I'm at home and I see the news and I react, you know, and I think the >> instantly. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Instantly. And the media has kind of >> So, had you seen the video then? >> No, I had not seen the video. >> You just saw the I didn't even know, you know, all I saw was shooting at Charlie Kirk event, you know, and the media has kind of painted it as this celebrating his death or I'm celebrating the shooting. Um, but it's kind of a massive misrepresentation of what happened. And you know when you see the headline you you said you were shocked when you saw the headline. I can understand that reaction. You know you see someone celebrating death and you go like that's that's quite visceral but it's again like a massive misrepresentation of like what happened. >> All right. I saw a screenshot of it saying Charlie Kurt got shot. Let's [ __ ] go. >> And then an Instagram one which was Charlie Kurt got shot lol. >> Yeah. So the Charlie Kurt got shot lol was on an Instagram note. I think Charlie Kurt got shot. That's when it was on a private story. >> Okay. And you know I I reacted I reacted again poorly. I reacted very quickly. Again at the time I didn't know anything about the situation. And you know I I retracted and deleted my comments and then the stories come out a day later talking about I celebrated his death. What's left? Back again in the stew. This episode is a bit of a mad tink. We might be getting in a bit of trouble with this one, >> but you know, I'm saying independent media, man. We just got to do our thing. >> We just got to do our thing.

Today, we're going to be talking about the murder of Charlie Kirk. As many of you know, we had Tilly Middlehurst, also known as Blonde Practice, on this podcast. It's kind of the thing that started getting people to listen. Uh, a month later, um, Charlie Kirk was murdered in America doing what had made him famous, debating university students at UVU. Uh, as I'm sure many of you who have seen the video, we were shocked, disgusted, um, >> horrified, >> horrified. It's really concerning I think for uh a lot of people in this political moment that we're in who look to America closely because there are allied that this world's superpower um and think that the kind of growing political violence is really creates an unsafe world and I and I think that for us and I'm not trying to import as the British commentator in American context into our politics but you know I look on at society that really does not sit well with itself and there was a sense that this unavoidable sense that Charlie Kirk had been murdered for his political beliefs that because he was a provocator, because he was this person who had engaged in discourse in this way, that that's what they were trying to do. That's what they were trying to shut up. Um, and I think when the salience of political violence rises, when people think that violence is an effective means to be able to make a political argument, that's when politics heads in a really dangerous direction. Um, and so today we've got George Aberon on the podcast. Um, some of you might know George um as one of the people who debated Charlie Kirk, but in some ways George, you've kind of become notorious for your reaction to um Charlie Kirk's death. Now look, we're going to get into all of those things um through this through this podcast today. You know, I think it's really important actually to give you the space to kind of articulate and and uh express and uh and give your side of the story because a lot has been said about you on social media. You've been retweeted by Elon Musk. You've been had your name and face uh really dragged through the mud of the internet in a in quite a shocking way. Um >> and I don't think people have heard yet your side of the story. Can I ask just before we get into that why you chose us to be the first place you've given this your interview for? >> Yeah. No, absolutely. I mean, firstly, I'd just like to kind of thank you guys for also reaching out to me. Um, I think I chose you guys cuz I'd obviously seen the interview with Tilly, I'd kind of seen some of the other stuff you guys had done. And I really appreciated a the fact that you guys came to me openly and instead of you know trying to give a platform to say catch me out or give bad faith interview, you guys are very open that look we kind of just want to have a very open conversation about what happened you know let you be able to speak to your side of the story and you know be very fair and you know hold me to account in a certain degree but also allow me to be able to explain myself and explain the context surrounding the situation explain everything that happened. I really appreciate that. Of course, man. Of course. Look, we we firstly we believe in free speech, right? And um look, I I personally found, you know, your reaction was quite shocking to me at first. And and >> but look, I'll be real. Like, I've also been a 20-year-old guy >> and um you know, every single person that I've spoken about to tell them that we're doing this interview in the media world, basically said something along the lines of if every if all my private views from 20 years old had been in the public eye, you know, it wouldn't be look very good on me either. And those are people in positions of power. uh there's the politicians uh there's the media personalities >> and I just think as politics is evidently just becoming more volatile and emotions are becoming more kind of public >> and there is just an easier scope by which you can say certain things and then be held kind of accountable in a way that you probably or anybody would really expect. It is just important not just in the interest of free speech but to actually kind of somber some of the conversation that surrounds the environment the febral environment that we're in and kind of demonstrate what democracy I think is all about which is articulating communicating exploring ideas and trying to center it in kind of a human aspect of it where really kind of unhuman and vile things are taking place all around us and we're just trying to work about kind of what the hell is going on in a very crazy society where it's becoming more unknown I think by the day.

