Transparency and Populist Funding Risks

Thanks for listening to The Rest Is Politics. To support the podcast, listen without the adverts, and get early access to episodes and live show tickets, go to therest ispolitics.com. That's the restispolitics.com . Trump's gone after Iran. Nobody fully expected him to do so and now they're creating justifications behind it. But they don't add up. It's a war that feels like the risk is taken by the US, the costs are born elsewhere. This is decades of American arrogance coming to a head in the form of this guy. Why was Iran considered a more important threat than Russia? They have spent colossal sums of money, which could have gone to Ukraine in the Siran infection. It's just madness that we're dealing with at the moment. I I honestly think this is a form of madness . Welcome to the rest of this politics with me, Alistair Campbell. And me uh Rory Stewart. And Rory, we're going to talk about Iran, inevitably. We're going to talk about what's going on, but also talk about this business of betting on the war. We'll do that in the second half, alongside a very interesting report that came out last week by former civil servant Philip Rycroft about trying to clean up the financing of British politics and deal with foreign interference. But on Iran, there is so much to get through. So where's where do you want to start? Let me start with the fact that I'm in the US, so I'm speaking to you from Yale and I have found myself in the last week very aware that I'm in a completely different United States. I arrived here, of course, sharing many of your views on Trump and on Iran, and I continue to have those views, but I've walked into a United States in which I'm facing blank incomprehension from a huge range of people stud ents, uh people who are Democrats, moderate Republicans, colonels in the military , academics, they are thinking in a completely different way, talking a totally different language. They don't feel anything like the level of outrage, shock, and disgust that we feel about the Saran War. Um, I was here, for example, when there was a No Kings demonstration going on on here in the streets in New Haven. But the sense it's totally different, I suppose just to sort of sum up, totally different from my experience. I was in the US uh during the Afghan and uh Iraq wars and again at a university at Harvard and now at Yale. Then people were deeply interested in the legal justifications of the war, the moral justification of the war, they were very interested in deep conversations about what was going on on the ground, different theories of military strategy and threat assessment. It doesn't feel like that at all. This is a war where the level of discussion and argumentation is very, very limited. And maybe I'll I'll hand back to you on this. I was talking to somebody who's a real , really dislikes Trump, is a big Democrat funder. And I said to her, you know, how shocked I was by the Iran War, and she said, I know, you're you're right, right, and and look what he's doing to the universities. And that was about all the all the conversation I got out of it. That sort of goes against how it feels from reading the polls. I mean, the polls he is at the moment as unpopular as any president at this stage of his term, any president in history. The war itself, the Iran war, is polling with 41% support. World War II had 97%. Afghanistan 92. Even the Iraq war, against which millions of people marched, had 76% support. So it's really it's really interesting that you're getting that sense and and it's true I I thought the the the No Kings marches were enormous, but a lot of people I guess were they were marching against corruption, they were marching against ICE, they're marching against Trump's kind of general conduct and and bluster. But that's very, very interesting. If you I mean you look you're there and I I have no intention of being there, so it's an interesting perspective. Well I I I guess it's an example of a situation where the majority of the American public don't support this war. But my sense is that for a range of reasons people are not focused on the detail of it, they're not outraged by it. When I talked to students, for example, and you know obviously when I was here two years ago, many, many people were demonstrating against Gaza and the university was you know almost shutting down in bits. They'd blocked the library and they were river.one N of that's happening against Trump or against the war, really. And they have different arguments for that. I mean some of them say well it's 'cause we're more focused on ice, others say we're just exhausted, others say we're worried about our future careers. We don't want to impel the university. But there's also a an even more striking sense that if they talk about the war at all, I mean obviously I'm generalizing, but I've spoken to huge, very, very long, intense conversations now with dozens of different types of people from academics to serving military officers to students to energy experts. They very, very rarely talk about the consequences for the Gulf or Europe or Asia. It's a war that feels like one of the reasons it's not being analysed properly is that it's moral hazard. It's like the two thousand eight financial crisis. The risk is taken by the US . The costs are born elsewhere. And yes, gas prices are going up, but they're not going up anything like as much as they're going up in the rest of the world. There's no equivalent of the US sitting in the position that Rachel Reeves is sitting at, seeing her public finances in trouble. Absolutely no equivalent to the kind of damage that you're seeing in the Gulf economies or in places like South Korea or Pakistan or Egypt. So it really is no body bags, limited economic repercussions, many other things to think about, and a long way away. So when I say, listen, our whole lives are being upended by this, and Europe and the Gulf and Asia is are facing serious financial problems and we're not being consulted. People are a bit surprised. That's not really part of the conversation. Well R Rory, what that says to me is that even at the universities they're perhaps more stupid than we realize. Um well listen, let's take a quick break and then when we come back I want to r reveal to you the the content of an article written in Harper's Magazine in nineteen fifty two which I think speaks a lot about what's going on . This episode is brought to you by Fuse Energy. Energy policy rarely stays in Westminster for long, usually arrives with a bill, and from the first of April, seventy-five percent of renewables obligation So if bills are meant to fall from April, why would anyone bother switching? Because policy sets the floor. The saving itself is automatic. What suppliers offer beyond that isn't, and that's where real competition operates. Fuse