a bad job. And at the moment, the conservative's not much better. That would be the perception you'll have. Um, and then that will probably lead you unfortunately to going and looking at reform. Or if you're very far left, you're gonna look at the Green Party. 'cause all the other funny thing with the, the Green Party are hardly brilliant. They're good on environmental policies, but their economic policies are far left of Jeremy Corbin. Um, and I think a lot of people don't understand that. Um. So they get a lot of support. Sometimes when I really question if they actually got in a position to power, would they be a good idea? Probably not. So it's, yeah. I think this is the big problem across the board, both in the US and the uk, is just generally people don't keep track of, um, the facts on a national level. They, I mean, I think if their local counselor. So this is the thing like, you know, u KP politicians and counselors have hardly done well already. There've been some people who've, um, been removed from reform for various reasons. I think it's about three people who've been kicked out for various reasons. And I think these councilors don't get some wins soon. Then at least at a local level, people will see that actually the reform counselor wasn't much better than anybody else. Um, and, and you know, the big, the big, uh, raw question for Nigel Farage is his, um, constituency in Clarkton on Sea, where he is currently an mp. Right. And doesn't like taking questions about it. Right. And I, and there's a growing sense of, um, from my understanding, I could be wrong here, but from my understanding, from what I've read and seen, he's hardly. Doing a great job in Clarkton on sea, right? So he may or may not lose that seat in the next general election. Um, who knows? But [00:22:03] Matt: the other, the other sort of question that I have there, I mean, so for us, politics kind of very, you can kind of, it, it kind of always goes generally this way, right? So following a presidential election, if a new party comes into the White House the next year, the off year, there are, um, some local races and then big governor's elections in Virginia and in New Jersey. And they're often taken as very early bellwethers like a referendum on the President's party and his policies, right? Because with, I mean, social media and the decimation of local media, all sort of politics has become at least colored in a national way, right? Um, and then the year following, we have the midterms in which, you know, all of the house and a, a third of the Senate I think is up for reelection. Um, I mean. This coming November. I fully expect with all those fired federal workers in the DC suburbs, even if they aren't fired, um, all those federal workers in the DC suburbs, I expected to be a total bloodbath, um, for the Republicans there. Yeah. Um, yeah, and I mean, I was, to that point also, I was working in democratic politics in 2009 and 2010 when Obama got his ass beat and he easily went to, you know, beat Romney and, um, was. I think generally kind of remembered now as a pretty good president. I think arguably could have won a third term if he was able to run for it. I mean, he did fine. So it's not like if you suffer these losses early on in your tenure, it's not like you're doomed. So do you see that kind of being the case potentially for labor here? [00:23:36] Chris: Well, I've, to be honest with you, I think labor had the shortest honeymoon period I've seen in, in recent politics. I, it is turned very quickly. [00:23:44] Matt: Very quickly [00:23:45] Chris: it did. And so I've been of the opinion prior to this election that I think the next general election we might see a hung parliament. Mm. Is my prediction. And I still hold onto that. I don't think we are gonna see an outright, um, reform victory. Um, uh, uh, certainly not. And I don't think we're gonna see an outright labor victory either. I think, um, reform will do a damage to both labor and conservatives. Probably more to the conservatives than labor on a numbers scale. But I think that will then be enough to stop labor from getting a majority. Um. So then that will be very interesting because then it's who, who can basically form a coalition effectively and fast enough to get things going. And so you could have, um, a very bizarre combination of things that could play out, um, logically you would think lib, dems and labor. But, uh, we said that 2015, uh, no, not 2015 in 2010. And look what happened. Um, so yeah, I'm not sure at this time anything happened. I mean, maybe, you know, 'cause like we're gonna talk about this in a little bit, but like with the, um, Canada, and I mean we could go into Canada, Australia if you want to actually kind of actually make sense. Yeah. They kind of what we're seeing now. At least there is a swing towards liberal candidates. Right. But I think the difference is, at least for Canada, there's a perceived exist existential threat. I'm not sure what the situation is with Australia on that front. I don't think I've seen any threats or Australian sovereignty at this time. I think there's issues. [00:25:15] Matt: No, no, no, no. I think there's more. I mean, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll save that for the next one. [00:25:19] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. So, so yeah. So, but whilst in the UK we seem to, at the moment, we seem to be a bit more in line with US politics. Mm-hmm. Um, and that kind of anti-establishment rhetoric that's driving a lot of things. Um, and so, yeah. So I, I just think we're in very, yeah. I don't think it's gonna be easy for labor. I don't think they should at all rest on their laurels. If they think they're gonna get the next election on the national level, um, they need to improve their messaging significantly. On top of that, there's still that kind of echoes of the civil war and labor from the kind of the center and the far left problem you're saying already. Sorry, sorry, Cromwell. You're saying Cromwell, [00:25:58] Matt: the Civil War. Cromwell. The Civil War. Oh, [00:26:01] Chris: not that Civil War. No, sorry. I mean, uh, um, as in, um, the Corbe era of Civil War within the labor. Oh, okay. I was thinking, wow. So the Labor Party way back there? No, no, no. Oh yeah. No, no, no, no. Yeah, you can't blame Oliver Crom Cromwell for this necessarily, but No, no. So there was a sort of civil war within labor, um, when Jeremy Corbin came in and eventually was, um, left the leadership position. So the center of labor were quite anti Corbin. And then the, um, when Stama and the Center sort of took hold of labor again, the far left were quite, you know, noisy about Starmer and express a lot of vocal opposition. But then it calmed it down for the election. But now the, um. Results of this local election have come in, there are some mps of the kind of Corbin persuasion who have been bringing up certain statistics. I'll just see if I can just find one quickly on my phone that I saw a moment ago. Richard Bergen mp, who is definitely a Corbin Carbonite, uh, labor mp, so he's. He's put out on, I think it was Instagram. Um, aing reform isn't the answer here. The top five reasons from a recent survey of why those who back labor at the general election no longer do. So, winter fuel allowance, number one at 35% then not reduce the cost of living at 33%. Um, then he got not improved public services, 26%, broken promises, 25%, uh, not stood up to the rich and powerful 23%. So really it's the winter fuel allowance and cost of living are the key, key issues. And then the other ones are more, you know, they're, they're still issues, but they're, um, they're in play a bit the now, I don't think labor can reduce the cost of living in one year. That's, I don't think anybody could, um, unless Elon Musk decided to give every single individual 1 million pounds, which could produce the cost of living. Um, and he would still be all right. I believe. I think he's out of politics for a while. Well, well, yes and no. I mean, [00:27:55] Matt: I. Well, at least, at least in that sort of like main character