WEBVTT - Nigel Farage at Davos: 'The Consensus Era Is Over' 0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:09.680 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. President Trump is taking 0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:12.319 this economy in a different direction. He ran on that, 0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:16.159 he promised it, and now he's delivering. We're in the 0:00:16.200 --> 0:00:20.040 process of imposing reciprocal tariffs. This is going to hurt 0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:24.880 our economy before we get to any possible retaliation. Thank 0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:28.040 you for being such a pro business and pronavision President. 0:00:28.120 --> 0:00:30.520 We're very excited to see what you're doing to make 0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:33.239 all of our companies in our entire country so successful. 0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:35.360 The big promise was that he was going to bring 0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:39.120 down prices and make America affordable again, and everything he's 0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:41.000 done is the opposite of that. 0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:43.839 We have the greatest economy in history. This economy, in 0:00:43.880 --> 0:00:48.720 my opinion, is going to blow it away. Let's face it. 0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:52.920 The globalist idea that we should all do the same thing, 0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:56.960 have the same regulations, have the same targets, and the EU, 0:00:57.440 --> 0:00:59.680 of course, is the epicenter of all of this. For 0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:02.800 the life that's now for the birds, there's a change 0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:06.759 of debate. There is now something called national interest and 0:01:06.800 --> 0:01:08.319 that's the new politics that you're saying. 0:01:17.560 --> 0:01:20.679 I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg, 0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:23.480 and this is trump Anomics, the podcast that looks at 0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:26.959 the economic world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped 0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:29.360 the global economy and what on earth is going to 0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:33.040 happen next. This week, wanted to play you a lively 0:01:33.080 --> 0:01:37.160 conversation I had with Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, 0:01:37.760 --> 0:01:40.959 on the sidelines of last week's World Economic Forum in Davos. 0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:47.080 Probably no single individual better embodies the conflicted and contradictory 0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:51.440 mood in politics today than Nigel Farage. He's deeply associated 0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:55.200 with Britain's exit from the EU, something that a significant 0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:59.840 majority of Brits now regret. He's also made a virtue 0:01:59.840 --> 0:02:03.040 of close ties with Donald Trump and the MAGA movement 0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:06.320 in the US, celebrating election night with mister Trump in 0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:09.680 Mara Lago at a time when barely twenty percent of 0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:13.160 the UK population have a favorable opinion of the US president, 0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:15.960 a number that's falling fast thanks to the row over 0:02:16.040 --> 0:02:19.960 Greenland and Trump's deeply insulting comments about the service of 0:02:20.000 --> 0:02:24.640 non American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet, despite 0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:28.440 all this, Reform UK, a party which won only five 0:02:28.480 --> 0:02:31.440 seats in the UK Parliament in the election just eighteen 0:02:31.480 --> 0:02:34.360 months ago, is now more than ten points ahead of 0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:37.080 both of the main parties in the opinion polls, and 0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:39.760 the political betting sites give Faraj a much higher chance 0:02:39.800 --> 0:02:42.560 of being Britain's Prime minister after the next general election 0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:52.160 than the current incumbent, secure Starmer. So it seemed like 0:02:52.200 --> 0:02:54.880 a good time to dig into what a reform version 0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:57.920 of Trump and Nomics would look like, whether the UK 0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:01.680 could get away with being quite a cavalier as Donald 0:03:01.680 --> 0:03:05.840 Trump has been about boring things like central bank independence 0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:10.040 or inflation target In a week when populists all over 0:03:10.120 --> 0:03:13.480 Europe have also been rushing to distance themselves from the 0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:17.440 Trump administration on many issues, I was interested to find 0:03:17.440 --> 0:03:21.360 out what reforms foreign policy would look like and whether 0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:24.680 reforms voters would really want him to put quite so 0:03:24.800 --> 0:03:28.400 much trust in the US. I think our chat was revealing. 