goes beyond the mandated saving. Customers who switch save around an additional £200 on average. In the Fuse Energy app you can see exactly what you're using and what it costs with 24-7 support if you need it. Listeners to the show will also receive a free Trip Plus subscription when they switch. Get more than just lower rates. Switch today at fuseenergy.com slash politics using the codePOLITICS and save around £200 on your bills. Visit Fuse energy.com for full details and terms and conditions now just a quick pause in the podcast to mention our sponsor, Nord VPN. March is the month of forms and figures , tax returns, renewals, end of year accounts, transactions containing more of our money and identity than we realise. And as we're doing that, a cyber attack occurs on average every thirty-inen second s. In the UK, hundreds of cyber enabled crimes are reported each day with around four point five million pounds lost daily to cybercrime. True with AI. We think of security risks as big and dramatic, but increasingly not. They're creeping in through the ordinary, an email that looks plausible, a link that feels routine. That's why I've been using NordVPN to close the gap. NordVPN encrypts your internet connection, hides your IP address and protects your bank details and passwords so you're not assuming everything online is safe. To get the best discount on your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com slash restispolitics. You'll get four extra months free on the two-year plan plus a 30-day money-back guarantee. The link is in the episode description. This episode is brought to you by Adobe Acrobat Studio. There's a lot of data in today's game, but chaps, is it all waffle? A lot of it is, yes. No, it's no, come on! XG, pre-assists, pockets of spirit. Hold on , you started using that terminology. Hypocrisy. Come on. Well, if your role involves working through reams of information and data, take a look at Acrobat Studio. You can create a P DF space, an AI powered workspace that turns documents into summaries and insights, and even generates reports or presentations out of it. So you can cut through the waffle, work smarter , and save time. It's easy to create something amazing. All in record time. Plus, because we know working as a team is always better, you can work on projects together without having to worry about privacy or security. So whatever you want to do, do that with Acrobat. Learn more and try it out on adobe dot com . So Rory have you heard of Dennis Brogan? Maybe, maybe, go on, help me. Scottish histori an. Specialist in the United States. Is it related with there was a guy called Hugh Brogan? Do you think he could be Hugh Hugh Brogan's father? I think it's Hugh Brogan's father. Well he r he wrote a piece in nineteen fifty two for Harper's Magazine. The headline was The Illusion of American Omnipotence. And the illusion he identified is an American worldview that he sums up as follows very many Americans, it seems to me, find it inconceivable that an American policy announced and carried out by the American government, acting with the support of the American people does not immediately succeed. If it does not, this they feel must be because of stupidity or treason, fools or knaves. And what this does is he talks then of a second illusion. So the first illusion is that they can do anything they want. The second illusion is that if it goes wrong, it has to be somebody else's fault. So Trump at the moment thinks Europe's being too weak, the Democrats are whatever they are, etc. Now what's fascinating about this piece, it was written in the middle of the Korean War. So there's a time where Americans can't understand how their mighty United States is failing against a much weaker enemy. China then was not a superpower, and of course against North Korea . And he says that there's a four-part pattern. And as he goes through this, this is written in nineteen fifty-two. First, the expectation that whatever they want to happen, they will make it so. Second, shock and anger when reality shows otherwise. Third, a hunt for scapegoats. Fourth, escalation or overt reaction. I think that's where we are now with re with Iran. And it's always why I worry without listen without worrying our listeners and viewers too much is why I've always worried that the ultimate reality TV show for this charismatic charlatan is an America using nukes somewhere. Because he he can never admit he's got anything wrong, so he always has to keep escalating rather than pulling back. And of course, the reason that this article has endured in the way that I think it has is because there he's writing in the Korean War. But actually, you could relate this to Vietnam, you could relate it to Iraq, and you can definitely relate it to what's going on now in Iran. I think that's right. There's something though about the modern world which has made the pathology, this this thing you're describing, even more intense, which is that the consequences are just not felt in the US in the same way. There are two two big changes. One of them is a technological change. So the Korean War, you've got hundreds of thousands of American troops deployed and it's really horr horrifying war and these are conscripts who are being killed. This is a war where very, very few body bags are coming home. You know, the the American pilots that were killed were actually taken down by friendly fire. And that's partly because we've now got a world where uh many of the military people I'm engaging with are not really thinking. You can see this even with General Petraeus, who we interviewed some time ago. If you look at his public statements, he's still focusing a lot on kit , on how amazing their precision missiles are, rather than the big strategic questions around the war. But the second thing that I've noticed is, and then maybe this derives from this, I had a long conversation with a guy who is a Republican foreign affairs policy specialist and very close to the Trump administration in and out of the White House all the time. And one of the big changes is there's no longer uh the kind of risk assess ments or comparison of threats that was part of the American psyche in the past. So one simple question, if you which I keep asking, is why was Iran considered a more important threat than Russia? Right? I mean you you can see all these statistics. Russia's taken twenty percent of a European nation. Russia has resulted in the Ukraine war, one point two million casualties . America said, Well, we can't afford really to support this war in Ukraine. We need our money for China. We need our missiles for China. But, you know, we're with you. What they've actually done is that they have spent colossal sums of money which could have gone to Ukraine in the Saran infection. So if you look at the the spending on these various