McSweeney's missing Mandelson messages

Mm-hmm. I understand that the Cabinet Office does have some messages between Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Potentially vital messages between McSweeney and Mandelson might not be available. Because the phone was nicked about three or four weeks after Mandelson had been fired as our ambassador. That's a bit convenient, isn't it? This is a Global Player Original Podcast.

Speaker, the Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a director of public prosecutions would make of the defence, sorry, I can't produce my WhatsApps, my phone's been stolen.

That's Kemi Badenok in the House of Commons this lunchtime. And if you haven't got a clue what she's talking about, she's talking about Keir Starmer's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who appears to have lost his mobile phone or had it stolen just weeks after Peter Mandelson had left as Britain's ambassador. Funny that, isn't it? Welcome to the newsagents.

The news agents. It's John, and today I have been abandoned by Lewis Goodall and Emily Maitless who are off in other places, but I'm going to be joined by Aggie Chombray, LBC's Deputy Political Editor. And it's perfectly possible this story may come at you as something completely new because let's face it, we've all been obsessed over the past few weeks by what has been happening in Iran and the Middle East and the unfolding kind of drama and chaos.

But essentially we know about the Mandelson files and that the government pledged to release all information concerning the communications that took place in government between ministers and Peter Mandelson about his appointment as our ambassador to Washington. That Morgan McSweeney, the hugely powerful chief of staff, who had been instrumental in persuading Keir Starmer to appoint Mandelson as our ambassador.

had lost his telephone, his mobile phone, apparently had it stolen while he was in Westminster by a guy on a bike. Not that unusual in and of itself. Uh rang the police and told them that his phone had been Been good taken and that therefore potentially vital messages between McSweeney and Mandelson might not be available because the phone was nicked.

About three or four weeks after Mandelson had been fired as our ambassador. And that's leading some, inevitably, to raise the question, Well, that's a bit convenient, isn't it?

Well let's talk to Aggie now about all of this. And i i is that timeline broadly correct? That's exactly it. So

So there was this story that came out on Sunday in the Sun on Sunday that Morgan McSweeney had had his phone stolen. The date was at that stage a bit unclear, but as you say, that date was October the twentieth. And the reason that everyone thought this was an extraordinary story was because Apparently there were all of these explosive text messages between Morgan McSweeney, the former chief of staff,

and uh Peter Mandelson. And of course we thought we might be set to see some of those messages um because of that humble address that was put down by the Conservatives and won by the Conservatives in February of this year. And that's basically this arcane parliamentary procedure uh that means that all of these uh sort of all the communications to do with that appointment are going to be public.

And it seemed like for a while uh when this story was published that okay, maybe we won't see any of those text messages uh at all. And what we now understand because this story has developed in the last few days is Uh yes, that phone was stolen on October the twentieth. We know because we've actually got the transcript uh of the police conversation between Morgan McSweeney and the police when it was stolen.

Um but also uh we know that we are still going to see I think some of those text messages because c because the Cabinet Office does still have some of those WhatsApp messages between Morgan Sweeney, the former Chief of Staff and uh Peter Mandelson. And so And I've read the whole transcript of the call.

In which Morgan McSweeney at no point in the call to I mean uh it sounds like it's a nine nine nine call, by the which emergency service do you want, I think it starts with, uh what is the nature of the emergency they are. At no point does Morgan McSweeney say, Guys, you ought to know I am the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff and there could be highly sensitive data on this phone.

No, he I mean he goes as he goes close to it by saying it's a government um phone. But no, he just says, Hello, someone's just robbed my phone. Uh the police say, Did they take it from you just now? He says yes. He's on a bike, he's come onto the pavement to grab my phone, cycled off on a bike. And then there's a bit of back and forth on where it exactly happened. So Morgan McSweeney says on the phone call it's happened on Belgrave Street.

In Westminster For some reason the police then get it confused and they do go back to him at one stage to to ascertain where exactly the location was, but there's some confusion. and for some reason the police then uh note it down and do write down the wrong location. And so basically this isn't really investigated. They say They did look uh at the CCTV. They say they actually tried to call him a couple of times the next day. Um, but essentially the case is closed.