way. Yeah. ' [00:27:58] Chris: cause here's the other thing with reform. So I had a bit about US money. So obviously there's growing concerns about potential US funding for reform. Um, and reports surfaced, uh, I think it was last year that Farage held talks Elon Musk about a possible donation. Then I think Musk then didn't feel Nigel Farage the right man for the job. But then maybe these elections are showing promise and that might change. Um, 'cause I, one thing from a very, um, broad perspective, Americans tend to light backing people who they think can actually win. Yes. They don't want it to back losers. Yes, that's true. So if you look like a loser, you're gonna lose American sport very fast. And like those. That, that kind of played a little bit into World War ii and like the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt and stuff, there were certain things that had to be achieved for America to say, okay, we're gonna kind of quietly support you until Pearl Harbor happened. Um, so yeah, so Musk may or may not, uh, donate up to a hundred million pounds towards reform. [00:28:58] Matt: I mean, we certainly wouldn't want. Russian money coming in and funding UK elections. Why are y'all letting him do that? [00:29:05] Chris: Well, we are awaiting a public a acquire now, but that's maybe later on. Basically we might start seeing kind of, should we call it foreign money, start to influence things. And the thing is, I've always had a a feeling that [00:29:17] Matt: that just seems like an utter disaster waiting to happen. Like why would you, why in, in, in the year of our Lord 2025 should you not know better? [00:29:25] Chris: Yeah. Well yeah. But this is the thing that people Farage appeals to. It's probably evangelical Christians and it's um, people like Musk, it's these sort of libertarian tech bro guys who have a lot of money, um, and should say not a lot of, um, political sense of a liberal persuasion, should we put it that way, and end up backing all sorts of. N candidates. Um, so yeah. And then maybe they see there's an opportunity of influence down the line if, I don't think, you know, I'm, I'm not of the opinion that Farage will be prime minister in the next election, um, the next general election, but the one after, who knows how old is he? I mean, this is the thing. I mean he might, well, I dunno, will he age out? I mean, God, we've got Trump and everybody. He's 61 years old. He is got enough in him. So yeah, he's Nigel Roger is currently 61 years old. [00:30:12] Matt: He's got plenty of gas in the tank still. Yeah, [00:30:14] Chris: unfortunately. Yeah. I mean, yeah, certainly if he was running in America, he probably could until his eighties. Something, I'm trying to think, whipper snapper, the oldest whipper snapper we ever had was whipper. But, but yeah, so he'll either, he'll either become a kingmaker and a coalition. I think that's what his next role could be. If there is this situation with a hung parliament and it becomes a bit like 2010, he could end up becoming Deputy Prime Minister or something. Right. That's all possible. I think it's. Very unlikely that he would be Prime Minister in the next general election, but it's the one after Eve Reform do manage to take, become the second party of UK politics. So it's labor versus reform that could. Theoretically happen. I mean, it is gonna be very difficult and very complicated. Um, and there'll be a big civil war within the conservative party before that happens. So, yeah. So yeah, it's weird because I'd like to say it takes away, ultimately the right wing fighting itself would take away votes from the right and move it to left. But I'm just not seeing that motion happen in the UK at this time [00:31:17] Matt: for, just, again, from my perspective as an outsider looking in, I mean, um. Number 10, frequently changes between labor and the Tories. It's just a natural order of things. And for me, it's not, you know, I, I don't think it's really my place to have much of an opinion on it. The, the, the, the, the things that I do care about traditionally has stayed pretty much consistent, you know, um, between them, uh, however, you know, in cases like, um, Corbin and now, uh, Farage, uh, there's something about him and what I think he represents that, that, that worries me greatly. [00:31:49] Chris: Well, definitely, and, and you'll see, um, again, a little bit, you sort of Corbin too. I mean, I've always been fascinated of, um, of how Corbin would've reacted to the war in Ukraine. And I actually think he would, again, have been very reluctant to physically help Ukraine. I could be wrong, but I suspect he would've been very reluctant to give any military aid. And he might even talk about NATO expansionism in parliament and say, Putin might have a point. You know, I think that's where he would've gone. I could be wrong, but that's my suspicion. [00:32:17] Matt: Oh yeah. I, yeah. I think just from what he said, I think there's no reason to expect anything else. Trident gone. [00:32:23] Chris: Yeah, exactly. And, and with our horseshoe Farage being on the right is also equally pro putted and probably equally would've been very reluctant to support Ukraine. Mm-hmm. You know, in that scenario. Um, obviously who knows what's gonna happen if Ukraine in the moment, but I think, I think Farage. On a kind of geopolitical level, probably quite in, um, in step with Trump. Um, and, uh, you know, so yeah. So do you, so we've said this before, like, you know, we talk about the rise of Trumpism and people angry about it and talk about getting rid of the British American Alliance and stuff like that, and whether there's even gas in the tank for that. You know, we said this before, the winds that brought Trump are in are blowing now in Britain. They're blowing across Europe, and they have been for some time. Um, none of us are immune to this. Yep. Um, and I, I, I, here's my, here's my pet theory on things at this time. Again, could be completely wrong here, but I think as the effects of climate change bring more catastrophe and, um, you know, so for example, if you start having major fires or more pandemics, it's gonna have an a knock on effect to our economies. Mm-hmm. It's already in a bad place and you are gonna see the general population who are wanting, who are basically wanting, uh, you know, the cost of living to come down, which is rising at this time and will get worse, I'm sure. Um, and they're wanting to see people who can promise them what they want and they will back anybody in time who will promised them what they want to hear. And, and the problem is. If you start bringing in far right people, the far right people like to close the door of democracy behind them, which then leaves the democratic, you know, situation in a very difficult place once their Yeah. Time should have been finished. Um, and this is, this is an age old problem. Um, and this is the concern with the rise of Reform UK is, you know what, you know, they're quite, um, yeah, I, you know, they're quite populist and considered right wing almost, I would say they're the Diet Coke of the far right. They're not quite far right enough yet to be bad for you. Totally. But they're pretty damn bad if you have it too often. [00:34:32] Matt: Yeah. They're not AFD ish. Yeah. [00:34:34] Chris: Um, so. That's the way I'd put it right now. Um, they're not quite the BNP party, but they do have a lot of questionable people within them. [00:34:43] Matt: Yeah. If you, if you turn the bottle over and look at the ingredients, there's a few carcinogens Oh yeah. Down there in very small text. [00:34:49] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. And in my opinion, you do not want reform in any way, shape, or form in a place of authority. I think that would be a very bad idea. Um, and so it really is up to labor and the conservatives to try and sort themselves out. Um, I think, so Kimmy Badenoch is the current leader of the conservatives. Mm-hmm. I think she has, her days were numbered from day one in my opinion. Um, I, I don't know whether we'll see a leadership challenge yet. They may or