wars, hundred th right across the four years, hundred and eighty eight billion on the Ukraine war from the United States They're actually firing missiles that could have been supplied to uh the Ukrainians. In fact, there's been the story that the missiles that the Europeans bought have been redirected, and we're not actually getting the missiles that we bought for Ukraine. On the China story, you've got these stories that defence systems are being taken out of Korea and brought back to the Gulf. Yeah. So if you say, listen, how can you possibly think Iran posed the kind of threat to the US that Russia do es? Or even how does this sit with your story that what you're doing is tilting towards Asia Pacific and China? Of course, they're very smart people. They can produce slick, complicated answers. They can say, well, it's all about a window of opportunity that we can see in three, five years to weaken around before we move on to China. But none of it really quite adds up. And after you've been arguing for forty five minutes for an hour, you realise that it's after the event, the decision's been made, Trump's gone after Iran. Nobody fully expected him to do so, and now they're creating justifications behind it. But they don't add up. And and one of the reasons I think that these two things connect is that it's a bit like if you were very, very wealthy and you were going into, I don't know, a corner shop and you bought a candy bar. You probably don't worry too much about what the candy bar tastes like because it doesn't cost very much. And an America that has gone through the shale gas revolution, it's no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil in the way that other people are. It just doesn't bear the costs in the same way, so it doesn't need to think as hard about basic questions of strategies such as whether Iran really is or isn't a threat. And the same would apply to Cuba, which I think we'll probably go on to in question time. Well I'm very alarmed, Roy, that in the short time since you've landed there, that you've you're starting to talk about candy. We call it sweets in our country and it's the it's the English language. But that what you're saying though doesn't compute with polling. Now I know polling's only a snapshot and it's done in very different ways, but so for example, was Trump motivated by distraction from the Epstein files to invade Iran? Fifty two percent yes, forty percent no. Is has that has that just vanished from the debate? Is that d is is literally nobody talking about that now? I mean I think the fifty-two percent presumably are mostly almost overwhelmingly democratic voters. So if I were to say to my father in law and mother in law, who obviously are going on No King's marches, deeply dislike Trump, they would say this is a terrible war , and they would uh absolutely say, you know, distraction from Epstein, corruption, polymarkets, the kind of stuff we're going into after the break. But what I'm missing is a really strong detailed conversation with the old policy elite, either the Republican foreign policy analysts or the professors or the soldiers, about questions like how does the threat from Iran compare to the threat from Russia? Or the secondly, the consequences. I mean we we we maybe haven't in the podcast had the time to explain what's happening to economies like Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, even quite advanced economies like South Korea, which are facing simultaneously energy crises, currency crises , serious problems with their financing. And I don't mean gas petrol, I mean gas gas. And also Australia has just cut the tax on petrol. Two states are actually giving people free public transport to try and get them out of their cars. Fertiliser, I read a piece in one of the economics magazines the other day saying that the rise in the cost of fertilizer could actually lead to a bigger economic shock even than the oil and gas. So I just don't understand how these people cannot see. Is it because they're so locked into their own country, their own mindset It's mostly externalized. I mean the the the honest truth is the American economy is much more insulated from these things than other people, particularly since it started on shale gas. But Rory, Rory, let me just come in there. Trump's numbers on the economy are terrible. Minus twenty on doing well in the economy, minus thirty on inflation, lower on economic performance than Biden at any point in his presidency. So I don't understand. Yeah, I agree. There's I agree. Poor economic performance, but the direct impact of what's happening with the Israeli US strikes on Hormuz on the US economy is much less than the impact on the rest of us. Yeah. No, I get that. Do you think about it, if you're our friend Rachel Reeves, you are sitting there looking at the fact that your public finances are suddenly in the last four weeks have been thrown into a real mess. British growth has been downgraded by the OECD more than anybody else's growth. I think we've lost nearly one percent of GDP projection growth. Borrowing rates are going up. Her fiscal headroom, her opportunity to spend on public services shrinking all the time. She's sitting there. It's not a war that she asked for. We're bearing the consequences. Italy's in real trouble financially. So if we just s I mean the consequences for Europe are less intense than elsewhere, but even when we look at Europe, really intense. And they're sitting there thinking, we didn't ask for this war. The US are demanding to use our bases, our overflights, are criticizing us for not getting more deeply involved in this war, while our economies are suffering much more than the US economy, and then we're being humiliated, we're being insulted , told that we're not Winston Churchill, encouraged to be like Mark Rutter and get out there and champion the war. So it's I mean, for for the long-term alliance, trying to get the US to understand how devastating this if if you're Europe, how humiliated you feel, how powerless you feel, how much damage you're experiencing, even more experience in the Gulf. I mean imagine you're Qatar. You're looking at this thinking I'm losing billions of dollars of revenue a day or UAE, which is trying to put a brave face on it, but is very dependent on very over optimistic ideas in UAE that somehow Trump is going to be able to guarantee the Straits are reopened. Trevor Burrus There was a report this week by a cross-party group of MPs and peers, which as far as I saw got zero coverage, joint committee on the national security strategy. And it was really it was very, very interesting because it basically said we have to face the fact that we may no longer be able to view the United States as a reliable security partner and we have to prepare for a a a worst case scenario. Now it sees that as far greater