0:03:28.960 --> 0:03:40.400 It was also, I have to admit, rather fun a 0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:43.080 bit surprised to see you used to really slag off 0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:45.920 all the globalists at the wef oh. 0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:48.440 I slagged off the European Parliament for twenty years, but 0:03:48.480 --> 0:03:51.480 I still went there once a month, and I think 0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:54.000 I genuinely upset them virtually every time I turned up, 0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:56.200 isn't it interesting. I mean, you know, five years ago 0:03:56.960 --> 0:04:00.960 here at Davos, the main topic of conversation was climate change, 0:04:01.680 --> 0:04:05.880 DEI or that baloney. And here we are five years 0:04:05.880 --> 0:04:09.320 on and the debates completely different. It's being dominated by 0:04:09.840 --> 0:04:13.720 AI tech energy and the one thing I've enjoyed over 0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:16.640 the last couple of days, there is genuine debate. There 0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:19.200 are different opinions now, rather than the sort of consensus 0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:23.800 view that I certainly felt was coming out from the globalists. 0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.039 So yeah, no, no, I found it really interesting and worthwhile. 0:04:27.560 --> 0:04:30.840 It is quite funny that there's so many honest conversations 0:04:30.960 --> 0:04:33.200 this week, and it sort of suggests, you know, what 0:04:33.200 --> 0:04:34.919 were the conversations like before. 0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:37.480 Well, I think it's interesting. I mean, ten years ago, 0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:41.400 we had the Brexit referendum result, we had Trump winning 0:04:41.400 --> 0:04:43.760 the presidency, and I think everyone thought, well, these are 0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:47.600 just aberrations, these are short term Rembertonia Blair saying these 0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:50.880 are sort of short term fits of rage. Normal service 0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:54.800 will be resumed. And now everyone realizes that actually these 0:04:54.800 --> 0:04:58.479 were the first tremors of a very very major change 0:04:59.040 --> 0:05:02.880 in political conversation and debate, and that I think now 0:05:02.960 --> 0:05:03.720 is writ large. 0:05:03.960 --> 0:05:05.480 I think a lot of people were interested in how 0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:09.160 you're seeing foreign policy, the UK's role in this new 0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:11.599 world that we've all been talking about this week. But 0:05:12.200 --> 0:05:14.960 just to get into sort of cool Bloomberg territory for 0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:17.360 a few minutes. One of the consensus views out there, 0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:20.359 if you ask economists, many people in the city, what 0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:23.880 would happen to UK borrowing rates if a reform government 0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:28.279 took power? They go up at least that's the consensus. 0:05:28.640 --> 0:05:32.640 So why do you think investors would be seem to 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:34.279 be quite nervous about reform? 0:05:34.560 --> 0:05:37.520 Yeah? Well, as a as a former commodities trader, if 0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:40.520 there's a big consensual view, take the opposite trade position, 0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:44.200 I've always believed in that quite strongly. Look, obviously we're 0:05:44.240 --> 0:05:47.760 talking about supply side reform. One of the big frustrations 0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:52.119 is that since Brexit, businesses, particularly with small and medium 0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:56.800 sized businesses, are now more heavily regulated, more penalized by 0:05:56.920 --> 0:06:01.120 whichever regulator is relevant to their area they were before Brexit. 