may not wait for the next local elections next year, but, um. Who knows. The conservatives have been doing a lot of leadership changes over the last few years. Yes, they have. Um, and the only, yeah, the only consistency in British politics has been Larry the cat at number 10. So bless him. It's like [00:35:34] Matt: Larry for [00:35:35] Chris: pm and, and I'm not sure how old Larry is now. I think he might be so, well look, [00:35:39] Matt: I guess also somewhere they got a, they got a new cat that would sort of like, where it's like, you know. Like the Air Larry [00:35:44] Chris: 2.0. Yeah. Yeah. Well he's been there since 2007, apparently. Okay. [00:35:50] Matt: Yeah. [00:35:50] Chris: Uh, is that right? Uh oh. No, no. Hang on. He was born in 2007. He's been mauser to the cabinet since 2011. Uh, dear. So he is an old cat now, uh, 18 years old. That's pretty old for a cat [00:36:05] Matt: I would donate to Larry for PM campaign. [00:36:07] Chris: Mm, yeah, indeed. So, yeah, so, so I think ultimately, yeah, the reform, the rise of reform is a big concern for a lot of people, both on the right and the left. But I have a horrible feed and the conservatives will try and become more like reform. So there'll be the, um, Coke zero of reform Yes. If you wanna put it that way. Um, and then, you know, it will be. I guess the next general election or beyond will determine whether voters like the Koch zero of, um, conservative stroke reform politics or not. And, uh, they don't then, you know, reform might end up like U Kip U Kip says, I think died to death now and sort of turn into reform, but it, these, these movements have come and gone. Um, and I'm hoping that, uh, the British public will send them packing, but, um, I'm not a hundred percent convinced that that's the case right now. It's not gonna be easy, so, oh, we'll see. Uh, it's kind of, ah, feeling there at the moment, I think. Yep. Indeed, indeed. Well, but let's take a break. We'll be right back with more. Welcome back everybody. So our next story is about the Australian elections and the Canadian elections, which is one you picked out, Matt, and I think it kind of goes in quite nicely. It's what we've just been talking about. So I'll let you hand, I'll hand it over to you. [00:37:41] Matt: So a pair of major elections over the past two weeks in Canada and Australia have delivered results that reflect a growing political undercurrent across Western democracies. When candidates are seen as aligning too closely with Donald Trump or his style of politics, voters increasingly pull away. In Canada, prime Minister Mark Carney replaced Justin Trudeau and led the liberal party to winning a fourth term in office. Despite his party entering the year trailing by as much as 25 points in the polls, his opponent, conservative leader Pierre Pev, was viewed by many as echoing aspects of Trump's tone and approach. In the final stretch, Kearney's steadier image institutional experience, he was a former president of the, uh, chair of the head of the Bank of England. I believe [00:38:22] Chris: that's correct. Yeah. [00:38:23] Matt: Yeah. Appeared to resonate more with voters looking for predictability and the and a Prime Minister eager to push back against Trump's bullying. Then in Australia, prime Minister Anthony Albanese expanded his majority and was returned to power while opposition leader Peter Dutton, who had leaned into rhetoric and policies reminiscent of Trump at certain points in the campaign, struggled to make his case. Dutton. Dutton emphasized his party's prior success, negotiating with Trump, and argued that he could do the same, but it wasn't a pitch that moved the electorate. In both races, foreign policy, uh, unusually took center stage. A key question for voters became, who is best equipped to manage relations with the second Trump administration? And in both cases, a majority of voters backed candidates they felt would strike a firm, but measured posture capable of engaging Washington without appearing too eager to align with Trump's worldview. These elections don't necessarily say much about domestic political preferences beyond their borders, but taken together they do show something more important. And English speaking democracies beyond the US even the slightest association with Donald Trump isn't playing as, as an electoral advantage. If anything, it appears to be a liability. Chris, what'd you think about these two? [00:39:34] Chris: Well, with the Canadian elections, definitely the liberals have benefited from Trump's Canada 51st state rhetoric. Oh yeah. Um, 'cause the liberals were very unpopular and they were toast pretty much considered to be. Gonna lose the next election. And then suddenly Canadian nationalism and Canadian pride sort of took over because Trump was threatening Canada quite directly. Um, and Mark Carney being the liberal, was so diametrically opposed to Trump that he benefited from being diametrically opposed to Trump. Um, and, you know, won the election pretty well. Um, now Carnie one thing I would say about Carnie, he's a very competent man. And I think what's refreshing a little bit is to see, um, at least, um, the success of a competent politician, because that's the one thing I felt a, for a while, that we seem to live in an age of incompetence a lot of the time. I think Stama for me, I, I think is competent. I don't think he's necessarily, um. A great communicator or necessarily an inspiring figure in the slightest, but he has a certain level of competency, even though some people might disagree there. But Mark Carney definitely strikes me as a competent man. He was the head of the Bank of England. Um, and I, and, and I know with Kleen friends of mine, generally, Kleen friend of mine, way before the turn towards, um, antit, Trumpism took hold in. Canada was saying to me he hoped Carney would win the election. Um, and um, so he, you know, it's great for Canada really. Um, so yeah, so what might happen now, I think Carney will get, have a good honeymoon period because of the Trump stuff. And even with his meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, Trump again was bringing up this nonsense about Canada being the fifth first day that was [00:41:18] Matt: yesterday as we're recording. [00:41:20] Chris: Yeah. That was embarrassing. Yeah. To watch. And it was, and, and like watching the, the journalist in the room kind of sort of laughing with Trump, but it was a very fake nervous sounding laugh, [00:41:31] Matt: white House. The White House Press Corps is, has been so just lobotomized and broken and just wracked with Stockholm Syndrome. It's astounding at times. [00:41:40] Chris: I know, I know. And it's, and yeah, so that's a whole other topic of think in itself. Yes. So, so yeah. So the, it it's, yeah, this whole 51st State thing's really bad, but we'll talk about that in a minute. Maybe some more the other with regards to Australia. So, um, you know what, a listener from a listener to our podcast, Tom from Australia, actually reached out to me with a question, um, with regards to Rupert Murdoch parroting, uh, well, Rupert Murdoch's Media parroting Kremlin talking points. But he shared a really interesting article that is bang on with what we're discussing today. So thank you, Tom. So in the, there's a good, a really good piece in The Guardian that he shared with me about the declining power and influence of Rupert Murdoch's. News Corps in Australia and how that may have affected the election results. Hmm. Tom did bring up an interesting point about, you know, with regards to the parroting of, uh, Kremlin talking points, because we know Fox News in the us which has been very powerful, um, for a long time. I think it may or may not be on its downwards. Now, but many site, Fox News is being partially responsible for swaying Republicans in America towards the populist MAGA movement. So you can, you know, there has been a lot of power of Rupert Murdoch. Um, so the article points out that there are many reasons for new news calls of declining power in Australia, but, uh, mostly it's part of a wider story of main mainstream