leadership on defence within Europe. But it's all but even to be saying this is cross party, MPs and members of the House of Lords, even to be saying that we maybe cannot trust America, view it as a reliable ally is such a shift. And of course I worry, given that we you and I have both agreed for some time now that Trump is basically on Putin's side in relation to Ukraine. I think the other thing you maybe have to add together when you put together JD Fant's speech in Munich, Rubio's speech in Munich, the way that Trump speaks about other leaders, Kirstharmer, he's been having a go at Merz this week, the Chancellor of Germany, that actually now they see they want Europe to be weak. They maybe fear the idea that Europe is the only other power that could become a rival to the United States and China, which of course is what you and I would like to see. So that part of this maybe is is deliberate deliberately weakening Europe. I think that my sense and I I've been talking to people who are great fans of Elbridge Colby, who's the the kind of more intellectual Yale law school graduate deputy secretary of defense who writes these big books on China. And their sense is a bit different. They basically are a bit like your interview with Mike Pompeo. They take Europe for granted . They think yeah, okay, Europe may grumble, but in the end Europe doesn't have any choices. That's something I hear from the big tech giants too. They're like, Well, look you can complain all you like, but you're never gonna be able to have the money or the political will or the unity to be able to really become independent of the US. So you may grumble, but in the end you'll always side with us. You'll always suck it up. And their vision of European rearmament is that Europe will still remain completely dependent on US satellites and US intelligence and US AI, but Europe will build more uh one five five millimeter shells, so sort of conventional old heavy munitions. And that American companies like Lockheed Martin will open European factories because they recognize that you know if we're spending all this money, we may want some jobs in Europe, but they'll want American factories to bid for those jobs. And and with us, as with the Gulf, they basically think they will we'll always come in their slipstream. America just will do what America thinks is best, America knows what's best, America's gonna you know, it's taken out Venezuela, it's gonna take out Iran, it's weakening Russia, it's weakening China. Europe, as usual, doesn't thank us for it, but they don't have any alternative and they're gonna come along with us seems to be the the tone. Yeah but maybe that is maybe that fits in with Dennis Brogan and the illusion of uh of of omnipotence. It's hard not to feel that within all of the things that's going on in America and some of the things we'll talk about when we get on to corruption is a real sense of arrogance and hubris that they can do absolutely what they want, however they want. And meanwhile, you mentioned Ukraine. Again, barely on the news, Russia carried out the largest aerial at tack in a twenty-four hour period since the start of the war, 940 eight drones. By the way, Zelen sky, I mean, I think he did play a bit of a blinder at the weekend in heading off to the Gulf and doing these After Trump really insulted Mohammed bin Salman, I mean I think Why do you why do you say the words, Roy? Say the words. I think it comes better from an older Todian. Well yes, because um as you can imagine there are cultural issues here. I mean th this is uh talking about somebody else's head of state in that way would be uh seen much, much more devastating in someone like Saudi than in even in Britain, where you know It's even worse than saying he's no Churchill. It's even worse than saying he's no Churchill and it's really weird, isn't it it? Well's not really, because it's all of it's all of a piece with who and what he is. He talks like this all the time about everybody, including his own colleagues. I mean there is lots of rumblings that he's behind you know, behind the scenes, he's very critical of Vance at the moment, thinks Vance isn't over on the war. So I think we're seeing I I I loved reading this piece by this guy Dennis Brogan, 'cause it really felt like this is this is decades of American arrogance coming to a head in the form of this guy who honestly believes he is sort of some so special creature that if he says something is going to happen, it's going to happen. I'll tell you what's really doing my head in at the moment. If you think about how many times during when Gaza was top of the news every day, that we would hear Witkoff and Kushner are off to see somebody. They're about to do a deal. Trump says the deal's within reach. Trump says we're about to do this. We're now getting the same in relation to Iran, and it leads the news every time he says it. The BBC the other day covered his entire cabinet live. Night a hundred minutes of him rambling about Sharpie pens and s this s this sort of competition of sycophancy of his cabinet. It's just madness that we're dealing with at the moment. I I honestly think this is a form of madness. It's a cultural madness. And it sounds to me Rory, let me just ask you this. These people that you're talking to who don't want to accept that this is terrible for the world, is there part of them that they just don't want to think and talk about all this? Yes. I think there's a real sense of exhaustion, there's a real sense of we're so appalled by Trump, we don't really want to think about this. But there's also sense that America look, I mean, I'm being critical of America. It is all the things that we love about America too. I mean, you know, you it it's you go outside, everybody's smiling, it's um it's beautiful, it's many, many parts that are incredibly wealthy and prosperous as long as as well as there being poverty I was just talking to someone's just been down in Mississippi and he was just saying, you know, endless towns with churches and people very proud of their towns, but just very insular. I and my final thought on this which struck me is I is I was thinking a lot about sewers , because there's a weird circular argument going on here, which is the US on the one hand says the reason we had to attack Iran is it was so weak. And now they're saying the reason we have to attack Iran is their response shows they're strong. And then they're saying , Well, we can't stop now because Iran has demonstrated it controls the Straits Four Moose. And my response is, Well it it always control the Straits Four Moose. And they're like, Yeah, but once you've seen it you can't unsee it, you can't allow a country like that to have control over its straits. That was what Britain, France, and Israel said was Suez. We said, you know, uh NASA, this Egyptian nationalist, had