0:06:01.200 --> 0:06:03.960 It's a massive frustration. So do we want to reduce 0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:06.720 the size of the administrative state? Yes, Do we want 0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:11.520 to attempt genuine supply side reform? Absolutely? Do we want 0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:15.599 rich taxpayers to flee the country and young entrepreneurs to 0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:19.520 flee the country every year or come back to the country, invest, 0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:23.760 employ people, spend money. So that's the agenda and people say, well, 0:06:23.839 --> 0:06:26.440 if you do all of that, you're kind of going 0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:28.760 to be following a little bit of the quasi qua 0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:32.520 teng budget and the market's going to take fright. So 0:06:32.600 --> 0:06:35.839 that's where the view comes from. And I think the 0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:40.440 one big lesson from the Trust qua teng budget is 0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:44.560 they did not propose to cut spending. They basically said 0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:47.560 we won't increase spending in line with inflation. So for 0:06:47.640 --> 0:06:51.200 our program to work, what we absolutely have to do 0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:53.960 is to say that people we are going to reduce 0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:58.400 welfare spending, we are going to reduce excessive government waste, 0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:00.720 and I think if we do that the markets will 0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:01.240 applaud it. 0:07:01.560 --> 0:07:03.200 You step back from some of the more sort of 0:07:03.360 --> 0:07:07.120 aggressive tax cut promises, said it's an aspiration, but one 0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:11.920 of the big savings in your plan currently is to 0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:14.160 save money that the Bank of England currently spends on 0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:17.560 paying interest on bank reserves. So as you know, there's 0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:19.720 a lot of concern about that from the Bank of England. 0:07:19.720 --> 0:07:21.720 They think they're going to lose control over interest rates, 0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:24.280 which is pretty core part of their monetary policy, and 0:07:24.360 --> 0:07:28.000 certainly bankers quite clearly see whether it's I mean, I 0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:30.480 think you've said thirty billion, thirty five billion. Yeah, I 0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:32.720 think it's more like twenty billion. But that's a twenty 0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:34.560 billion tax on banks. 0:07:35.080 --> 0:07:37.240 Yeah. Look, that's less relevant now than it was because 0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:39.520 we're not going through the Q programming quite the same 0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:41.160 way we were before, as you know. In fact, the 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:42.800 opposite has been happening in some regards. 0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:44.560 But that's where some of the savings come from. It 0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:46.200 is from the sales of the QT. 0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:49.640 We were the only party to point out just how 0:07:49.720 --> 0:07:51.840 much this was costing. And I think that's what we're 0:07:51.880 --> 0:07:55.480 good at. What we're good at is introducing new debates, 0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:57.280 and it was it was very interesting when I went 0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:59.400 to meet Richard Tiz and I went to meet the 0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:02.240 Governor of the Marks of England, which was a very 0:08:02.240 --> 0:08:07.040 interesting clash of cultures, I would say, And I just said, 0:08:07.080 --> 0:08:11.400 it's really interesting that you're making massive decisions here that 0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:15.200 have a huge impact on public finances, and yet it's 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:19.920 being done with no debate in Parliament whatsoever. That's not true. 0:08:19.960 --> 0:08:22.440 I mean, it's true that there's no reform MPs on 0:08:22.520 --> 0:08:25.000 the Select Committee, but they go all the time to 0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:26.880 give testimony to the House of Parliament. 0:08:27.360 --> 0:08:29.880 The Government controls and these subjects. 0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:32.560 Takes these policies actually because these agreements or agreements with 0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:33.360 the Treasury of what. 0:08:33.280 --> 0:08:35.480 They've been doing, and these subjects don't get talked about properly. 0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:39.160 There's no proper open debate and frankly, the committee system 0:08:39.240 --> 0:08:43.400 in the UK doesn't get the coverage, doesn't get the publicity. 0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.040 We have not had any debate in the floor of 0:08:46.040 --> 0:08:47.920 the House of Commons on this subject at all. 0:08:48.640 --> 0:08:49.880 But you say you're going to do it, it's a 0:08:49.880 --> 0:08:51.280 part of your plan, it's not just part of your 0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:53.360 plan to discuss it. Then we're going to do it 0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:55.520 at least twenty big We're going to do it and 0:08:55.640 --> 0:08:56.320 tax the banks. 