media and its waning influence. Um. Which in America Trump benefits it from, but in Australia it seems to be the liberals are benefiting from. Um, and so there's no longer any single media outlet that reaches deep into all the Democratics, um, in Australia to win power. Um, so, you know, once television news served as, um, served that purpose, but now it no longer does. So there may be, it may be the flip side of the American situation where, um, you know, when we look after the fact that's, uh, people who influenced Australian voters may be, I don't know whether I, I haven't watched a lot of. Australian, um, YouTubers, et cetera. Mm-hmm. Whether they're less Joe Rogan and more liberal, I don't know. Can't speak for that, but, uh, please, you know, Australian listeners do reach out more with regards to this because it's a very interesting thing. But it is, again, like we were saying earlier, Britain's swinging to the right at the moment whilst Canada and Australia are swinging to left. And I think at least for Canada, it's because of the existential threat to Canadian sovereignty right now. Right. Or the perceived threat. Because whether there is genuine threat or not, I, um, is open to debate. I think. Um, I, I, I'm concerned, um, with regards to Trump keeps going on about it because I think with Trump surrounding himself with Yes men, that puts us in a more dangerous place, Uhhuh, but you know, whether you'll see a full out attack in Canada in the next few years, I think that's highly unlikely. Yeah. And I hope it stays that way. I can [00:44:28] Matt: speak to that in a minute, but Yeah, [00:44:29] Chris: yeah, yeah. But what are your thoughts on all this, man? [00:44:31] Matt: Well, I mean, just starting, starting with Australia, um, I mean, I think sort of, you know, the issues that. With them. I mean, if, and I know there are quite a few Australian listeners, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think a lot of the, the issues that concern them vis-a-vis Trump are issues, you know, Hmm. Of course around, um, trade wars defense spending as it relates to, um, China, uh, Aus as well and concerns that issues here with our ship building, um, uh, capacity here, um, in the US could force some, some alterations of the, of the terms of those, of, of that, of that deal, which all, you know, um, well and good. Um, in addition, over the last, you know, few years, the DOD has put a lot of money in, in expanding, um, certain Australian air bases and, and ports and stuff to accommodate, um. Like us long range, uh, strategic bombers and stuff. You know, there's a rotational marine garrison up near Darwin. Hmm. So there's, there's been deepening ties between the us, um, and Australia over the last few years. And I, I certainly think, you know, looking at China in the future, I think that's absolutely critical. It is, uh, interesting also to hear about, you know, the perhaps lessening impact of, of Murdoch's, uh, papers and, and press, um, in the country. You know? I didn't know that, but, um, I mean, you know. Old Rupert is, uh, certainly gonna be gone sooner rather than later. He's well up into his nineties, and I'm also interested to see, you know, how that affects kind of the reach and, and tenor of his empire across, you know, not just Australia. Um, after he's gone. I mean, HBO uh, recently finished a very, a very good series about, about this exact same scenario. Yes. Um, so we'll leave that there. Go check that one out. Yeah. If, if. But I mean, as far as, as far as Canada, you know, so, um, mark, uh, Carney met with Trump in the Oval yesterday as we're recording this. Um, I think conducted himself brilliantly. I think there were a lot of concerns that it would've just evolved into like a shit show, frankly, that the, that, that this, that the Zelensky meeting was, um, he did bring up, Trump did bring up the, the, well I, it, it, it, it came up the 51st State thing, of course. And, you know, Carney made it very clear, you know, ca Canada is not for sale and will never be for sale and Trump. 'cause, you know, he's first and foremost, uh, petulant, immature asshole goes, oh, well, never say never. Um, and I think that's what the, oh, it was painful. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Totally. Just embarrassing and just disgraceful. And of course, even more disgraceful that the White House Press Corps, some of them would, um, laugh at that. But, but, but here we are. And I, I think, you know, just again, as say, Carney conducted himself brilliantly, just reiterated, never, never. I said it a few times, um, as far as the 51st state thing. So it's, it's serious in terms of how hurtful and bullying and immature and just, it does not serve the American people in any way, shape, or form. That is positive at all. But beyond that, it's, I don't think it's operationally serious in terms of like a military threat, you know? It's just not, I I, I, my read on this, how it, how it started, um, it's a, it's seems like a very kind of immature dig at. Um, that people around him and people around him just got very too committed to the bit, and it's sort of, you know, like a, like a running thing now to them. I also think in a sense, yeah, it was, it was, is was, I don't him talking about it, Trump talking about it has lessened a lot over the past, um, few months. You don't, you don't hear it that much. Um, certainly since, since Carney became Prime Minister. Um, but I think it certainly was a negotiating tactic on, on the trade deals and everything. And you know, I know when a lot of people hear that, oh, it's a negotiating tactic, you're like, no, that's not a negotiating tactic. I would, I would offer this analogy, you know, if someone threatens to harm themself whenever their partner suggests that they wanna leave the relationship. I mean, it is, yes, it is. It is psychological abuse. It is emotional abuse. It is deeply wrong and, and evil, frankly. But to that person, it is a negotiating tactic. You know, I kind of see it. Mm-hmm. That way. [00:48:46] Chris: Um, well that, that's, that's assuming that Trump has all his mental capacities, et cetera, and that just, this isn't the babbling of a mad man or mango mad, um, which is my feeling a little bit on why it concerns, [00:48:58] Matt: I think he, yes. I think there is a part of his brain that is so high on his own supply and drunk on power and, you know, sundowning potentially and, uh, just sort of in his own world consumed with all this kind of flattery around him that he does sort of think, yeah, why can't we just make a, you know, like a really sweet deal and we'll just, you know, absorb Canada. Yeah, why not? And there's no one around him to say. Mr. President, that's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Shut the hell up. Never say that to anyone else outside of this room. What is wrong with you? Which in the first term there were, um, but well, yeah, yeah. That said it being operationalized beyond that No, I, I truly don't. I mean, that's not to say that Canadians to just sort of suck it up and take it and, you know, and not, not take it personally. I'm not suggesting that at all. But, um, I would not fear. US tanks coming across your southern border anytime. No, [00:49:51] Chris: no, no. But it, it definitely has been, it is damaging Yeah. To the partnerships and stuff. And this is, this has been, you know, again, I've been saying this for weeks now, that all Trump has done since getting into office, this is priorities to piss off every ally Right. Weaken every alliance. Um, and ultimately China and Russia benefit from that. Well, and um, yeah, [00:50:14] Matt: to that point also, you know, mm-hmm. As I was saying, I think Carney really conducted himself brilliantly and struck the right tone in how you deal with Trump. So my, my unsolicited advice, not that I think any of them are listening right now for foreign leaders, you know, navigating Trump foreign governments. I, I think you should, as Garney did yesterday, be firm, stand up for yourself, push back when and where, when, and where you need to, um, ignore him when