taken over Egypt, taken over the Suez Canal, and Britain, France and Egypt said, we can't allow an unfriendly nationalist regime to take over this vital waterway. So we have to intervene. And of course, when we intervened, America moved against us, and Eisenhower had this amazing line when he basically destroyed our whole operation, which is we cannot subscribe to one law for the weak and one for the strong, one law for those opposing us and one law for those allied to us. And that's what I want to hear people say to Rubio and Vance and Trump. No, you don't get a different law because you're stronger, dear United States. You don't get a different law because you're allied to us, dear United States. And and and the problem is that what they're doing now with the Straits of Hormuz, which is saying this is such a vital waterway, we cannot allow Iran to exercise territorial sovereignty over its own territorial waters, is that causes chaos for the Chinese claims on the South China Sea? us I mean America is in a very odd position. It refuses to ratify the UN Convention on Laws of the Sea. But it's trying to claim customary international law as a reason for keeping these straits open while deingfy international law in every other direction. And so this is really bad stuff and it gives so many things to people like China to play with if they want to stop American vessels going through the South China Sea. Well let me just just before we go to the break, a couple of uh quick points from me. The first is I think we don't focus enough on the different objectives of the USA and Israel right now. And we're seeing that in the way that it's playing out in Lebanon. Uh we're seeing it with Israel clearly worried that Trump might end the war before it's you know obliterated Iran's ballistic missile programme and its ability to develop develop new. So I think that's something worth watching. But the other thing, Rory, did you notice that there were there was a tour of Russian Parliament members in Congress this week. I mean they are on their side. I mean I can't I I can I just found it incredible. They were being shown around was shown how nice everything was and they were being treated with such respect. And meanwhile, congressmen and congresswomen were going in, those who were cleared classified to get to get classif ied briefings on the war, including Republicans, were going in to get these briefings and coming out one after the other saying we don't really know what's going on there. We are very frustrated, we still don't know what the aims are, we still don't know really what the details or the direction of this campaign are. So I still think we're in the place of making up as they go along, everybody bowing down to Trump, whatever he says is right, and it's a recipe for catastrophe and I think that's what we're living. And I'm just shocked, I'm even more shocked that all these people you're with, presumably a lot of the academics and hanging around university campuses, they kind of say, no, you know, as long as we're okay, it's fine and who cares about the rest of the world? Let me just finish on that. Uh because I think a lot of Americans listening to me will be enraged and and our mailbox will be full of enraged Americans writing in saying, What the hell are you doing? saying that we're not opposed to the Iran war . Um I think what I'm trying to say is that yes, of course, as you say in the opinion polls, people are against it. Of course, the majority of people I talk to think Trump's an idiot. What's striking is there just isn't anything like the level of detailed engagement into the strategy, the consequences, nothing compared to what I saw with Iraq or Afghanistan. It's the sense that the American political culture has become much less worried about allies in Europe, much more insular, and part of that is is just things like the shale gas revolution, the fact that American energy is much less dependent on the Gulf. Okay, well let's take take a break and then when we come back, we'll we'll talk about um this betting that's going on in the war, and related to that, this this very interesting report went by former civil servant Philip Rycroft on the growing fears about foreign interference in our politics in the UK and what to do about it. Great. Looking forward to it very much. See you after the break. This episode is brought to you by Free Trade, the award-winning free investment platform. And I guess it's about transparency, which is the kind of great buzzword in politics, but essentially seeing what's actually happening, taxes, pensions, markets, around all the stuff that's kind of hidden away. And investing can feel exactly the same. People put their money away each month only for fees to chip away at it. And and this can be an amazing thing. I mean you you invest every month and you end up paying all these commissions and fees. And actually some people find this myself that almost however much money your investments make in the market, all the money you make, disappears in the commissions and fees. And free trade is built to challenge that assumption. You can invest in stocks and funds without paying commission with free ICEs and free pensions, all in one app and web platform. Go to free trade dot IO slash trip to start investing for free and while you're there take a look at Free Trade's latest cash back offers. Value of your investments can, as I've often experienced, go down as well as up, and you may get back less than you invest. Other changes may apply. ICER and SIP rules and terms and conditions, of course, also apply. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. As the new tax year approaches, many people start paying closer attention to their finances, what's coming and what's going out, and whether things still feel manageable in the months ahead. And financial pressure rarely stays in the numbers. Money's still something many of us feel we should manage privately, and it could affect your mood, how well you sleep, even the tone of everyday conversation. So when things become difficult, it can start to feel less like circumstances and more like personal failure. And that's where therapy can help. BetterHelp connects you with qualified therapists in the UK. Therapy isn't financial advice, but it can help people understand the stress, anxiety, or shame financial pressure can bring. You complete a short questionnaire, BetterH elp matches you with a therapist suited to your needs. And if the match isn't quite right, you can switch at any time. When life feels overwhelming, therapy can help. Sign up, get ten percent off at betterhelp.com slash rest politics. That's better H E L P dot com slash restpolitics. Welcome back to the restless politics with me Rory Stewart. And with me Alistair Campbell and Rory, I want to talk a little bit about polymarket. This