0:08:56.559 --> 0:08:59.320 And some of the banks won't like it. You're well right, 0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:01.680 they will. All I don't like consumers. Well, I don't 0:09:01.720 --> 0:09:04.000 like the banks very much because they debanked me, didn't 0:09:04.000 --> 0:09:06.880 They didn't I wouldn't give me, wouldn't give me an account, 0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:08.839 and trying to force me out of the country. Now, look, 0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:10.880 this will be tough for banks to accept. I get that, 0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:14.160 but how do you think they get I'm sorry but 0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:16.320 the drain on public finances is just too great. 0:09:16.360 --> 0:09:17.920 But how do they make their money if they don't 0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:20.319 make it there? Don't you think it's pretty clear it's 0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:22.000 going to go on too interest margin. It's going to 0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:24.280 go on to the more mortgage costs and the interest 0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:25.559 rates they charge. 0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:28.760 Your VOTs, or they become more efficient, or they cut costs, 0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:31.320 or they do whatever. This money. They should not have 0:09:31.360 --> 0:09:34.280 had this money. Over look. Frankly, the whole QE program 0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:37.920 has not achieved anything very much other than to make 0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:40.720 the rich richer and the poor poorer. And everything we've 0:09:40.720 --> 0:09:43.599 done on que since George Osball and co put it 0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:46.480 into place has been bad for most people in the country. 0:09:46.520 --> 0:09:48.600 That's been really helpful because it's very clear you are 0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:54.040 happy to have a very hefty extra tax on banks 0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:54.760 more anti bank. 0:09:56.200 --> 0:09:58.720 It's not a tax. They're just not going to get 0:09:58.800 --> 0:09:59.840 free money anymore. 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:02.240 It's taking twenty billion pounds from the banks. It doesn't 0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:02.880 really master. 0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:06.040 They'll adapt what business does You. 0:10:06.000 --> 0:10:09.040 Disagree with the Bank of England governor on that. If 0:10:09.040 --> 0:10:11.240 we have an election on schedule, there'll be a new 0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:14.080 Bank of England governor by the time you would become 0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:18.079 Prime Minister. They'd come in in early twenty eight. One 0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:19.559 of the other things that people are worried about is 0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:23.120 that you're actually questioning one of these key pillars of 0:10:23.280 --> 0:10:25.680 UK economic policy, one of the few stable pillars in 0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:28.359 the last fifteen years or so twenty years. 0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:29.360 The independent Bank of England. 0:10:29.360 --> 0:10:31.199 Will you will you let that new Bank of England 0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:33.880 governor continue in their term their full term? 0:10:33.920 --> 0:10:36.560 Well, given what a catastrophe UK economic policy has been 0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:39.040 over the last fifteen years, I think we should challenge 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:42.600 every single tenant of it. But one of the biggest 0:10:42.600 --> 0:10:45.040 mistakes I mean that we vote Brexit. Now, if you 0:10:45.120 --> 0:10:49.240 vote Brexit, use it as an opportunity to do things differently. 0:10:49.960 --> 0:10:52.959 And the trouble is from day one the Conservative government 0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:56.920 viewed it as a damage limitation exercise as opposed to 0:10:56.920 --> 0:11:00.600 an opportunity. And Andrew Bays are perfectly plight nice man, 0:11:00.880 --> 0:11:03.120 but they should have picked somebody who was a Brexiteer 0:11:03.559 --> 0:11:05.400 to be in charge of the Bank of England and 0:11:05.440 --> 0:11:11.120 to think totally differently, especially around financial markets financial market regulation. 0:11:11.240 --> 0:11:11.920 We've ignored this. 0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:15.480 Like every other central independent central bank, they think about 0:11:15.840 --> 0:11:19.400 their inflation targets. So you're suggesting that after Brexit. They 0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:21.160 shouldn't have been focused on inflation. 