>> So George take us back. How did you come to be debating Charlie Kirk? Did you did you make a decision that day that you were going to go and challenge him when he came? >> It's actually quite funny. So I had known that Charlie Kirk was coming you know a couple weeks in advance. Obviously as part of the committee that term we help as a committee you kind of help build out the term card. You invite speakers. One of the people who I knew was coming was Charlie Kirk and I'd been talking to a friend of mine and he'd been egging me on, you know, you have to go debate Charlie Kirk. You have to go debate him. And I was like, why? I don't I don't see I don't see a purpose in debating Charlie Kirk. You know, I don't agree with him on many things at all. And I thought that's that's not someone that, you know, is really going to engage me in productive debate. And so I thought, what's the point? You know, there's no there's nothing to there's no winning in a debate against Charlie Kirk. I thought and so I thought, you know, I'll go to the event regardless. He's a massive political commentator. I've seen some of his content. I'm curious what he has to say. And you know, so I was I was there studying and much has been said about the attire I wore. I did not plan on debating Charlie. >> You came in a chis. >> The thing is I know about that though in Oxford. I think for people who are from kind of a normal background, there is a sense that identity wise, you want to you want to look, I'm not here to play your game about these these, you know, old spires and and stone walls. I'm from a place that's not here. >> Exactly. And so I got why you were dressed like that in a way and that's part of what offended them was cuz I think it is a little bit punk and it's a bit of a middle finger to the institution >> and they're like well how dare how dare this person not respect you know the I don't know pump of >> definitely because I find like I find authenticity is key and I'm not trying to change myself to fit into an institution that wants to dress me up in a certain way. You know, I was there just to enjoy myself, to enjoy the debate, and listening to Charlie Kirk speak, listening to some of the stuff he some of the stuff he said and I disagreed with and I went, "Right, like I I disagree with this and I disagree with this." And I'm sitting there and I'm stirring. I'm like, "Should I do it? Should I go and talk to him? Like, should I go and debate him? Is it productive?" And I'm hearing other student speakers go up and kind of softball him with questions or, you know, not really push him on points that I feel like I could really push him on. And I'm like, >> what's the worst that could happen? you know like at that point like what happens so what if I get embarrassed a little bit like at least you know I had an opportunity to go and do something interesting talk to someone that I disagree with because I think it's very easy often to you know surround yourself in these bubbles of people that you agree with and then not really engage with anyone else in terms of the views you hold and like actually have a debate and so I thought why not man and so I put my hand up obviously to ask a question and in a way it was a really fun experience you know I mean do I Do I think Charlie Kirk engaged in good faith debate? I don't think, you know, then much has been said about, I think, the way Charlie Kirk often uses certain debate tactics in order to make certain points. >> So, what do you what do you what do you be substantive? >> Yeah, I mean, um, I think I think often times Charlie Kirk is straw man. Um, or for example, even at certain points in time when I was making certain points, he would go on, you know, kind of tangents to kind of mislead or Yeah. deflect or kind of take you away from the substantive points you're trying to make. Um, but I found the challenge of it all quite fun. You know, I had engaged in debate before, but not really in any kind of formalized setting. And so, it was really fun for me to kind of engage myself in that way, kind of play that like mental back and forth. And engage in what I did think at the time was quite respectful back and forth debate between him. And, you know, in that moment, I kind of be began to understood partly why he did it. I just don't necessarily agree with anything that he said, but you know, I think in that moment I really start to see the value in a engaging with people on platforms and b being able to have that respectful debate with people. Just what you said seems to be an art of debating and politics that has been lost so much so that we value that in the way that you're talking about is indicative that the spirit of the debate that he was trying to foster and that you engaged with is kind of becoming few and far between and that is a bit of an indictment surely on the type of societies that we claim to live in that are kind of free speech open >> but that was his attack on that was Kirk's attack on the universities themselves were that they weren't open to like you robust adversarial debate and discourse. I I what I found fascinating about that was that George in real time it sounded to me like you were you you'd been kind of of the view that nothing can good can come out of a debate with Charlie Kirk. You know, maybe I'm just giving him more kind of cannon foder to its fans. Um, and then seeing in real time that actually what you what you had play out before you was the democratic way of doing argumentation and you were like actually no this is this is an opportunity to firstly um stress test my own views but also maybe try and like you know confront his views and and I think that in the Cambridge stuff what they did really effectively was I think that I think they were stronger in argumentation actually than the Oxford uh people >> going back and forth with Charlie >> and like I don't I think also again like why did Tilly like break out and become this star? >> It's because she held her own and she made them whole corn. Do you know what I'm saying? So like the the whole the whole thing of you know blunting these people's power is about having to actually meet them where they are. The the right have been way more adventurous than than the left have been in terms of going into those spaces where they're uncomfortable and having those discussions. >> Yeah. And in all of that they've set the de the debate on their terms. Yeah. And I think that's to a point what you're kind of getting at is that in his kind of tangents and in his um attempt to meander the conversation more towards his kind of ideological worldview, >> it's to catch people off guard and to entirely set the conversation where he wants it to be and then further advance his own line of argument. >> Yeah, 100%. And I think this is kind of the push and pull that I often have with debate content and debate content online which is that a lot of it has kind of been engaged especially early on by the right and because of that they set the debate on their terms and you know you look at like say even Jubilee for example and some of the content they produce and you've got like the one v20 with Hassan and he's debating kind of like >> 20 fascists >> 20 fascists essentially >> and if that autocrat kills you and your family you're fine with that. >> Well I'm not I'm not going to be a part of the group that he kills because that's a whole thing. How do you know? Autocrats tend to kill everyone even makes this point very well in his work. It's the friend enemy distinction, right? You >> the Nazi theoretician. >> Absolutely. I don't care. >> Are you a fan of the Nazis? >> I don't I frankly don't care being called the Nazi at all. >> I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said, "Are you a fan of the Nazis?" >> Well, they persecuted the church a little bit. I'm not a fan of that. But >> what about the persecution of the Jews? >> Well, I mean, I I certainly don't support anyone's human dignity being assaulted. I'm a Catholic, >> but you don't condemn Nazi persecution of the Jews. >> I I think that there was a little bit of persecution. >> Rename the show cuz you're a little bit more than a farright Republican. >> Hey, what can I say? >> I think you can say I'm a fascist. >> Yeah, I am. >> Two. >> Absolutely. >> I'm just checking who's clapping just to get my set of where everyone is on this because you know that millions of people are going to be watching you on YouTube and checking out who the fascists and the Nazis are. I'm I'm not ashamed of that whatsoever. >> The like the over to window of debating even has shifted so far right that it's like >> some of these issues some of these topics I don't even want to engage in you know like people people who are >> but I think that's a self-defeating attitude though. I mean I I do get it. I mean the principle like when we were growing up I think that was very much that was the attitude like you don't debate a fascist sort of thing. And now what's happened is that >> that was very prevalent when I was at uni. >> Exactly. And and I think basically what's happened is that the free speech argument was lost by the left because they were trying to find some arbitrary line about where you could you know where debate was acceptable and wasn't acceptable plus you had this wild west of the internet so the debate was actually happening. So even though you were trying to shut it down on an institutional sense because you didn't want to give it legitimacy it was still going on anyway. Yeah, absolutely. And I think this is something that actually, you know, um in in that group chat that we'll probably come on to later. This was something that actually was raised um you know, people asked me why the hell did Charlie, why the hell was Charlie Kak even, you know, invited? We had, you know, Jordan Peterson the term before, Ben Shapiro in my first year. People always ask me, why the hell did you guys even invite these people? And I think I understand I I very much understand the point of not debating fascist, not engaging with fascist, not platforming certain, you know, fringe views that are really harmful and dangerous. But I think with someone like Charlie Kirk, you can't stick your head in the sand. Like these people don't exist in a vacuum. They have platforms. Like Charlie Kirk was a massive influence on the US election. And to sit here and pretend like he has no influence or to sit here and pretend like that man doesn't have impact um in the things that he says in some of the policies that he helps push, you know, is is foolish. And so I think this was a point that even like you said in listening in sitting there and listening to him talk, I kind of realized in real time that like >> if if people aren't going to engage with these ideas, these ideas are going to go unchallenged and unf.