polymarket betting has become absolutely enormous. And bear in mind, this isn't country that until not recently you kind of had to go to Las Vegas to bet. So let's just let me just explain what polymarket is. It's a global cryptocurrency-based, largely cryptocurrency-based prediction platform that allows you to bet anonymously on the outcomes of events, whether that's a football match or a ceasefire or a military attack or somebody being assassinated. You can bet on the I'm my favourite bet that I saw on the market this this week was you can four per cent of people have got a bet on that Jesus will come back in 2027 . So good odds for that one. And you can do this without uploading any form of identity at all. Because if there's a if the second coming happens. I think the question around whether or not you get your money back from polymarket is a bit bit moot. So so four percent of people who have bet on the second coming have bet that it's happening in 27, 2027. Now, Rory, ins ider trading, this arises when people know with certainty something that is going to happen at a certain time, something which may move the markets. Hence, as you remember from government days, market sensitive is a classification upon a lot of government papers. And and just to interrupt for a second, I mean it's without sounding too much like Dominic Sandbrook, this is a very, very long story. So Lloyd George's government before the First World War was almost brought down by something called the Marconi scandal. Yeah. Where the cabinet knew in advance basically that the British government was about to take a huge stake in Marconi, the radar company. And uh the chief whip and various others members of the cabinet made massive investments in the shares shortly before the government announcement was made. And it and it almost brought down the government. So it's been something we've been very, very aware of. In fact a lot of um the novels attacking corruption in British politics and the the late uh eighteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds are about um ministers and others profiting from inside information on the market. So on which back to you. So with most betting, so for example, who will win the next election or who will win when Scotland go to the World Cup and play Morocco? We can't know. You and I cannot predict, even the players and the managers can't predict, okay? In football you're not supposed to bet on teams in which you're directly involved, either for if you're involved in any game as a manager or player, you can't bet on that game. Right, right. So if you're the goalkeeper, you can't bet that the goalkeeper's gonna let in four balls. No, four goals or you don't let in four I mean you do let in four balls, but you don't call them four balls. Anyway. You can't do that as the point. No, you can't do that. Some of the big markets, just to give you a a a flavor of some of the things that are on polymarket . How many times will Elon Musk post a tweet on X over a given period? That is a big market. Now, Elon Musk is the richest man in the world. It's a bloody easy way to get richer if you say, Well, I know exactly how many times he's gonna post because I'm not suggesting for one minute he does that. There's a big market. But it's anonymous, so there would be no way of pruding. I mean I don't think Elon Musk is wasting his time doing this. No, he probably isn't, but he might tell his friends. But if he wanted to, it's anonymous. Here's a here's a here's another one. There is a huge market at the moment on when will Donald Trump meet Xi Jinping? Okay? Right. And this is an anonymous crypto , so there's no way of knowing whether it's actually Trump's secretary making the bet. Correct. And we have no evidence that sh he or she would make that bet. There's an ongoing dispute about an enormous multi-million bet , which gave the accurate date for what the better called an invasion. But the market is insisting, well, it wasn't invasion, it was a capture So one of the most grisly examples of this is a Israeli journalist who suddenly found himself receiving abusive messages online saying, why did you describe a particular missile event in Israel in a particular way? I want you to redefine the way it's described. And he responds in a relatively calm way initially saying, Well, this is the information we receive from the military and, this is the kind of missile it was. And it becomes clear that somebody has made a bet on what kind of missile is going to land, and whether or not he gets paid out is being influenced by how the journalist does or does not describe whether what fell were the interceptors or the missile itself. And and the reason why, and it was a very interesting , we talked about it a couple of weeks ago, he wrote it in the Times of Israel, and what was interesting was how the level of intimidation upon him grew and grew and grew to the point where he became really quite really quite scared about his own his own security. But the point is there is a lot of betting going on on when bombs are being fired, where they're landing, the damage they do, when there'll be a ceasefire, when they won't. And of course the other form of betting is, and this is what happened when Trump announced that he was not going to go ahead with obliterating Iran's energy plans, is shortly before that was this m these massive bets went on buying and selling of oil at different prices and so forth. So I'd like to think that if this was Britain, Lloyd George notwithstanding, we would prop we would think, well, hold on a minute, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, they're not going to be doing that sort of stuff. But I regret to say, with the current American administration, your instinct is to think, well, yeah, they probably are doing this sort of stuff because they do think they can get away with with absolutely anything. And the other thing, Rory , the public integrity section of the Justice Department, a recent move by the Trump administration, was that it reduced the number of attorneys from 30 to 2. So there are now two people in the Department of Justice who are looking at these integrity issues. I just think this is all part of the sense that if you have power and you have money, basically you are entitled to to go out and get more and and and hang the consequences if you have to fly a bit close to the wind. So so one of the things you're pointing to here that I hadn't thought about is how on earth is anybody supposed to police this? I mean if the point is that the crypto is anonymous and the bets are completely anonymous, how are law enforcement agencies supposed to prove that administration officials are or are not benefiting from insider information in this way. And it's also very weird, isn't it? Because it's also a little bit different from defrauding