And I think now it is actually being re-looked at now they have the correct location. Uh but effectively no, Morgan McSweeney does not say there is sensitive uh communications on this phone. And also it seems like from this transcript as well, I don't know whether you picked this up. that the phone may have been open. He was sort of texting someone and the Times reported this too. He was texting someone or catching up on messages.

when the person uh rode past. So it could have been open and and accessible for them to read all of those messages and and see all of those contacts. Yes. So so there are security concerns and you would think that would be something you would flag. in the call. I you know, look, I'm I'm keeping a fully open mind on this because

You know, one, it's not that unusual in London, dare I say it, for people to come up behind you on an electric bike, wearing a balaclava and nick your phone. I mean, you know, it's a it's been a kind of there's been a scourge of that over the past year or two in London. So that may be possible.

But you would think that even in your kind of frazzled state, Oh my god, my phone's just been nicked that y you know, you're Morgan McSweeney, you're the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. You would want the police to know that this is serious. I think you may I think you may well, I mean he does sound

Obviously it's only a transcript. We don't have the audio of the call. He does sound a bit frazzled. And the Times too did report that he um he went after this guy, tried to get the phone, the guy got away, he was on a bike, so of course he got away. But he does sound kind of a bit a bit frazzled. Um of course his phone was just taken, he's and I said there was this confusion about the location too.

So maybe maybe that is the explanation. As I say, he does say it's a government phone. But you would think, you know, if I had my phone stolen, I would probably say Well by the way I'm a journalist, so there's some there's some numbers on that phone. I don't think they would remotely care, but they probably would have cared a little more when he said I or had he said I I'm the chief of staff at Number.

So I wanna play you a clip now of uh Steve Reed, the housing secretary, who was on with Lewis at the weekend. Where he was trying to insist That there's nothing to this. And he he says something which I think we now know to be factually inaccurate. Well, you do understand why many people will find that very convenient.

Well, as I understand it, that was a theft that was reported months before the whole mantle s situation even began. No backup. Prime Minister's Chief of Staff has no backup of his messages. Well I don't I don't know w what he does or doesn't have in terms of it. But his phone was stolen and he reported it at the time and it was well in advance of anything happening around the Mandelson situation.

Uh all the WhatsApp mysteriously disappeared on that. I remember Labour shadow ministers being pretty incredulous. Yes. And that happened after he had been required to provide it. Morgan reported the theft of his phone months I think it was maybe even over a year before the whole situation arose, so there's no comparison. So months before the Mandelson situation appeared. Well I mean I can see how you can finesse that, but it was three weeks after or four weeks after Mandelson had been fired.

a'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r that Mandelson got the job as ambassador and what role did Morgan McSweeney play in it? A and unless we forget, you know, at that time, there was headline after headline after headline about uh Jeffrey Epstein, about the relationship that they had had too. That was very, very much in the news agenda at the time.

I think people in government are explaining it and a and and you read out the transcript there, but before the Mand whole Mandelson situation even began, apparently he did mean the humble address, that being the Mandelson situation. Which was the when the

firing gun was started for the investigation of gathering all the material of all the communications that had been made. Exactly. And so that was in February, that was February the fourth, and he reported his phone nicked on October the twentieth. So technically I suppose that is factually correct where he said, I think it was maybe even over a year, that is just uh wrong, however however you paint that picture. Right.

There is something else as well that a question that arises in my mind about all of this. And it was sort of best by the health secretary West Streeting this morning on GMB. But look it was quite convenient for Morgan Busweeney that his phone was reported because he can now say it was reported, but it was also massively convenient. That it happened to disappear just at the point when, at the time, people were expecting that information to be asked for by the opposition.