>> I'll just kind of put it to you then. So, we've done a lot on kind of rage bait and >> I mean, we're doing this [ __ ] podcast. There you go. >> I don't think we can escape the rage bait accusations now. >> But I I feel as though the left has a propensity to throw around these terms and we've just used them, I think, quite liberally around fascists and fascism and things of that sort. And I mean, Charlie Kirk would identify himself as a Democrat who wanted to inspire conversation, who wanted to enrich the conversation that he, I guess, thought wasn't being had on um kind of university campuses. >> How helpful is it to just call people fascists, the people who we disagree with, because >> undoubtedly there are going to be fascists who will like Charlie Kirk. >> You like Charlie Kirk. Yeah, of course. And then there will be a whole >> There's plenty who didn't, right? Nick did exactly a whole range of people who are curious by what he has to say, who want to listen to him to kind of further develop their own views, who are right of center, who may have a whole range of challenges and problems with where they perceive society is going or where it has been. >> So I put it to you. What do you think of the kind of rage baiting Lexus that the left kind of employs sometimes willy-nilly? It's interesting you you describe it as like rage baiting, Alexis. I think I think often times and especially what we're seeing with internet kind of discourse now is a loss of nuance. People it's people want to find an easy solution or an >> 140 characters. >> Yeah, exactly. An easy label to kind of um describe a whole group of people that they want to argue against. I think often times, you know, the labels of fascist or um even kind of racist to some degrees are kind of thrown around to kind of act as a catchment and I think they mischaracterize the issue which is not to say those principles aren't there in some argumentation that those ideologies don't feed into a foundation of say fear that leads people into these circles that leads people into these pipelines. But I think often times blanket calling someone a fascist because they agree with some policy positions and maybe haven't done research or you know engaged with other policy positions I think mischaracterizes the problem you know and you don't end up engaging those people in any meaningful way. you just increase the polarization across the internet because now someone's offended that you've called them a fascist and well who's going to accept them the right that look to kind of bring anyone into their umbrella while you know I think often times the left can can fall into this almost purity checking kind of culture which you know I think is another issue to kind of get into eventually >> your purity check are the ones who say don't platform Charlie Kirk you know I think the same thing like Steve Bannon I remember being at the Oxford Union There's like mass massive protests. Um, and it's like guys like he just masterminded the election of Trump and you don't want to hear what he has to say. You don't want to have to challenge him. Like this is a it's it's it's a self arandisement I think actually that and a bit it's hubris that makes people think that we don't need to look into this sort of stuff. But I think you know as you said right like if you use the word racist to just you know label anyone who disagrees with you. I've literally been told by reform people, campaigners, that's a like that's a recruitment drive for them. We're helping them recruit by doing that. So, this is really not in our interest. And Gary Stevenson actually came out recently basically to kind of challenge the left on this.