and where you can, but. I would say, don't forget that there are folks in the administration like Vance, who for reasons I'm not entirely certain, seem hellbent on detonating every alliance that we have. Um, and you know, in, in the grand scope of geopolitics and international relations, unfortunately four years is both a lifetime and the blink of an eye. And, you know, before anyone listening goes, oh, well what if he, you know, no, don't, don't, don't, don't you do that. He gets four years and then his ass is out on the curb, um, for good this time. And, uh, I mean, I think to even entertain pulling that off, uh, he needs to be popular. The economy needs to be very strong and he needs to control Congress. Right now, a hundred days in the trend lines on, those are all pointing unambiguously, turning against him. Um, and I don't see how he turns that back. So who follows him is up to us as Americans to redeem ourselves. But. I would just suggest that that be kept in mind in the meantime. [00:51:44] Chris: Yeah. Well, let's take another break and be right back with more. Well, welcome back everybody. So Matt, our final story is one you picked out about Mike Waltz and, uh, I'll let you talk to us about that. [00:52:11] Matt: Yeah, we're drawing in here from a collection of articles from, uh, the Atlantic, um, and the Washington Post by a, a, a number of really great journalists. Um, so, so, uh, this is something that broke the minute we were sitting down to record the last episode. Yes. So we're, we're finally getting around to it now, and we know we, we kind of know what's going on now as we didn't before. But anyway, so here we, here we go. Uh, the Alster of National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, marked the first major shakeup of Trump's second term. And while Signal Gate was clearly a tipping point for Waltz's short tenure, after he accidentally added the, the Atlantic's editor to a signal chat discussing military strikes in Yemen, it was far from the whole story according to reporting from the Atlantic and the Washington Post Waltz's position had been weakening for months. And what ultimately sealed his fate wasn't a messaging misfire, but foreign policy freelancing. Um, in the lead up to a February Oval Office meeting, waltz engaged in what officials described as intense coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backing Israeli proposals for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities without Trump's knowledge or approval. Uh, the president who has remained skeptical of new military entanglements and is focused on striking deals with both Moscow and Teran was reportedly furious. For Trump's inner circle, Walt's, uh, Cheney era Hawk, who once appeared in a 2016 anti-Trump ad calling him a Vietnam draft dodger. My how far we've come, uh, was always a tenuous fit. Uh, despite trying to prove his loyalty with TV hits in a hard purge of Biden era NSC staff. He never made it into Trump's inner circle. Uh, by late April, a meeting with far right activists, Laura Loomer in the Oval Office where she accused members of Walter's team of disloyalty only deepened his isolation. Walters removed last week just after the a hundred day mark of the administration. He's now been nominated to serve as ambassador to the United Nations, and in the interim, secretary of State, Marco Rubio is pulling double duty asbo Chief Diplomat and National Security Advisor. It's the first time these roles have been combined since Henry Kissinger held them from 1973 to 1975, but more than a personnel swap, the shakeup signals a deeper shift, an increasingly loyalty first White House with a shrinking role for traditional national security structures. And a president who now believes he doesn't need an NSC, just people who follow his lead. Chris, what'd you think? [00:54:35] Chris: Wow. Uh, poor old Marco Rubio. [00:54:38] Matt: Know, [00:54:39] Chris: I hope he's either got a very good, uh, plan of keeping himself organized or drinks a shit ton of coffee. Uh, and doesn't have to work life balance. Yeah. And doesn't have to kind of resort to, uh, slightly illegal uppers. Um, so we work good that I'm, I'm not saying he is, but I hope he doesn't have to. Um, so yeah, there's so many different things as Waltz's thing. So I'll just covered kind of bits that stood out to me from the articles that I read. So, um, one of the first points was apparently he didn't work well with other senior members of Trump's team, they said, and couldn't prove to the president that he was able to manage his own staff. That was quite, um, an interesting thing. Waltz is very much in the support Ukraine and military aid camp. Um, his first reaction to, you know, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was to accuse President Putin of war crimes. And he was reportedly always pushing for sanctions against Russia. They did not cooperate with the Peace talks, and obviously they haven't. And Team Trump so far have done very little about that at this time. Um, and I think that, you know, it's his stance on military aid. Ukraine would've definitely have put him at odds with Hx F and probably President Trump himself. Um, Waltz's view traditionally as a sort of hawkish character on China and Iran, which in some. Respects is more in line with the kind of Cheney Bush era than the Trump isolationist era. Um, the Washington Post piece that you also drew from talks about how Waltz was an advocate for military force against Iran and that he may have negotiated behind Trump's back with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And it looks like, uh, waltz may have been coordinating Netanyahu to pursue, uh, to persuade Trump to, to, you know, basically back some sort of military action against Iran. Now on many levels, this is wrong of waltz to do that. You don't push an agenda with a foreign leader and then use them to persuade the president. I think that's a very bad thing to do on from a Oh yeah, that's precedent point of view. I don't think that's good at all. Yeah. Um, so I can on that level at least understand why Trump wants to get rid of Watts. And also, I mean, you know, with the whole Signal Gate thing as well, I think Waltz has not come across at all well, but. It's also interesting to note that his dismissals reportedly elevated the anxiety of key US allies who saw him as a stabilizing force in administration because of his pro NATO views and support for Ukraine. Um, so which he had also voiced as a member of Congress and, um, you know, as reported waltz, uh, despite aligning his views of America First was never fully trusted and didn't make it into Trump's inner circles. Those are the kind of things that really stood out for me. Um, so when he did get. Um, well he's got demoted rather than fired. 'cause he is now what the, gonna be the, um, ambassador for the UN or something, but, and [00:57:23] Matt: he's, he's nominated. Yeah. I can talk more about that in a second. But yeah. [00:57:26] Chris: And is that because he could name different countries and all the signal group chats that he set up, that, that made him perfect for that role? He, he has one, [00:57:32] Matt: yeah. Yeah, he has one for every country. Difference a hundred and, yeah, almost 200 signal group chats in his phone. [00:57:39] Chris: Yeah. Pretty impressive that, so, uh, you know, it is so be names like it, a subgroup of each one for the capitals and other key cities. I mean, you know, I could, I could back that, but yeah. So what are your thoughts on the Waltz drama? Um, [00:57:52] Matt: I mean, to your point there, so there's a, there's a really good quote in, in the Washington Post piece here. I'll, I'll just, I'll just read it so it says, uh, if Jim Bakker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George HW Bush, you'd be fired. A Trump advisor said, referring to Bush's secretary, to Bush's secretary of State. You can't do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country. And I'm, I'm, as I read this, I'm sitting there thinking, you know, like, not. Not me agreeing with an anonymous Trump advisor in the Washington