Uh I guess that's plausible, but as you often reflect on your podcast, um, Ed, often in politics Th there you know, there there is the charge of conspiracy, but more often there's a there's the cock up. Uh and I I wonder whether in this case this is more cock up than conspiracy. So the concept of the I und I understand I understand people's cynicism. I mean look

In politics at the moment, if we tell people it's raising they raining, they look up at the sky to see if it's true. Politicians are about as popular, in fact less popular than traffic wardens and estate agents in this country at the moment. So I'm not surprised by the cynicism. um but I I would also not sit here and say that um I assume um deceit and deception. That's not my assumption. And one of the other things that Streeting went on to say uh in that interview was that well, you know

you wouldn't be able to access my messages anyway because I have disappearing messages on. And if you don't use WhatsApp there is this thing that you can set whether it's every day the messages disappear or a week from a certain person. If I don't want to see Aggie Chambre's What's that messages anymore? I can just set it to a day or a week or a month and they just automatically disappear. Now where's Streeting saying that he had that enabled on his phone? If government communication

are just disappearing into the ether and irrecoverable. Isn't that quite an issue? Yeah, a and I really I mean, I know that you uh speak to a lot of people within government and around government too. So many people have turned that on in recent weeks since this affair, which, you know, is I suppose

unsurprising. But there are people who are, you know, who are extremely judgmental about it. I was speaking to a minister earlier and I said, What do you think about uh disappearing messages? And they said, I think no one should have disappearing uh messages. But lots lots of people in and around government do. And

Uh the argument that government makes is that basically if you have disappearing messages on, fine. But you need to if you have any substantive conversation about government or anything like that, you need to record it in some way. So be that a screenshot, writing it down, emailing it to yourself.

I'm not sure how much people in government are actually doing that, but that is what they are supposed to be doing. And I think it is worth saying just speaking to some of those people this morning about A disappearing messages and B about the phone and the disappearance of the phone. There are people in the Labour Party who have three different people use the word convenience.

To me, one minister saying a c a very convenient coincidence, another one saying conveniently odd, another one saying, Well, he's gone now, so what can you do? But I think there are quite a lot of uh raised eyebrows about this on the Labour benches as well as the opposition. you know, w what happens in often in l litigation or when there is something you know, you c uh under the GDPR legislation about privacy and all the rest of it, you you submit a data subject access request.

Which, you know, a l law firm if they were suing you or suing me for m maybe libel, they could just ask for I want to see all the communications within Global, say, that have gone on between Aguisambray and Management and Aguis Chambre and John Sophie.

And th and you have to supply those. It's very helpful if you've got disappearing messages on where those cannot be seen but then you think, Well hang on, this is a government record. My other question I guess on all of this is that if Morgan McSweeney didn't and we don't know whether Morgan McSweeney had disappearing messages on or not

And the prosecution and th this is a completely different case, but the prosecution of Hugh Edwards, the newsreader, happened not because they found obscene images on his phone. They f the they arrested someone who was sending and they knew that was being sent to Hugh Edwards first. And so therefore Hugh Edwards has got rid of his phone, he didn't have the messages. But presumably if Peter Mandelson has kept hold of his phone, those messages exist on Peter Mandelson's phone.

Yn, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw, dyna'n yw. But but f specifically for Morgan McSweeney, that's right. Anyone Morgan McSweeney was uh messaging, including Peter Mandelson, they would still have the messages unless of course he had on uh disappearing messages. I understand that the Cabinet Office does have

Some messages between Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. I don't know whether that's from the m Peter Mandelson side, I assume probably is from the Morgan McSweeney side. to that corrosive sense of cynicism that so many people have. And we we heard Wes Streeting talking about there. That people have about politics and politicians. And you just feel that Kirstammer, you know, has used up an awful lot of that.

over the course of the past year. From when he became Prime Minister and we were finding out about his suits and his glasses being bought for him through to Mandelson, through to so many other things where you think, oh, this really isn't good. And I think part of the reason that that has been so damaging for him

is that Labour in Opposition made such a song and dance about everything the Tories did. I mean, you heard Lewis referencing uh it with Steve Reed there, pointing out when Boris Johnson uh lost all of those thousands and thousands of messages over COVID. But I think because they there was there were scandals. There were so many scandals when the Tories were in power.

And Labour made so much of them. I think there was something in Tony Blair's book when he said, When you're in opposition, sometimes you just need to let stuff go I'm coarse paraphrasing, but you need to let stuff go because when you're in government there will always be problems, there will always be scandals.

And if you have in opposition made a huge thing of them, then people will made make a huge thing of them for you. And I'm not suggesting that the suit or this is not a big scandal, but perhaps the way they handled those in opposition has made it worse for them. Packie?