0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:23.880 To take the whole world of cryptocurrencies and crypto trading, 0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:28.360 and we are just lagging so far behind many other 0:11:28.400 --> 0:11:30.600 parts of the world, and yet the Bank of England 0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:31.800 are one of them. I mean, there was even a 0:11:31.800 --> 0:11:35.480 proposal from Bailey just recently to restrict the number of 0:11:35.480 --> 0:11:38.280 stable coins any individual can hold. So you see, I'm 0:11:38.280 --> 0:11:42.199 talking about having people the government the Bank of England. 0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:44.439 I'm not questioning the independence of it. What I am 0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:48.480 saying is that we need a new, more innovative approach 0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:48.960 to all of this. 0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:51.439 Okay, but if you get rid of the one who's there, 0:11:51.679 --> 0:11:54.640 and there has been a tradition that reflects the independence 0:11:54.679 --> 0:11:59.000 of the central Bank that the terms don't necessarily coincide 0:11:59.040 --> 0:12:02.120 with election terms, you're saying you would suspend that because 0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:03.520 you want to have your own person in there. 0:12:03.520 --> 0:12:06.040 If we don't do things differently, we're going to get 0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:07.079 poorer and poorer. 0:12:07.200 --> 0:12:08.800 I want to know exactly how you're going to do 0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:10.320 things differently, not to say we're going to have a 0:12:10.320 --> 0:12:11.960 big debate and we're going to question. 0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:14.880 We're going to pick different people with a different attitude 0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:18.839 towards everything. To do with including the inflation target or 0:12:18.880 --> 0:12:21.560 the inflation target. Fine, we're not We're not meeting it 0:12:21.720 --> 0:12:24.959 anyway with what we're doing. Of course, inflation needs to 0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:27.920 be controlled. Of course it needs to be controlled. And 0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:30.440 there are other debates too. I mean, you know the 0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:32.319 role of the OBR. I was going to ask you 0:12:32.360 --> 0:12:34.840 about that. I mean, when do they last get a 0:12:34.840 --> 0:12:39.200 forecast right about anything? What useful purpose? That just means 0:12:39.200 --> 0:12:43.960 they're economists. What useful Well, I know they're nearly always wrong, Yeah, 0:12:44.000 --> 0:12:46.880 but what useful purpose does there that? Look, we are 0:12:46.920 --> 0:12:51.439 prepared to think openly and challenge everything, just as here 0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:55.440 at Davos, there is now open debate, honest conversations. As 0:12:55.480 --> 0:12:58.719 you said earlier, no longer a consensual view the way 0:12:58.760 --> 0:13:01.640 Britain's been run. Let's say since two thousand and eight. 0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:03.839 We could go back earlier. The way it's been run 0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:07.079 isn't working, and we're having fresh thinking on all of it. 0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:10.839 I'm sure a lot of people would think, great, who 0:13:10.840 --> 0:13:13.079 can be against fresh thinking? Good start, it's a good 0:13:13.080 --> 0:13:15.920 place to start in opposition. It's not a good place 0:13:15.960 --> 0:13:18.560 to start at number ten Downing Street, that you're going 0:13:18.600 --> 0:13:19.680 to put everything in the air. 0:13:19.520 --> 0:13:20.960 It istually what it worked pretty well in the early 0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:23.480 nineteen eighties, didn't it where we had a radical government 0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:27.800 that changed everything about our tax structures, our laws, and yes, 0:13:27.840 --> 0:13:29.960 there were a couple of difficult years, But did it 0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:32.280 turn the economy around? Did it lead to a change 0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:33.000 of attitude? 0:13:33.000 --> 0:13:35.840 And that's really interesting, Margaret, Thatatchall did not throw everything 0:13:35.880 --> 0:13:37.520 in the air. If you look at the nineteen seventy 0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:40.880 nine manifesto, it didn't have any of the big ambitious 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.800 things that Patcha later did. And the first few years 0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:46.640 she's stuck to the plans that she'd had. There was 0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:49.480 actually a certainty that was offered to the markets. 0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:51.559 And two, well, I would disagree with that. She she 0:13:51.640 --> 0:13:52.079 didn't just. 0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:54.560 Question everything and didn't just suddenly surprise everybody. 0:13:54.600 --> 0:13:57.000 I disagree with that completely. The first budget that Jeffrey 0:13:57.000 --> 0:13:59.600 Howe brought in brought top rate income tax down from 0:13:59.640 --> 0:14:02.640 eighties three to sixty percent. I'd call that pretty radical. 