>> I think there is a risk that the left gets very very angry and starts to be really really aggressive and accusatory towards people who might be voting for reform. I want to show you a clip which I saw on Politics Joe the other weekend. So, let's run it. wealth tax or no wealth tax? >> It's a very hard one. I mean, I come from a working-class town. Everything in kind of reforms policies would maybe leaning more towards no wealth tax. >> So, for me, if the wealth tax was possible, I'm at a stage in my politics where I would actually support it. >> There are a lot of reform voters who' be supportive of wealth taxes. If you want to get progressive change in the next election, you need to win people over. And I think you need to be really careful to resist the temptation to go around shouting at people, calling them racists. Um, listen, there are racists in this country. There always have been racists in this country. I totally understand the instinct of people on the left to worry about increasing racism in society. I think it's happening. I can feel it happening. You need to be pragmatic. You need to be sensible. Reform are going to win the next election. And you are not going to stop that by turning around and calling people racists. You need to be relentless and aggressive in your pursuit of common ground and unity. And that means you're willing to go to people who you might not agree with everything about and say, "Listen, I know we don't agree on everything, but let's find the thing that we do agree on and let's fight for that." Because those people at those protests, they just like you are struggling to pay the rent. Their kids are struggling to pay the rent. They're struggling to find economic futures. If you center that, if you focus on that, you can build something positive. You can win them over. If you focus on what divides you, all you're going to do is make this country more and more divided. >> And I had a comment from one person being like, "How dare Gary Stevenson as a white person tell people what racism?" I'm going, "Bro, if I said that, you would be pissed off. So don't act like it's about his whiteness. You just don't want to be told that you have to try and empathize with people who disagree with you." That's my view.