Brilliant to have you with us. Thank you. Now I was being economical with the truth when I said Lewis Goodall was not here, because we can now hear Him with Ibrahim Kendi, an author who's written about racism and the Great Replacement Theory.

From a range of trusted voices and award-winning journalists. Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari. It's time to get to your calls. Find out the latest news and hear every side of the story. But we're dealing with some people that I find to be very reasonable, very sad.

We have a very serious chance of making it yellow. The day on which almost all of the world recognized that Donald Trump is a deranged liar. So what on earth happens next? The fallout of the Iran War. Follow it live on LBC. Listen on our or the LBC app. The news agents.

Well Ibram uh Kendi Professor Kendi joins us now. Professor Kendi, thanks so much for for joining us on the show. We have been enjoying if that's qu the right word, your your book immensely. It is fascinating, not least because It covers something that seems so central to our politics, perhaps unbelievably at the moment, and also explains perhaps

what is going wrong with our politics. But let's just start with the idea itself, because perhaps mercifully a lot of listeners, viewers actually won't really know about the great replacement theory. You just give us actually a sort of potted history of of what it is and where it comes from. Sure. So well first great replacement theory is a political theory that suggests these shadowy globalist elite or enabling uh peoples of color

to come and displace the lives and even livelihoods of of of white people who apparently need authoritarian protection. And so when you hear terms like immigrants are invading the nation, you're hearing great replacement theory. When you hear

ideas like diversity programs are anti white. You're you're hearing uh great replacement theory. When you hear ideas like they're coming in poisoning the blood of the nation, you're hearing Great replacement theory, and this theory was named by a French novelist uh named Renault Camus and in twenty ten But ideas are are different than humans in that they can live for quite some time before they're named. So this idea really emerged in the late nineteenth century.

And and has quietly shaped must much of uh of of of really Western history and it certainly reemerged in the last twenty years. And that's it seems to me to be the distinctive thing about the sort of modern incarnation of the theory, right? Which is is It's not just saying, which, you know, you could imagine, you know, political actors speaking to anxiety about natural kind of demographic change, immigration taking place.

And therefore there may be anxiety among for better of a oh or for want of a better word, the kind of indigenous population of any particular kind of polity. You can imagine a politician doing that, but this goes one step further, doesn't it? This is saying this isn't just kind of demographic change, it's not just about immigration, it's a kind of deliberate attempt, a deliberate attempt by elite.

Shadowy el shadowy elites to replace the native population. It's a deliberate act. Exactly. And these great replacement theorists argue that not only are they coming to replace, but they're coming to take over. Uh they're they're coming to to take over the nation. Uh it's it's imagined that they aren't just coming to take over, but they're also engaging according to these theorists. in the genocide of of white people in the most extreme

Uh sense. And so it's it's it's one thing to demonize immigrants or to demonize Muslims or to demonize black people. It's yet another thing to say that they're coming to destroy you. And and that is what great replacement theorists uh have said. And the reason why they've said that.

is because it then paves the way to for authoritarianism. Because then an authoritarian politician can say to regular everyday people who are enraged or even fearful of the quote unquote great replacement, that I will be your protector. I will be your savior. Now, I need to create a police state. I need to do away with your civil liberties, your freedoms, your rights, but I can essentially protect.

It is extraordinary, I think, the extent to which these ideas, if not always the use of the term itself have uh you know, just in sort of my time been cover in c covering politics journalistically over the past, you know, ten, fifteen years or so, have gone from something that would have been deeply, deeply fringe. To actually in many ways quite central to a lot of the kind of intellectual currents, particularly on the kind of modern right i in politics. I mean I see this

In brit British politics kind of all the time. You you basically have not just as I say, sort of speaking to anxieties around immigration or or sort of d or demographic change. But, you know, leading politicians from, say, the Conservative Party, actively saying things, you know, like we're being

invaded. Uh you know, these people don't have respect and will never have respect for British values. They will never be able to assimilate properly. They'll never be truly British, which is another form of the or a sort of element of the theory. Why do you think it is or that it has become so much less fringe and so much less confined to the kind of outer eccentricities of politics?