0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:05.360 But there was still some of the core elements of 0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:09.000 her policy. Things like the really dramatic stuff all came afterwards, 0:14:09.040 --> 0:14:12.000 after she'd built up support and after they've got inflation out, 0:14:12.000 --> 0:14:13.360 which she did say she would stop. 0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:16.960 She gave a very clear signal that the country was 0:14:16.960 --> 0:14:19.320 heading in a different direction. And did it take a 0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:22.320 long time to get all the trade union laws through 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:24.280 and all the rest of it, Yes, it did. You know, 0:14:25.440 --> 0:14:29.160 you can't change things overnight, but you can signal that 0:14:29.240 --> 0:14:31.760 you want to go in a different direction. And look, 0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:36.040 I just think the most ignored section of the British economy, 0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:39.120 the one where we're failing in the biggest way, are 0:14:39.120 --> 0:14:42.080 the five point six million men and women out there 0:14:42.320 --> 0:14:44.920 running their own businesses. And they now want them to 0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:47.840 do quarterly returns as opposed to annual returns. It's just 0:14:47.920 --> 0:14:51.480 one little example of how we punish small business again 0:14:51.800 --> 0:14:54.560 and again and again. And I do believe, I genuinely 0:14:54.600 --> 0:14:58.160 believe that if you look at what happened economically in 0:14:58.240 --> 0:15:01.120 America and in Britain in the eighties, you'll see a 0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:03.800 lot of that growth actually came from the bottom up 0:15:03.840 --> 0:15:06.360 in the economy, not from the top down. So I 0:15:06.400 --> 0:15:08.160 want to complete rethink over all that. 0:15:08.480 --> 0:15:09.880 I think a lot of people would hear you on 0:15:09.920 --> 0:15:12.320 those sort of what we would say, you know, microeconomic 0:15:12.360 --> 0:15:14.160 things going wrong. You say, I'm going to change these 0:15:14.200 --> 0:15:17.200 micro things. But if you're putting the whole system of 0:15:18.000 --> 0:15:20.640 the way that macroeconomic policy has been run in the country, 0:15:20.680 --> 0:15:24.480 particularly the independent fiscal Watchdog, independent Central Bank. If that 0:15:24.640 --> 0:15:27.360 is in question when you walk into number ten, you 0:15:27.360 --> 0:15:29.360 don't think there's going to be an enormous amount of 0:15:29.400 --> 0:15:33.000 concern in international markets that will affect your ability. 0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:35.920 To maybe people what maybe people will think. Finally we've 0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:38.280 got a government that actually has within it people who've 0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:40.800 been in business. Because we haven't got that now, and 0:15:40.840 --> 0:15:42.600 we haven't had much of it for many, many years. 0:15:42.600 --> 0:15:44.560 It doesn't sound like you're very worried about having a 0:15:44.600 --> 0:15:46.240 repeat of a sort of list trust type. 0:15:46.440 --> 0:15:49.040 That's because we're going to cut spend it. For example, 0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:53.000 you can now go you can now get benefits if 0:15:53.000 --> 0:15:56.880 you suffer from mild anxiety. Well, I have mild anxiety 0:15:56.920 --> 0:16:03.400 every morning, you know. I mean, we've just reached a 0:16:03.480 --> 0:16:05.880 ridiculous level with all of this, and it can't go on. 0:16:06.480 --> 0:16:09.320 It just can't go on. We're looking at a benefits 0:16:09.360 --> 0:16:11.840 fill of three hundred billion by twenty thirty something like that, 0:16:12.200 --> 0:16:15.600 so it can't go on. And look, you know, of 0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:19.120 course I'm there to challenge all of these things. Bear 0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:22.080 in mind, I've only been back in politics. Eighteen months. 0:16:22.440 --> 0:16:25.160 You know, I escaped, I got out over the wall, 0:16:25.280 --> 0:16:29.000 but I'm back again. I've had eighteen months to try 0:16:29.000 --> 0:16:34.640 and build a political party, a structure from nothing, so effectively, 0:16:35.000 --> 0:16:39.280 I'm the CEO of Reform and we build departments and 0:16:39.320 --> 0:16:41.840 they give their weekly or daily reports into me, and 0:16:41.920 --> 0:16:46.240 we're growing. The next big stage of my development will 0:16:46.280 --> 0:16:49.840 be that this time next year, sitting here on the 0:16:49.880 --> 0:16:52.920 Bloomberg panel with you won't be me, because there will 0:16:52.960 --> 0:16:55.520 be a team of people appointed to take all of 0:16:55.520 --> 0:16:57.760 those jobs. And that's the next that is the next 0:16:57.800 --> 0:17:02.080 big stage of the development. So perhaps the criticism that 0:17:02.120 --> 0:17:05.480 could be leveled fairly against me, There were lots leveled 0:17:05.520 --> 0:17:08.680 unfairly against me, But the fairly against me is that 0:17:09.080 --> 0:17:13.359 I've never been in frontline government, true, and it's a 0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:17.240 one man band. So at the minute I'm asked to 0:17:17.240 --> 0:17:23.040 talk about economic policy, foreign policy, you know, law and order, borders, everything, 0:17:23.520 --> 0:17:26.800 and so it's now about broadening the team, putting different 0:17:26.800 --> 0:17:31.359 people in position, and then formulating firmer policies than we have. 0:17:31.520 --> 0:17:35.040 But we have laid out already some proposed bills, economic bills, 0:17:35.359 --> 0:17:37.760 the concept of the Britannia Card to try and bring 0:17:37.840 --> 0:17:41.600 high taxpayers back to Britain, the digital markets, the sorry 0:17:41.640 --> 0:17:45.119 digital Assets and crypto bill, so that we are showing 0:17:45.400 --> 0:17:46.080 a way forward. 