shareholders or defrauding a bank , what you're doing is you're basically defrauding the other person on the other end of the bet, aren't you? Yeah. You don't know. This this the other thing. If you put loads of money on there. L'ets say that you'd been successful with your bet that Camel Harris was going to be president and you were owed lots of money by a by a market. You don't know where that money's coming from. You don't know whose money is actually coming your way and how much of it has been is going through some sort of money laundering and you know washing process. You just don't know because the whole thing can be anonymous. So just go final one, because we we didn't see Pelosi hard enough on this. No, we didn't. There's an extraordinary set of statistics around her husband 's trades, which are massively outperforming the market, and many of which s seem to have a strong correlation, says he politely, with the kind of information that you might be able to receive if you were on the inside in Congress. And the defense seems to be it's not illegal. In other words, the United States just hasn't put proper legal frameworks in place to try to stop this kind of insider trading, either from Congress on the stock market, or now you're saying this polymarket betting on what's happening in a war. Just a reminder, because Alistair mentioned it, this weekend we'll have a Sunday read on the disturbing world of polymarkets and the people who've made tens of thousands from betting on Iran. Our reporter has interviewed one man who made twenty thousand dollars in one day predicting when the Ayatollah would be killed. You'll find that in our Sunday read, our newsletter this weekend. Sign up via the link in the description below. And that leads us, I think, nicely, Roy, to the Rycroft review. This is the review report of the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. And this was largely prompted by thetion convic of Nathan Gill, reform MEP, former leader in Wales, who's now in jail after pleading guilty to eight counts of accepting Russian bribes. There were 17 recommendations in the report. The big ones are a cap on political donations from British voters living abroad, one hundred thousand a year, and a moratori um on crypto donations, not a ban. It was being described as a ban, I think it should be a ban. It's a moratori um which says the ban will quotes remain in place until the electoral commission in this parliament has satisfied the sufficient regul ation in place. Well let's see where that goes. Because I think it should be banned, not least because some of the things we've been talking about in relation to America. But I'll tell you the paragraph rule that really kind of made me sit up. Goes back to our early discussions. So it says the UK is a target of long term strategic foreign interference and espionage from Russia, China and I, ran, which in different ways seek to further their strategic interests and cause harm to our institutions. Separately, beyond these hostile state threats, I am cognizant of a potential new threat, an emerging willingness of foreign actors and private citizens, including from allies like the United States, to interfere in and influence politics abroad in pursuit of their own agenda. I mean, he's basically adding the United States to Russia, China and Iran as forces that we have to be very, very worried about in terms of interference in our democracy. And partly that's Elon Musk explicitly saying he's going to be uh funding far right parties and finding ways of getting money to Tommy Robinson or Rupert Lowe or whoever. The only thing that strikes me is how weird our system of funding is. I I wonder how many British voters understand that at the moment , you can be a British citizen who doesn't live in the UK, doesn't pay tax in the UK, and you can still funnel money into a political party in Britain. You can also be a non British citizen, I mean not have a British passport at all, not even be UK resident for tax purposes, but have a company in the UK and be funneling money into British politics. I mean I just don't understand how we allow ed that situation to happen because in many countries in the world that just can't happen. You know, I complained a lot about funding for Labour and Conservatives and others, but Labour the problem was things like trade union funding, thevat Consiveres, a loss of the funding that we were receiving, I I don't know how you'd put a number on it, some would have to go through the numbers, but was coming in from people who were not residents in the United Kingdom and weren't British citizens. And I'm interested why Philip Rycroft doesn't go further. I mean, why is he saying there's a cap of a hundred thousand? Why is he not saying it's banned entirely? Does he have any reason to say that British citizens who don't live in the UK should be able to give money to political parties? Why should they be able to? I think it's he's referring to people who are on the electoral register in the UK. So you can be living abroad, but if you're on the electoral register you can you can make donations. I look I I would be much tougher than this. The problem that he goes through, and I think this is probably part of his brief, was that he's saying there is no public or political support for state funding of political parties. Is that true? It did. It did. It did. Oh, I bet the polling suggested there wasn't much support before he did it, and then he pulled it off, and it turns I mean this is why I'm suspicious of polling in general. Yeah, and and you're right, Peter Marilaskis did get that did get that through. The point about crypto is that because it's developing so fast, its impact on our politics is potentially enormous. Let's just take Reform UK. Reform UK objected to this for obvious reasons because they got 10 million quid out of one guy, this crypto guy in Thailand, Christopher Harborn. And it was very, very interesting that the Prime Minister's questions that preceded the Cabinet Minister Steve Reed's statement on the Rycroft report, they stay staedg a walkout. Farage led his MPs out of the chamber. I suspect because they didn't want to be around when the Commons was talking about all this stuff. But I watched one of Farage's press conferences the other day and the production values are extraordinary. Now that doesn't necessarily win you election, but what it revealed to me is they have got money to burn right now. And if we don't know where that money's coming from. And and the truth is with crypto you don't know, because it can be anonymized. And the the fact that they have jumped up and down to the extent that they have makes me think that there's there's something really, really fishy about crypto funding, which I'm glad they've stopped it for now and I hope that they go further. And do you remember when