Well this is a question I really seek to answer in in throughout the breadth of of chain of ideas, but to give a a few reasons, I I think first and foremost, there have been a series of Confusing or unclear historical events that has gripped Europe and frankly, even uh North America over the last uh fifteen years from people trying to explain why the Great Recession happened. And Great Replacement Theorists were like

This is this is coming out of the the the great replacement. You know, you're losing your jobs because those immigrants are taking your jobs. People trying to explain the European migrant crisis in twenty fifteen. Uh in which that was another period in which these elected officials stated that these immigrants are not fleeing civil war in Syria and Afghanistan. They're actually coming here to take your resources, your jobs. And even more recently with

people struggling under the weight of inflation after Russia invaded Ukraine. You also is a period in which these politicians capitalized on that historical event. So I I try to document and chain of ideas how they're capitalizing on these specific events, but then you also have a situation in which their financiers, meaning the people funding these parties, are also creating media outlet.

uh uh media outlets that are also spreading great replacement theory, which has also been pivotal in its spread and its mainstream.

I mean it is an argument that is put forward by a lot of people. Um certainly in British politics. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party right now, Kemi Badenock, um, is is a woman of colour, she's a black woman. She is very one of the things that that most exercises her is this question about culture and whether some cultures are

Her argument is is that this is we shouldn't be seeking to build a multicultural society. It's fine to have a multi ethnic society, but on a multicultural one. She has explicitly said, cited the argument you've just talked about, which is to say some cultures are inferior to others. And therefore and you know, and incompatible with Western liberal values, therefore we shouldn't want those people. Do you see that as an example of the Great Replacement Theory?

I do. And and that's a racist idea. Whether it's being expressed by a a white politician like a a Nigel Farage or even a black politician, you know, like the the leader of the Conservative Party. And and I I think that anti racist ideas

recognize that the cultures are are equals. But is that but just to put but just put push back on that, Professor, I suppose, you know, if she were here, she would say, well no, I I don't think they are, because there are some cultures in the world that are deeply homophobic and deeply sexist. and deeply illiberal. Uh and I don't you know, it's not about whether they're what their race is.

But I I don't accept those those cultural those cultural value systems and I don't think we should accept those people from those countries in our country. Is is that racist or is it just a statement of obvious fact? Well, actually what I would say is a a culture is is is let's say made up of a series of traditions or even let's say we're talking about values and I don't think any culture should be assessed or generalized based on one or two values. So a culture may

A particular culture, let's say, may have more homophobic values than another culture, but that's not representative of the entirety of the culture. Just like there's a human being who may be homophobic. But then when it comes to class, you know, they recognize they don't perceive poor people to be inferior. to uh people who are elite. So I think it's important for us to not generalize individuals or cultures based on individual concepts. But is that racist? I mean it and it that is that racist.

Because that's typically that's typically what's happened to black people. So we we typically someone sees us acting negatively in one particular way. And then they generalize that to our whole personhood, and then they generalize that to black people as a group, as opposed to saying in that particular individual way, I don't agree with that.

As opposed to saying that person's entire culture is inferior, you can say that particular thing is something that I don't agree with. I mean I suppose in a way you've alluded to this. One of the reasons in which presumably the idea itself and some of the ideas associated with it has become more central and because I say it was it was such a kind of and has been such a historically a sort of far right fringe idea at least, you know, of late.

but has become more central is that so much of this presumably goes down to the fact that, you know, even now if we think about contemporary events, we seem to be living in an era of endless perma crisis. And not just perma crisis where people are looking for answers and thinking like, why are things as they are? But also

Mm fundamentally right. It's a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy theory and one of the oldest conspiracy theories going. And our age, our politics, has become far more conspiratorial. Exactly. And and and and people and so it it you know, this conspiracy theory of the great replacement. lends itself certainly to our conspiratorial age.

And and and and I and it lends itself to to more and more people distrusting elected officials as as as studies show, distrusting the media, distrusting scholars. Um and and so w when you distrust particularly journalists And scholars and other people whose job it is to tell the truth. It creates a condition in which you then start to make truth for yourself. And you typically are more likely to do that through conspiracy theory.