0:17:58.760 --> 0:18:01.679 You mentioned Brexit, mentioned that we should have made more 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:03.200 of an opportunity. 0:18:03.119 --> 0:18:04.840 Out of bricks. We should have done it immediately. 0:18:05.080 --> 0:18:07.840 We've talked about we are seeing a new kind of 0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:11.520 global order. I haven't heard you say, what is Britain's 0:18:11.600 --> 0:18:14.560 role in this new global order? How do you think 0:18:14.600 --> 0:18:16.200 about your foreign policy number? 0:18:16.200 --> 0:18:20.359 While we have amazing advantages, amazing advantages being outside of 0:18:20.400 --> 0:18:25.320 the European Union leaves us free in terms of trade policy. Ironically, 0:18:25.960 --> 0:18:28.959 you know, the super remainers Starmer boasts at the dispatch 0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:31.840 box now about the fact we've got an independent trade 0:18:31.840 --> 0:18:34.840 policy and we're able to do things. And I think 0:18:34.880 --> 0:18:41.000 in terms of being a bridge between Europe and America 0:18:41.160 --> 0:18:44.360 or in a powerful position, I just think we've underutilized 0:18:45.280 --> 0:18:47.800 the amazing advantages we have across the rest of the world. 0:18:48.200 --> 0:18:51.320 You know, we turned our backs on India, we turned 0:18:51.359 --> 0:18:54.800 our backs on the Commonwealth countries in the seventies. We 0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:58.000 decided that Europe was our future. That became a sort 0:18:58.000 --> 0:19:02.480 of foreign office and political over decades, and we've turned 0:19:02.480 --> 0:19:05.480 our backs on large parts of the world where there 0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:10.240 is still a remarkable relationship between those former colonies and ourselves. 0:19:10.359 --> 0:19:12.400 So we need to think more globally in every way. 0:19:12.720 --> 0:19:16.879 China's the obvious country that there's been a big debate 0:19:16.920 --> 0:19:19.080 about Prime Minister's going to visit. I think it's the 0:19:19.119 --> 0:19:22.480 first prime minister or visit for the UK in eight years. 0:19:23.119 --> 0:19:24.760 Would you go to China? How would you think about 0:19:24.800 --> 0:19:26.040 relationship with China? 0:19:26.160 --> 0:19:28.920 Well, I don't believe our relationship with China is very good. 0:19:29.520 --> 0:19:32.640 I think this government is utterly craven in the way 0:19:32.640 --> 0:19:35.879 that it gives into China at every opportunity. It's a 0:19:35.880 --> 0:19:39.480 difficult problem because they've become so big, and to some 0:19:39.520 --> 0:19:42.919 extent we've become quite dependent upon them and not the 0:19:42.960 --> 0:19:45.720 other way around if you think it through. So it's 0:19:45.720 --> 0:19:49.919 a massive, massive problem, but it's not a relationship we 0:19:49.960 --> 0:19:53.200 should trust and we should be extremely cautious of them. 0:19:53.240 --> 0:19:54.920 I mean, if you're a prime minister, what does that mean? 0:19:55.800 --> 0:19:58.760 It means you don't allow them to build an embassy 0:19:59.160 --> 0:20:02.000 on the site of the storic royal mint, which could 0:20:02.000 --> 0:20:06.280 potentially threaten communications. I'm actually can't believe that Isaac Newton 0:20:06.320 --> 0:20:07.400 will be turning in his grave. 0:20:07.840 --> 0:20:09.679 I like the fact that you know, Isaacton used to 0:20:09.680 --> 0:20:11.040 be the keeper of the role mint. 0:20:11.160 --> 0:20:18.600 He'd be surprised. Why now, if. 0:20:15.480 --> 0:20:18.159 You have that kind of assitude to China, and you 0:20:18.200 --> 0:20:22.720 certainly have your great relationship with President Trump, it does 0:20:22.800 --> 0:20:24.720 sound like you'd be sort of saying, if as you 0:20:24.760 --> 0:20:28.600 go into number ten, we are going to be absolutely 0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:30.600 inextricably tied with us. 0:20:30.720 --> 0:20:33.600 Now, b I'm not saying that, but I do think about, Look, 0:20:33.720 --> 0:20:35.800 what's our growth rate going to be q for What's 0:20:35.840 --> 0:20:38.760 it going to be a zero point two percent? If 0:20:38.760 --> 0:20:41.240 it's zero point three percent, Rachel Reeves will be cheering, 0:20:41.320 --> 0:20:44.600 she might even smile. You never know. And what's America's 0:20:44.600 --> 0:20:47.800 growth rate going to be? Five percent? Five point two percent, 0:20:48.040 --> 0:20:50.560 five point four percent. There's a lot we can learn 0:20:50.840 --> 0:20:56.040 from america attitudes toward business and particularly embracing new technology. 0:20:56.440 --> 0:21:01.080