>> I think I think again though with these things push and pull because it's difficult to tell. I mean, even me, for example, who's been like a victim of racial abuse on the internet for the past 3 weeks, I think it's difficult to then go and be like, I need to now empathize with the same people who have made death threats against me and my family. You know, I think I think what Gary Stevenson I think was trying to get at, which I don't think he quite so eloquently put is I think the racism necessarily that might be going on especially in the country right now when you look at kind of the cultural climate is separate from the fear. I think the fear triggers the racism instead of the racism triggering the fear which I think is kind of a misalignment of the way people see that relationship. You know, like it's hard, especially, you know, as someone who if you you know, you're you you go out and you're working your 9 to5 or a 9 to7 and then you come back home, you're tired, you're busy, you've got kids to feed, you've got family to provide for, and then you go on the internet and you see, you know, from mass media outlets that, you know, immigrants are this and immigrants are that >> in a hotel. >> In a hotel, sure. or even that, you know, all of these kind of misleading stories that paint immigrants or paint people of color in a certain way. And it creates this culture of fear that you know people aren't people aren't they're not tackling like the Labour party is failing in that sense to kind of tackle these issues and the only people that are trying to speak to those issues you know and I disagree with many of the policy platforms but you can you cannot deny the effectiveness of the reform party in being able to a stoke that fear and then b capitalize on that fear and I think you know when you talk about kind of racism in this country and you talk about kind of the institutionalized history of it and you talk about kind of where it's going now and it's this culture of I think fear and constant kind of bashing of different groups and you go well of course they're going to blame these people because there is no one you know the left the left wing of the UK government isn't out here trying to tackle these narratives not out here trying to say actually it's not that immigrants are taking people's jobs or it's not that immigrants are a danger to people instead they're feeding into the exact same narratives they're talking about closing down the tells they're talking about strengthening the border and all of these kind of narratives and all of these kind of talking points just become absolutely like storms of fear and they come become storms of almost disinformation and misinformation where people then start to hold all of these misaligned views and misaligned beliefs that are very t are very difficult to tackle because once you're in that mindset your your priorities completely shift you know you're not >> so so in an absence of it seems like you're calling there's an or stating there's an absence of leadership or of kind of um yeah a political leadership that you think needs to steer us out of what we're in. >> Absolutely. >> Where do people go given the kind of brazen alternative is reform and there are new kind of political synergies emerging but it seems as though you're looking for something possibly a bit more radical in that. >> I do think so. I think radical is an interesting way to describe it. I think when you look at someone like Zach Palansky, I think he's a very good example of a new age way to kind of tackle tackle these narratives. Zor Mamani as well as well in the US I think is great in terms of >> making it very very clear what a your policies are making it very clear the kind of messaging you want to provide and then being very direct in how you attack not making these kind of you know large scale um generalizations. >> Yeah, he's just a populist though. >> Who >> is that Pansky? >> No, I mean he he described himself as an eco population. Yeah, but that's but I think that's about grabbing media attention. When you hear about the way he talks about the environment, when you when you hear the way he talks about class politics, like he has some very clear kind of policy ideas. And I think Zoran is probably a better example of this in terms of like with his um state sponsored supermarkets and stuff like this like he has very clear kind of solutions to certain problems and he stays laser focused on them. And I think you know from an institutional level I think that's one way to tackle it. I think when you look at the people, I think a lot of it will start to come from community building. I think kind of one thing I've kind of learned throughout kind of my time in university is the power of the community of people being able to come together actually have discussions because I think a lot of the time as well, you know, in this climate of fear, people aren't coming together, you know, like people are scared to go outside because Union Jack flags and because people aren't able to engage each other in the pubs or at the parks, people aren't able to empathize as easily. people aren't able to even, you know, in a in a low stakes environment engage with debate or engage in a topic. I mean, like, it's kind of crazy that one of the only places where I can really go and test myself in a debate is on a national stage debating Charlie Kirk. There aren't many other spaces that kind of give you the the platform or the framework to be able to even debate or engage with other ideas. I think you know it will come from a shifting culture that is less about finding a reaction and more about finding a solution. I think it will come from a shift in people you know taking a more active role in the politics that they seek to put forward taking a more active role in community organizing or community projects or helping out those in need. And I think that's something that takes time, but I think that's something that also like cultural leaders, you know, pop culture, celebrities as well as politicians also have to take full force in terms of being able to push because I don't think it just comes from the government, especially when you look at how disillusioned some people are with these broad institutions and you look and you see the influence of influencers and celebrities in the political climate and you go, well, these are the people that also are going to make change.