I mean obviously this is happening and as you write about in your book, this is this this this theory sort of manifests in different places and and inevitably in some places we'll concentrate on particular people in Europe. It it's it's a sort of particular preoccupation with regard to to Muslims, it will be different in other places, including the United States. But in the US I suppose. It is hard to get away if if we're thinking about why the idea has become

so central. I mean I suppose it and and and legitimized around the world. I suppose it is hard to get away from the fact that, you know, for basically ten years now, on and off, the United States, the most important democracy in the world, has had a president

who commonly talks about the idea, for example, of white genocide taking place. I mean if you've got that you know, from that level of authority, I suppose it's not surprised that this idea no surprise that this idea has become more legitimized and more central. Indeed, and and I write about in in chain of ideas that when Trump was first el elected president in in two thousand sixteen, running on a campaign of great replacement theory that Muslims were in uh

uh Muslims needed to be banned and Mexicans were animals and rapists and he needed to build a wall to protect the American people from them. You had politicians across Europe. uh who were espousing similar ideas, like Le Pen, like Wilders in in the Netherlands, like like Farage, uh, who praised his election and and stated that this was a sign. Uh that their politics are not a good thing.

was rising and and unfortunately they were correct. I supp and I suppose I was I was in Minnesota earlier in the year covering what was going on with ICE. I mean it's hard reading your book not to think about that uh quite deeply and and I mean in particular to come back to that theme that you've already talked about.

in a way, what's happened with ICE um vindicates, I suppose, your central idea or the s uh the second bit of your idea, which is to say that um Stoking the idea of great replacement or stoking the idea that of this kind of, you know, massive sort of cultural problem that it exists. completely legitimizes authoritarianism, right? And we've seen that we've seen it play out on the streets of the US this year, right? Which is is is immigration enforcement agency.

um officers acting with impunity and when they do, basically there is a shrug of the shoulders from the federal government because they basically say, Well, look, the purpose of what they're doing is for the greater good, which is to stop this Cultural erasure. That's what they talk about. You know, they talk about it in terms of erasure before it happens.

Indeed. And and what what I think was also striking about what's happened in in Minnesota and I recently was was there is that the the Trump administration argued that it was bringing ICE agents, or as Minnesotans would calling, occupying uh Minnesota with with federal agents to protect white Minnesota.

And then what happened? Those ICE agents ended up murdering two white Minnesotans, which I think is part of a larger track record in which even as these great replacement politicians present themselves as seeking to defend Christians or defend Europeans or defend white people or defend native. Their policies end up harming the very people they claim they want to protect.

Of its national security strategy, right? Because what's one of the reasons? I mean, Omega is so obsessed with this idea that Britain and Europe. Is facing, and that they've they've literally explicitly used these terms, have talked about the idea that we are facing in Britain and Europe civilizational erasure. Because we are basically allowing immigrants and particularly people from the Islamic world and whatever, so many in that Yeah.

administration active position is is that Europe and Britain will not be reliable allies in the decades to come because our civilisations will have been fundamentally altered or our societies will have been fundamentally altered. by this level of immigration. I mean that is literally the great replacement theory, right? By I mean, not using the term, but that is quite literally what it is. That is that is right now active US administration policy.

It is and and and I think m m many historians of of of of Nazi Germany uh are probably shuddering, were shuddering when when that frame was used because it's the same type of framing that that that Hitler and other Nazis use to describe what Jews were doing to Europe. and and and and thereby justifying World War Two, thereby justifying literal uh invasions of particular nations, thereby justifying the Holocaust. But I should also add what's striking about

This idea of civilizational erasure. And I write about this in Chain of Ideas, is you have these. uh Americans imposing upon Europe a history that to me doesn't actually track. with European history. In other words, if you let them say it, and even you have some European politicians saying the same thing, the origins of European civilization lie in Christianity. And but Christianity didn't really take hold in Europe until about the fourth century.

Europeans were building their civilization for 44,000 years before that. And and so it even to me it doesn't even track with actual European history and the better part of it. But then they also wanna root every aspect of of European civilization and Christianity, which actually is not the case, according to many European historians.