Post, but, you know, um, here we are. Yeah, you can't, you can't, you can't do that under any circumstance, any administration. Um, and I think it also, in a way, speaks to the continued arrogance of BB Netanyahu, no matter who's in the White House, you know, like, know your place, sir. Um, but you know, as far as the nomination to being un ambassador, it's certainly a golden parachute for him. Um, you know, if he does get confirmed, um, he's, he just, he gets it. Get the hell outta Washington, um, gets a really nice swanky penthouse, uh, with great views, the East River and, and Midtown, um, Manhattan. Uh, not bad. So, you know, not a, not a bad place to hang out for the next couple years. Um, I, I'm. My analysis. I'm gonna, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that there's a small chance that he runs into some serious trouble in, in his confirmation. Um, I mean, I think, I don't know if it's, if the trouble will be severe enough to pick off three, uh, Republican senators. So it would be like, um, Susan Collins in Maine, Lisa Murkowski of, of, um, Alaska. And let's say someone like, uh, Tom Tillis of, uh, where's he from? North Carolina. Mm-hmm. And that's of course that that math, um. Factors that, you know, there are no democratic defections from say, like Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, who's been a bit, bit of a wild card for his own reasons, um, in the last few months. Um, but you know, he, in, in his confirmation hearing before the Senate, what foreign foreign foreign relations committee, um, he's gonna get bombarded with, with questions about, um, signal gate and his handling and that, and just his, you know, judgment, how that speaks to his judgment. Um, and I think how he performs in that hearing is really critical, not just for how Trump sees him. 'cause Trump really does not like his people to go out and shit the bed on national television. Um. But also just, you know, how if, if, if, if there, if they do, if there does end up being enough Republican defections, um, to sink his nomination, you would need three. And of course, no, no Democrats, um, to, to, to vote for him. It would happen because that, that, that confirmation hearing is just a disaster. Um, I don't know. I think he's still, um, odds are pretty good. He'll get, he'll get through. Um, I mean there are far more odious members of Trump's in Trump's orbit who could be picked for that job, certainly. But, you know, we'll see As far as the role of the, um. National Security Council and everything. I can, I can speak to that a bit more if you, if, if, if you'd like me to for, for, for listeners. Yeah, go for [01:01:07] Chris: it. Go for it. [01:01:08] Matt: Yeah. [01:01:08] Chris: Yeah. [01:01:09] Matt: Part of the story was, was how, you know, the staff of the National Security Council has been sort of gutted in recent months. You know, uh, Laura Loomer came in and demanded a few of those staffers be fired and everything, and, um, Trump now sort of sees it, you know, like, why does he need this sort of policy apparatus advising him when, you know. His brain has all the best ideas anyway, um, so the National Security Council staff, which is housed in the Eisenhower Executive Office building, it's just across a little, you know, side street parking lot from the West Wing in the, um, white House Complex. Uh, so that staff is the president's in-house foreign policy team. It's not a cabinet agency like state or defense. Um, it exists entirely to serve the president's agenda, uh, coordinate the national security process and make sure that when crises hit, uh, the US government isn't tripping over itself. Um, a typical NSC staff fluctuates quite a bit. I mean, in decades past. Um, if we go into like, you know, Reagan, Bush Senior and stuff, it was only like a few dozen people under Obama and Biden. I think that staffing creeped up to like approaching like 3 50, 400 a bit. And there I think there, there were legitimate. Criticisms of how the size of the NSC has just sort of ballooned under, under those presidents? You know, I think that's a, that's a fair debate to have. I don't really feel strongly about it either way, but usually recently it hovers around 200 to 300 people. Um, all, uh, career experts detailed from across, uh, the inter-agency, you know, so state defense, CIA, uh, et cetera, plus some political appointees. So like a, um, let's say, uh, a senior director for the Middle East, right? That would be, um, some sort of. Policy wonk that's kind of known in whatever circles the President's party is, and they get hired for that job or something. Traditionally, it's kind of the person that that goes to. Um, it's organ, it's, it's organized by regional and functional directorates like, uh, say like Europe, middle East, cyber, um, counter-terrorism and so on. Um, and these people don't run operations, an exception for Oliver North, and he got in trouble for that. Um, they, they run the policy process, so they chair interagency meetings. Uh, they prep decision memos, vet options, and make sure the president hears all sides before choosing a path. Um, so I mean, think of them as sort of like the policy choreographers, uh, like the, the glue between departments that otherwise, you know, it's like herding. It's, it's a bit like herding, herding cats. Mm-hmm. So when the NSE staff works, you, you get coherent foreign policy. Um, when it doesn't, you, you get conflicting press statements, uh, rogue actors freelancing, kind of like wa did. Um, and the kind of chaos that makes allies nervous and adversaries bold. Uh, so I mean, the Trump administration's first term offered a few examples, like when, you know, top officials couldn't explain a clear rationale for why the US killed, um, Iran's Cosm Soleimani when it did, uh, because there had been no interagency process beforehand to kind of come to this conclusion. Um, and also, you know, COVID, uh, showed what happens when you disband, um, NSC offices like the, like the global Health Security and Biodefense directorate and lose the ability to coordinate fast, um, in a crisis. So the NSCS power isn't in issuing orders, it's in proximity. You know, being in the White House gives its staff, um, you know, power to, to convene pressure and align the system to how. To get what the president's needs to get done. I think gutting the NSC staff will make it a lot harder that Trump is able to follow through on doing with some of the more bad shit stuff like Greenland, let's say. But maybe we'll save that for next week. Um, when, when they're sidelined or gutted, that power, you know, disappears. Um, and this is why Waltz's departure kind of, you know, matters. He didn't just fall outta favor, he left behind an NSC that was already bleeding, um, bleeding out on the floor. The precedent there with Kissinger though, who was, yeah, he did double duty, um, as Secretary of State also from 73 to 75. And in that time period, you know, Nixon was upstairs, you know, talking to ghosts at the bottom of a whiskey bottle during the worst of Watergate. And there are some crises like, uh, the Yom Kippur war. Um, there was a, uh, a. A whole kind of exchange of fire between I think Kim Rouge, uh, forces who had captured an American patrol boat and they were kind of taking the, they were trying to take him back to the Cambodian mainland, and there was a whole crisis, you know, like, how do we, how do we, like, what action should we take? Um, Nixon was, was, was checked out for all of that, and Kissinger on his own. 