Let's let's go back cuz um we we've spoken about some big issues here and um we can we can sink our teeth into them, but I think it's important that we kind of still track what happened. So post so post Kirk uh debate >> I imagine you become a little bit of a local celebrity. >> Yeah. Um people know you as the guy debate Charlie Kirk etc etc. you, as I understand the story is you've at the last moment kind of decide to run to be president of the Oxford Union. Is that correct? >> Um, yeah, I'd say I put my I put my hat into the ring pretty late. Um, >> so what was that was the decision-m process there? >> Yeah, I think kind of I'd spent spent a lot of time around the union. I'd seen >> that's interesting to me as well because the union in my head was and we've spoken about this before in the podcast. It's it's a bit of like a I don't know it's quite shallow as an institution and a lot of people see it as a vehicle to then becoming like a politician or a journalist or whatever and we know about those kind of like well trodden paths and stuff. >> Um so what was your attraction to the union as as well? >> So I didn't know about the union before I came to Oxford. Um I kind of got here and you know the union is the biggest society in Oxford and so you get there and you hear a lot of buzz from students immediately. You know it kind of has a reputation amongst the student populace. you know, you hear so many different things, so many different massive characters and obviously just as well the huge array of speakers everywhere. I mean, Tom Hanks came like in my first term. That was pretty cool to see. >> Um, and so you kind of hear all of this about the union and you get intrigued. And for me, I mean, >> even the reason why I applied to Oxford in the first place, my teachers told me that, you know, you're you're bright, you could go to Oxford. That means something to the people around you. That means something to the community. when you go people people back home in school will look at you and go that could be me one day and so I went okay bet like I hear that and then I got to the union and the union especially again amongst the student has this very kind of like there you know there's an assumption of the kind of people that might succeed in the union or like a way of acting within the union a way of moving in the union and I thought well I mean this is a really cool space firstly like where regardless of the reputation that world-class speakers come, you get to engage in debate. This is a society that turns over a million pounds in revenue yearly and it's completely student run. That is like insane to me. I'd never heard of anything like that and I wanted to be involved. And then I got more involved, you know, I was convinced to run by a good friend of mine who ended up becoming president. And in seeing kind of the environment, I went, well, I want to be able to move through this environment with authenticity. I like to think that if I'm genuine and if I if I'm true to myself, you know, I can succeed in a place like that. I backed myself. I thought if if a space like the Oxford Union, which you know is historically this paragon of almost like almost like British politics and British journalism, if I can move through that space and navigate that space in a way that I feel is authentic to me, then who's to say I can't go and do that in British politics or who's to say I can't go do that in a corporate environment, you know, kind of again want to stress test myself. Um, and so I got involved. I started running with various different people. I thought, you know, these people share in the same kind of ideas of wanting to shift the culture of the union away from some of the toxicity, away from some of the imagery that the union has been steeped in. And >> what is that toxicity? I think often times elections can be, you know, people people want to win and people and I think often times you can see you can see people get very emotionally invested in things and often times people can you know end up feeling slighted or feeling pained by elections which is understandable you know they're competitive everyone wants >> popularity contest >> oh to a degree yeah and I think >> as our lives get sharpened in a way in a sense. Yeah. I think sometimes, you know, people aren't able to engage in goodnatured competition. And >> for me, who's someone someone who's always moved through that space, I've always wanted to engage in that good nature competition. You know, I've never quite understood why things need to be such that they are. And so, that's kind of something I've always tried to push. especially with others is something I've always tried to push is aiming to detoxify the union, aiming to make it as safe a space as possible, aiming to make it as culturally inclusive as possible, aiming to talk about as many different things and topics as possible within the union and you know within that then open it up to the student community even more because I think it's it's such a melting pot right now of different political ideologies, different groups, different cultures which I find so fascinating and I want to only expand that further. Did like did you want your left-wing politics to be more represented in the union? >> I don't think so. No. I think I think often times actually what's quite interesting in the union is especially when people run the political faction, the political ideologies kind of aren't necessarily what people run on, you know? I mean, it's not to say it doesn't have impact. It's not to say that, you know, your political leanings don't affect to some degree the way you move through the union, but like I I have never run in the union on a leftist platform or vote for me because like because I'm a leftist or whatever, >> you know what I mean? That's never really been it. I think my politics might inform some of the other kind of ideas I have for the union in terms of a wanting to say make it more inclusive or >> What do you mean by inclusive though? like what which which debates are not being included by the union or which people aren't being included. Say for example, I started an event last year in the union called Sab Chess, which was a partnership with the African Caribbean Society, which was very much centered around having having a space to have discussions that are primarily focused on the African Caribbean community that are primarily focused in the black community in Oxford as well, and talking specifically about topics and identity and issues within the black communities in across university, for example, which is something that didn't really exist in the union before then. Um, >> so do you think black people don't feel comfortable in the union? >> I wouldn't say that. I think the union has historically been >> hosted Malcolm X back in the day. >> It did. It did. You know, and that that's that's a man that man's a massive idol of mine and a big inspiration to me. I think, you know, the union the union has historically been an institution that is populated by, you know, certain groups of people. I think. >> Go on, call them out. >> You don't want to get in trouble. I'll do it for you. It's posh, middle class, comb counties, private school people. It is. It is. I'm sorry. It's just a fact. I mean, um, people who've basically been told that the world is is theirs to a certain degree in terms of like go and go out and get it and do whatever you want. And then they see the union as an institution where they can raise their personal profile and that's what they go and do. So that's why I wasn't into it when I was at uni. >> And I think when you look at kind of the way demographics are changing in Oxford and you look at kind of the increase in, you know, people of color at Oxford, you know, I think the union is moving in that direction of becoming a lot more inclusive of those people, a lot more inclusive of those spaces. Um, and I think part of that shift is about, especially me as a black person who felt like I could succeed in union, being a visual marker of someone who moves through that space in a way. Exactly. in a way that is authentic to me which is again kind of going back in the track >> and even for people who have been through the kind of university system I still found it quite inspiring that >> you could be yourself I mean >> I recount some of my experiences and I would have felt I would have to compromise an aspect of myself in order to fit in >> to something like that and I guess seeing you >> just being yourself was quite inspiring having been through that system years ago So, so you so can you give me a little bit of background about where you're from? So, it sounds like the school that you went to, not many people went to Oxbridge. So, you went you're from Chelsea, is that right? >> I'm from Fulham. >> From Fulham. Okay. Right. Right. Right. So, Southwest Boy. >> Yeah. >> Um, so like give me a sense of your like community where you're from. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so it's a very kind of multicultural community. I went to a state school in Chelsea, um, which is also a very vibrant multicultural school. Um but again we don't have the highest number of kind of follow ons to Oxbridge. I think in my year group I was the only person in my year to go to Oxford and we had two in my year that went to Cambridge which you know is good. >> That's better than most. >> It's good. It's good but again it's not I wouldn't say it's a factory of people that go to Oxbridge. >> Um >> and so >> you know in again in in going to that school and being in that space I was kind of told you know you're someone that could do things. you're someone that's bright, you should you should use that. You should you should be able to put on for your people. You should, you know, use the opportunities that you might, you know, might be able to access and to go and to go and try and make something of yourself so that people can look back and go, this is something I could do as well. And that's something that's always really stuck with me. >> You then go to you you run, you get elected. >> Um, so that must be like the back end of last year. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, the summer happens. Look, I was on holiday actually the week that Kirk was murdered.