Do you to what extent do you think, though, that the left and the liberal left, progressive left has to grapple with itself about these questions? It strikes me it's certainly been the case in in European politics that the left has often struggled to find a register to talk. Authoritatively and authentically. to populations who do feel sometimes that the cut the pace of demographic change is rapid and are do have cultural anxieties, which can be legitimate.

about the rate of immigration a and so on. Finding a register and a language to talk to those whilst also dismissing and being seen to reject the language and ideas of the far right. I mean that's a difficult thing to do, isn't it? But don't you think that there is an element where the left has been unsuccessful at so doing? Oh I think the the left has been incredibly unsuccessful and I would say

one reason the left has been unsuccessful is because it's decided to appropriate certain aspects of great replacement theory. And so for instance, you have members of the left, I should say you have leftist parties arguing that they would be better equipped to engage in border security, as an example. And and what's happening, and and I I document this is When you have these parties great replacement parties positioning there as this invasion and that they create a problem.

um or exaggerate a problem to present themselves as the primary solutions of that problem. And so that then results in these leftist parties, they have two options. Either they can reject the existence of the problem and create a new problem, or they can say, we're better equipped to solve that problem. And when the leftist parties have said they're better equipped, they've typically lost.

They they've lost the recent election in Germany. You had both the center left and the center right parties trying to present themselves as better able to protect uh people from from immigrants in the United States, the Democratic Party in their recent election, uh presented themselves as better equipped to protect people. And what I'm arguing is that they need to argue that the that problem, as it's conceived of by these far right parties,

is actually not what the true problem is. But what if there is a problem? Or at the very least, it is legitimate, isn't it, for voters of any particular electorate to want to have the idea of better border security? But I mean, even Bernie Sanders has said and he's agreed with Trump when he said

that if you don't have a functioning border, you don't really have a country. I mean that's a matter of fact, isn't it? And the left has to address that. Well, I I would actually say I think that that's an example of what I was just stating: that the left is actually agreeing that the problem exists.

And then arguing that they're better able to solve it. Aaron Powell But what if there is a problem? i. e. that the border is porous and insecure. I mean that if that's a problem, the left have to a address it. Otherwise they'll just be seen to ignore it and you leave the right all the space to attack them for it, surely.

Well, to me, the problem actually is not the border. The the problem is that you have elected officials who are using immigrants to tell people why they're struggling to get a job, as opposed to the policies of those particular politicians or even the financiers who are heavily funding them.

Uh the chain of ideas could have easily been called chain of conditions. And and I I document how the struggles that people have had, particularly economic struggles, housing struggles, all types of struggles. It's been easy for them to blame immigrants or Muslims or Black people. And typically, even leftist politicians, particularly on the center left, have not been willing to engage in the type of policies that would

radically transform people's conditions. They they want to engage in these gradual programs that keep people largely in the same particular state. And so then people still struggling. Then these quote unquote far right polities come along and they say, Well, you're struggling because of those immigrants.

And because the border isn't secure. And and then they overplay the amount of violence that immigrants are engaged in, even as citizens are typically engaging in far more violence than immigrants. That is that is true. But In a way it doesn't really help you politically, does it? Because Th populations will accept that there is a sort of inevitability about some of its own citizenry committing crime.

But if a policy allows people in it who shouldn't have been there and they commit sometimes heinous crimes, it is just absolutely inevitable, even if the left ignore it, that that becomes a political problem because the right are able, as Trump does all the time, sometimes he literally gets You know, examples of of pictures of people and say, These are from crime gangs, this woman got raped, this person was killed. I mean a state has to be seen to regulate who is part of the state, doesn't it?

Oh I I I definitely think. And and to me if if those politicians, particularly on the right, actually cared about the number of immigrants who were coming into their countries, then they would change their actual foreign policies.

Or they would actually not be cutting off aid as Trump did in his first term to the northern triangle where the majority of immigrants were coming to. And and so what's actually what I what I also document in chain of ideas is that in many ways Uh you have some of these politicians who are looking at immigrants in the way businesses look at customers. They want them to come and they want them to come and they want them to create havoc so that they can use that havoc.

uh to to to argue that there needs to be border security, but then uh they're refusing to do what actually could pr could prevent mass migration, you know, that's been happening around the world. And that's what's ironic to me. If they were serious about ensuring that there were not large amounts of people, they probably would seek to slow the effects of climate change, as an example, which is becoming increasingly a major cause of of of migration.