'cause he had such clout and power as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, um, really ran the foreign policy of, of he was like the foreign policy president, um, during that time period. And of course, you know, the public didn't really know that, um, at the time, uh, and, you know, say what you will about how Kissinger exercised, you know, that policy into like, you know, Laos and, and everything like that. Um, I will say that it's, I, I think now especially it is. Those two jobs are way too big for any one person to hold 'em at the same time. And I'll say again, whatever you think of, of of, of Henry Kissinger, I'm certainly not a fan of a lot of the stuff that he did. Um, Marco Rubio, sir, you are no Henry Kissinger. Uh, and uh, so I. We'll see how long that holds together. Yeah. [01:06:47] Chris: It doesn't bode well, really, uh, at this time if it's a big crisis, which I mean the world at the moment, well, it was yesterday. Yeah. The world is kind of currently on fire, isn't it? So I I, you know, um, so I, I think if we're only a few more wars away from a full blown, everybody at war, aren't we really? So it's, um, yeah, whole India Pakistan thing that we touched upon last week really flared up, uh, obviously ongoing problem of Ukraine. It is time. Um, you know, so it's, it's, yeah, but I'm missing out quite a few things there, but it, there's a lot of conflict going on in the world right now and it's not getting any easier and it requires some really good diplomatic and national security kind of coordination, um, that is sort of slowly being diminished by the Trump administration. And, and I know like, um. I was reading, I think it was in the Washington Post, that, you know, American allies are concerned about that Trump is using loyalty tests, et cetera, with people in key positions and people, you know, uh, senior partners might start being in a situation and trying to please trump more than anything else. And that's quite dangerous 'cause it might affect the flow of information towards allies. They might start getting tainted truth and stuff like that. So it's, uh, yeah, very difficult times ahead really. Um, and best for us to kind of keep an eye on what's going on. So, um, yeah. So is there anything else you'd like to add or are you happy with what [01:08:11] Matt: No, that's, um, that's my, that's my read, that's my analysis, that's my sort of background on it. Uh, we'll see. Very curious to see how waltz. Handles that confirmation hearing. And I think I said that on, on Blue Skies saying as it was announced, he is being nominated. You know, get your popcorn for that hearing. 'cause it's gonna be wild. [01:08:26] Chris: It will be. And I suppose, does Trump not really care what happens after it's now out of his hands? It's sort of natural selection at this point? [01:08:34] Matt: Good question. I mean, um, he, he doesn't really have the luxury of being able to pull anyone out of Congress to put in that job. He doesn't need to put someone from Congress in that job. I am, I am surprised though that if he was freelancing behind Trump's back with Bibe on striking Iranian nuclear facilities that. He didn't just kick walls to the curb. I mean, the UN Ambassador is a very cushy landing spot for him. Um, that surprised me. [01:09:01] Chris: Is there a concern maybe on Trump's part of, um, it might be seen as a slight towards Netanyahu if he did that? I don't know. It's, [01:09:10] Matt: or that waltz would go the John Bolton route. Yeah. If he just sort of, you know, kicked him out like a dog. Well, yeah. Is [01:09:14] Chris: Trump, maybe Trump doing a bit of image management and trying to keep, um, uh, learning lessons from his past and, uh, you know, somebody in his, his staff is learning lessons from the past to keep, um, people sweet. [01:09:25] Matt: I think, I think, um, Trump sort of stopped. Learning lessons at some point in the eighties. Yes. But [01:09:33] Chris: maybe it's put some people around them have learned them because they do seem a bit more, this Trump 2.0 does seem a little bit more competent and savvy than Trump 1.0. But, um, [01:09:43] Matt: I don't, I don't, I don't agree with that at all. I think they're still, I think that was, they, they talked up that game a lot that they would be when they came into power. Mm-hmm. But I think in, in many regards, I mean, they're a lot more assured, they're a lot more kind of, you know, like a terminator mode kind of focused on, like crush the opposition. Do not give them an inch, move forward ceaselessly, and do not give them time to regroup and stop you. But as this goes on, um, and I think certainly as the economy sort of starts to get worse, going, going ahead, um, there's just a lot of, there's still a lot of the same kind of infighting and just chaos and, and dysfunction and, um, they just don't, they don't know things. Yeah. You know so many of them. So I mean, yeah, they're still, in many ways, a lot of them are still exactly how they were. They're just, they're just more, they're, they're their, their Dunning Kruger effect is more exacerbated this time. Yeah. They've got a lot more confidence. [01:10:42] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, definitely. Well, yeah, time will tell how this will play out. Um, and I was really intrigued, obviously with the whole Netanyahu and his plans of Iran. Um, I dunno if there's anything you wants to speak to that at all at this time or [01:10:57] Matt: he's wanted to do that for 20 years. And this is, I mean, objectively, yeah, this is his best opportunity to do so. And it must hurt him quite a bit that his, that his friend, um, doesn't wanna join him on that, on that adventure, but we'll see on that. Yeah. [01:11:10] Chris: Yeah. Indeed, indeed. Well, um, I think that's it for today, but, uh, we did wanna just quickly say thank you very much. We did get some really nice reviews, um, uh, last week. And, uh, you know, we appreciate that and thank you for, you know, supporting us in that way. [01:11:25] Matt: Uh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, very, very, um, grateful to, to, to see those. Yeah. We sort of, you know, asked for it a bit. I think some of the, some of the, some of the reviews we'll get, I say I think it's, I think it's people who, I mean, you know, Chris, 'cause we, I, I talked to you about this offline sometimes. I mean, I am certainly sensitive to the idea of like, bias and being like how we've seen, how, how we're seen and stuff. And like, I've, I mean, not that I wanna do the podcast by like committee or I feel like I need to try to like, that we need to know, like, please all viewpoints. I definitely don't think that, but I mean, I've done. Such anal stuff is like feeding, you know, dozens of transcripts and like into, you know, and like generating kind of like metrics and stuff and like how do we tend to sound like over time? Mm-hmm. Generally, you know, I've asked, I've looked into stuff like that 'cause it's just an interest of mine. Um, but I think I. You know, I, I often we talk about things like the titles and stuff will be stuff that appeal to certain, probably Trumpy I'll say, I won't necessarily conservative, I'll say Trumpy minded people who then come and listen to it and it's, you know, not what they hear on Fox News or like some, you know, bro podcast or something and they, you know, react like a New Jersey. Like, oh, you don't, you don't like Trump one star and leave. But I mean, I think generally those people, I don't pay a lot of attention to it. 