>> Talk me through that day for you. >> Yeah, I mean obviously I'm at home and I see the news and I react, you know, and I think the >> instantly. >> Yeah, instantly. And the media has kind of >> So, had you seen the video then? >> No, I had not seen the video. >> You just saw the headlines. I didn't even know, you know, all I saw was shooting at Charlie Kirk event, you know, and the media has kind of painted it as this, you know, I'm celebrating his death or I'm celebrating the shooting. Um, but it's kind of a massive misrepresentation of what happened. And, you know, when you see the headline, you you said you were shocked when you saw the headline. I can understand that reaction. You know, you see someone celebrating death and you go like that's that's quite visceral, but it's again like a massive misrepresentation of like what happened, >> right? I saw a screenshot of it saying Charlie Kirk got shot, let's [ __ ] go. >> And then an Instagram one which was Charlie Kurt got shot lol. >> Yeah. So the Charlie Kurt got shot lol was on an Instagram note. I think Charlie Kurt got shot. This one was on a private story. >> Okay. >> And you know I I reacted I reacted again poorly. I reacted very quickly. Again, at the time I didn't know anything about the situation and you know I I retracted and deleted my comments and then the stories come out a day later talking about I celebrated his death and I'm like well hold on >> and you didn't know he was dead. >> I had at this point I had no watch. >> Yeah, exactly. And you know >> do you think if you'd watched the video you wouldn't have said that? >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean you know like again when we when we talk about that group chat you know and I think one thing that's kind of lost in all this is like a lot of other students were also dox in that group chat which is like kind of horrible and they've had to go through some horrible things as well and like it's a group chat that was being used to talk about many different political issues like many different political discussions like I said earlier we' even talked about the idea of whether or not to platform Charlie Kirk >> and you know this is a group chat where a lot of discussion happens and we talk about many different