This idea, as we s as as you've documented expertly, has become central to so much sort of our politics, with all of the kind of invidious consequences therein. How therefore is it to be fought against? I mean, you suggest you you write about, for example, the idea of of of uh you know, prohibiting basically Uh politicians who espouse it, who break the law and so on. But we've been down that road in some countries uh

Marine Le Pen in France, in the United States, Donald Trump and it hasn't always gone terribly well. So how do you think it the idea and its practitioners are best fortutigate? Well I think first, you know, continuing our our conversation, the best way to اشتركوا في القناة the soil in which the this idea is growing and spreading is to

transforming the conditions, improving the conditions that people are being forced to live in. And it and it is their struggles or their inability to get the house that they want or the job that they want or the status that they want. Is is allow is creating this vacuum for these politicians to say, you're not getting that house.

that job or that status because of those immigrants or because of those Muslims. Although it is true to say it is true to say though, isn't it, Professor, that some of these ideas, I mean, they will be held and espoused by very wealthy people. I mean if I think about some of the sort of Trump coalition

And some of whom I've I've met, you know, and interviewed, you know, you think about some of the all of those communities in place like Palm Springs and others, you know, I've heard these ideas from them. These are these are wealthy people of of means and they believe this. So is it just about economic conditions? Well, happy you actually mentioned that, because what I find is almost all of these political parties

that are espousing great replacement theory are funded by some of the wealthiest people in the world. And part of the reason why these wealthy people are funding these parties is because they recognize that there's growing inequality

let's say between middle and low income white Britons and and and and and super wealthy white Britons or middle and low income white Americans and super wealthy white Americans. And so you you have a situation which those wealthy people want regular everyday people to be blaming the so called replacers coming from the outside or living in their own nation for their struggles as opposed to the super wealthy, as opposed to the policies or the politicians.

you know, that they that they're financing. And and and so that again is why radically transforming our conditions can make it less likely that these ideas can spread. And let me also just add, that these ideas have also spread on unrel regulated social media platforms. They've also spread because these financiers have gained control of media outlets where it's spreading as well.

Just finally, Professor, you've been right about racism and and the great replacement theory, uh as part of your of your latest latest book latest book. You've obviously been uh attacked rather relentlessly for it, including by the far right. You are By talking about this theory and seeking to puncture it, destroy it, you are basically um putting yourself really in the crosshairs, especially of the far right. What is that experience like? So I think first and foremost

I am I try to it's to be principled as as a scholar, which is to say that it's my job to continuously share the history and the presence of of of of racism in in in in manners that are deeply researched and accessible to to to my colleagues in academia as well as to the to the general public. And what happens after that, right? Certainly I have to to navigate

the vitriol or the character assassinations, but I don't want that to prevent me or stop me from doing my job. And and frankly, this is my job, you know, to write books based on research that allow people to have a better understanding of how racism is shaping their lives. Professor Genny, so grateful for your time. Thank you very much indeed. Of course. Thank you for having me.

The news agents. Because they're gonna make a deal. They're gonna make a deal. They did something yesterday that was amazing actually. They gave us a present. And the present arrived today and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. And I'm not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant uh Uh prize.

And they gave it to us and they said they were gonna give it. So that meant one thing to me, we're deal with the right people. Is that nuclear related? No, it wasn't nuclear related. It was oil and gas related. And it was a very nice thing they did, but what it showed me is that we're dealing with the right people. what that means or what he's on about in terms of this great present that apparently has arrived uh from Iran. Whether it's a barrel of oil or a missile I have no idea.

Donald Trump believes that his fifteen point peace plan is getting serious purchase in Iran, well, somewhere in Iran, with someone important in Iran. But who or what or what might happen next is still as shrouded in mystery as it's possible to be.

And we know what the Americans want. There's a lot of wishful thinking about Iran giving up and promising never to ever want to develop a nuclear weapon, give up its highly enriched uranium to the the IEA inspectors and the like and never to be naughty again. Yet the Iranians don't seem to be that interested. And so today we had a message from the Iranians themselves that what Donald Trump is doing is just talking to himself.

Much as I've been doing throughout this episode. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye bye. This has been a Global Player Original Production.