'cause I think, you know, if, if, if I saw a review that was like, you know, Hey, I've been listening to this for a couple years and it's really fallen off, or like the tone has changed in a way that I just don't really, you know, uh, feel comfortable with anymore, that my ears up would perk up immediately. And I definitely see need for a course correction, um, somewhere. But, you know, to that point, you know, it's, uh, yeah, it's, it's, um. It's, it's nice to, when people sort of come in and say, and say nice stuff. I will say though, you know, the smoke that I bring to this mike for Trump, I do not bring for Mitt Romney or John McCain or even George Bush. It is kind of, particularly for him and what he represents and what he has wrought upon this country and the world that I, that I don't like. I mean, I don't, I, I said this on Blue Sky over the weekend, I was sort of plugging this a bit. Um, you know, I said as long as you're on team democracy, I think you absolutely can feel at home with us. Yeah. So whether you're traditionally were a Republican or are a Republican, they just aren't happy with how things are right now, you know? Um, that's all cool. And you know, frankly, I think, I think, um. At least in principle, Ronald Reagan would probably agree with like 75% of what we talk about. [01:13:54] Chris: Yeah. [01:13:55] Matt: If in principle. Yeah. Yeah. You know? [01:13:56] Chris: Yeah. Well, let's see. I like to think we're honest with our views. Yes. Because, um, I don't hide my disdain for Trump and Trumpism and maga. Um, and I, and I think they're very valid reasons to be upset with Trumpism, maga, et cetera. And, you know, um, and I've done many episodes of very interesting people about how he's inflamed the far right and exaggerate, you know, exaggerated problems, et cetera. And I think, yeah. Uh, it, it's like that idea of sort of truth to power. We have to be honest, uh, and call it how we see it. And obviously, um, you know, we, we sit in an interesting place in the kind of national security throat espionage podcast sphere, um, if you wanna call it that, because there's quite a few shows that are similar to us that don't go where we go. Um, we probably lean a bit more heavy on the geopolitics these days. Mm-hmm. Partly that is probably because I'm just, espionage is ultimately about geopolitics and it is a fascinating thing, you know, [01:14:53] Matt: that, that drives me nuts sometimes when you'll hear like, you know, readers in the thriller genre that'll say, you know, oh, I liked it till they put the politics in, or whatever. Like, what do you think all this is? It's in service of nation states doing politics. Like, what do you think this is for? And of course, yeah. If you're going to, you know, mm, if there's a shootout or something and your character stops and they, you know, have this treaties on like, I don't know, civil rights or whatever, yeah. That's outta place. And that's weird. But like this, this, this is politics. It's indeed. It's interesting [01:15:20] Chris: indeed. And I think when I've looked broadly at most of the one star reviews, I think a lot of 'em are just mean-spirited and just generally, um, people who are obviously of the pro-Trump persuasion, who are offended by something, I think they're [01:15:32] Matt: just not used to hearing it. Yeah. [01:15:34] Chris: Yeah. And I, I, you know, I keep an eye, there are one or two reviews that bring up something specific, like there's been a. They had a perceived problem with sound, um, or I don't know, they don't like the way we angled something, et cetera. I think there are some people who, um, hear what they want to hear and totally misconstrued things. Uh, it's been one or two reviews. I'm like, we didn't actually say that. Um, so yeah. And we are not alone and I know like the rest is politics had a bit of that and other shows too. Oh [01:16:01] Matt: yeah. And they get it. Yeah. Way worse too. Yeah. It [01:16:03] Chris: comes with a territory, you know, it, it, it's the unfortunate side of, um, of, uh, putting um, things out in the public domain is obviously not everybody's gonna like what you do, and that's, that's fair enough. My, my, my view is as long as the people who do enjoy this and we're serving them, that's important. And obviously we, we have a nice relationship people where people do let us know. There's something they're not quite happy with, and we do yearly surveys now just to make sure, get a barometer check to make sure we're not, you know, um, what's the word? Uh, high on our own supply. I hope we're never high on our own supply. Um, but it's, it's, yeah, it's always nice to get a, a positive review. It gives us a bit of a, a spring and our step, and especially when you read it and you're like, actually, yeah, they really got the show and what we're trying to do, et cetera. And that, that feels like we've done a good job. So thank you. [01:16:49] Matt: Well, I'll say, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll say this bit last. You know, I, um, I will never lie to you dear and JII will, I will never knowingly lie to you. Dear and dear Dear, dear Reader, um, I'll. I'm gonna tell you what I think and why, and it'll never be in doubt what my values are. Yeah. [01:17:08] Chris: It, it's same with me. And, and it's like, yeah, I just don't, there's this sort of ex people go on about bias. I think the people who talk about it the most tend to be the most biased because they don't critically, um, examine their own sort of media diets. Um, I would make a prediction. A lot of them are listening to, you know, Joe Rogan, et cetera, and have no problem with half the stuff he puts out, but, [01:17:31] Matt: right. I mean, it's also like if, if, uh, this is gonna be a bit, you know, Frank and, and, and, and, and Korean perhaps, but like, if, um, unbiased does not mean that you need equal airing of all views. Yeah. You know, just 'cause you, you know, ate and enjoyed like a really good cheeseburger fries doesn't mean that you Now also, if you wanna be unbiased, you have to go chow down on this hunger dog shit. [01:17:51] Chris: Yeah. You know, that's nots, that's not how it works. That's not how it works. No, no. If anything, you've gotta just sort of, um, challenge the lie really, um, and challenge the nonsense and mm-hmm. We said before at the beginning, you know, we'll call it as we see it, I think Trump is a very negative force, but there're one or two things where there may be, you know, you know, there may be a grain of truth in what he's saying somewhere. Yeah. Or there's a policy that maybe he did get right. Um, it, it's just very hard when there're very few of them to, to really champion it. [01:18:22] Matt: We haven't, we haven't focused much on, um, Iran recently, and we will coming up soon. I, I, I intend, but that's an area where honestly I have very. Very little complaints right now about, about how that's going. It could change. We'll see, I don't, I don't trust him at all. It's like, don't trust, you know, Todd running around the house with a knife at night. Um, but yeah, we'll see. Yeah, [01:18:45] Chris: we will see. We will see. So, you know, again, thank you very much for those reviews. Thank you very much for everybody who does, um, enjoy his podcast and, you know, is listening to it and engages with us. Thank you so much. You know, your support means the world to us and it keeps us going. And, and what's nice to see is obviously our, our numbers have grown in the last year. They've grown up quite a lot, which is fantastic. So I feel like we're just definitely doing something right. Um, so we just hope we keep doing the right thing. Um, and uh, with the right philosophy kind of going forward, we don't knowingly or intentionally go out to offend people or, um, be, uh, controversial for the sake of controversy, et cetera. You know, [01:19:22] Matt: if you think this is me being intentionally offensive, you have no idea. [01:19:27] Chris: Yeah, this is it. And I don't have a, there was one review who said I had a, I had a thin, a thinly veiled contempt for Trump. I don't think it's thinly veiled, but [01:19:36] Matt: No, no, i, I, I go out, I go out in the front yard and wave that thing around for everyone to say there was, there was no veil there. [01:19:44] Chris: Oh man. So, yeah, so anyway, well, um, we will be doing listen to questions at the end of this month again. So do drop us an email at Secrets and Spies podcast@gmail.com. Um, you know, let us know what you'd like us to, uh, talk about. If you have a link that's relevant you'd like us to see, please share that. And importantly, please let us know how you'd like to be credited on air. 'cause I don't wanna just read out your name blind and then suddenly, I don't know, give away that you live in a particular place and et cetera. So let us know how you'd like to be credited on air. Um, you know, and thank you again to pastor listeners who've done that and we look forward to future questions coming forward. So yeah, Matt, thank you for your time today and thank you. It has been a, I think a good episode and we will catch you all next week. Thank you very much. See ya. Take care. Bye for now. [01:20:44] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and Spies.