we were in Moldova or he's interviewing Maya Sandu, the Prime Minister, and that guy would I can't remember if you were there, we were talking to one of the security guys about the levels that Russia was going to to try to influence the outcome of that election. And a lot of it was money pouring in via crypto. We have the same thing in Romania. And we're now seeing the same thing in Hungary. If you go to Hungary at the moment , you would think there was an election going on. This campaign largely funded by the Russians, you'd think the election was between Orban and Zelensky and von der Leyen because there are posters absolutely everywhere. People have been bombarded online with stuff. So the reason I like this report is because I think it's drawing attention to a problem that we probably thus far, this answers your earlier question, why we allowed this to happen, because we've always made assumptions that we're not really a corrupt sort of country. And if you read Oliver Buller, Oliver Bullock has written a lot about financial crime, you read his books, London the the UK has done a terrible job at keeping our economy cle And then you've got this story that uh Kwasi Korteng, the former Conservative Chancellor, has now uh taken over as the chair of a crypto firm into which Nigel Farage has invested over £200,000 , taken six percent stake. There was reporting which I don't know whether it's been validated that Farage would make an enormous amount of money if the company grew to a certain height and and that actually the news around Quasi-Korteng and Farage had helped to get a lot of excitement and money pouring into this crypto firm. But just stepping back for a second, I don't quite understand Philip Rycroft's statement that there's no public appetite for funding parties and therefore you should allow people who don't live in the United Kingdom or who aren't British citizens to put in money. I mean, what's the worst case scenario? Let's say you stopped people outside the United Kingdom living outside the UK or who weren't British passport holders from putting money to political parties. The parties would just have less money. And then the public could decide whether they're comfortable with the parties having less money to spend on leaflets and advertising or whether they want to fund it themselves. But I don't see why the fact that the public doesn't support public funding of parties means that we have to take money from people who aren't British citizens resident in the United Kingdom. They would argue that so Christopher Harbor living in Thailand would argue that he is a British citizen. But he's not a British citizen living in the United Kingdom. I mean I'm I'm trying to say those should be two requirements. That he was following a brief in that. There's a couple of points in the report where he says this was not part of my brief, but and I wonder whether that was that was one of them. But I think this is I think this is a fair star. But I'll tell you something else. When you were on the way to America, I did this um a long interview with Liam Byrne, the Labour MP, who's written this very good book about populism, which is coming we're doing as a mini-series in the near future. And his team have calculated that one hundred this is this is funding works in different ways. One hundred and seventy-three million is the total money that has gone into what he calls the UK's populist right media political complex. So this is in particular GB News, the critic, unheard, these sort of things. We talked recently about GB News and the New World's investigation into them. Likewise, not just Nigel Farage, who's a very wealthy man now because of all his outside earnings, but people like Lee Anderson gets paid by GB News, Jacob Rees Mogg gets paid by GB News. Now that can get reported. There is transparency around those payments to those MPs. But there's something weird about 1 73 million is not money to be sniffed at. It might be in American politics, but in ours that is a lot of money. And that is that is the equivalent of funding. If you have a political objective in a broadcast media oper ation. Well, Anna Seman I listen, we we've just got to get behind the Malinovska state funding of political parties. It doesn't matter that it's unpopular. It's not that unpopular. It's not going to cost a huge amount. And just roll it through. Because I challenge an incoming government to turn it in the other direction and say, we're giving up on state funding. We're going to return to a world where somebody living in Thailand can send you in making their money in Bitcoin can send ten million dollars randomly to a political party and completely skew the power between different political parties in Britain. I mean you know th there can't possibly be any citizen who thinks this is normal or fair. It's absurd.. Okay Maybe people don't want to pay money. But we live in a world where we're very suspicious of elites, we're very conscious of I mean look, I in fact actually if I go back to my obsession at the beginning about consequences. are There two paradoxes here which link the point about Iran and the point about uh reform and crypto. The first is that this is about people who don't bear the consequence. If you're living in Thailand, you don't bear the consequence directly of what happens. Again, if you're very, very wealthy, you're insulated from most of the consequences of what happens on the street. You don't have the same kind of stake because you're you're protected. And the second thing is this paradox that these parties like Reform that portray themselves as being patriotic nationalists are relying on foreign money coming from people domiciled in other countries. Right? Chris Harborn has a Thai name, lives in Thailand. This really weird thing about on the one hand, we're all about, you know, presumably patriotism, blood and soil. On the other hand , we're investing in a completely anonymous, globalized, oligarch, underwritten cryptocurrency platforms to fund our nationalist movement. I've just found the bit uh where it talks about who can and can't. As the nineteen ninety eight Committee on the Standards and Public Life report concluded it should be confined to those who live, work and carry on business in the United Kingdom. The only exception to this should be British citizens who live abroad but are on the UK electoral register. That is a tricky one. That is a tricky one. I think certainly my experience of the kind of donations coming into the political parties is that clearly there is a lot of movement there and definition of things like business. You know, one of the suggestions, for example, is that even if Musk couldn't directly contribute, his British registered business could. Well the other point is that and the report says this is that there are there are no AI technologies