Things we talk about, you know, the efficacy or the ethical nature of debating someone like Charlie Kirk. And I was advocating for challenging these people, challenging their views that I disagree with. One of which being gun reform. You know, this is a man that at various different points has said that, "You know, gun deaths were a prudent deal or a necessary sacrifice to be made for the right to arms."

Exactly. Which, you know, that man's 30, that man was 31. I'm 20. As a 20-year-old to hear someone talk about life in such a callous nature was difficult. You know what I mean? People, people have died. Like, there have been 340 mass shootings in America this year alone. Like, 390 people have died, thousands are injured. And these are mostly children. These are people with families, people with lives. And, you know, someone like Charlie Kirk, who goes on these platforms and says these things, and, you know, you think this is someone that would never be, you would never have to deal with these kind of issues. This is someone who, he, he goes around university with an ensemble security team. You would have never thought that he would have been a victim of it. And then he is. And the immediate reaction was one of like, immediate, like, "Oh my God, like, shock. Like, what the hell happened?" And, you know, in this conver, in this group chat where we're talking about various different things, and I go, "Charlie Kirk got shot, lol." And it's an immediate, like, visceral reaction. And it's not even me celebrating. You know, like,

"Did you say so? You didn't say, 'Let's [ __ ] go'? Was that not that's not real? That screenshot?"

No, no. So this was, this was part of a different, like, this is like, kind of when I went, when I reacted, kind of on various different, like, platforms. I kind of went into the group chat, said it, and then on my private story again. Kind of, here at the moment, you're not really thinking very things through very much, and you kind of react instantly.

Yes, you've said a throwaway comment. The thing is, I'm, I'm not trying to do this to like, catch you out. Like, this is what people have seen, right? So I would look like a chump if I didn't, if I didn't bring up the the.

"I can understand as a 20-year-old guy."

Saying something [ __ ] stupid.

"Sometimes performatively in a in a group chat."

Obviously, people don't know you.

"People see you as this person who's president-elect of this massive institution. People see you as a person who debated him. So, it's like, wo, like, how is that somebody's instant reaction to it?"

And, and I think, I think what's going on here is a little bit like, there's been so much desensitization.

"That as a generation that we've gone through that someone getting shot is not like."

For some people. And I think especially for young, for younger guys. I do think like, there's a little bit of like, you learn more empathy the older you get. You, you, you realize more about like, the, the kind of importance and the weight of certain actions and certain stuff like that. And I accept as well, you hadn't seen the video. And I don't think you would have reacted that way. You know, judging you as, as the person that I'm seeing before me today, that you would have reacted like that. But there is a sense of like, that callousness in politics that really concerns people and really concerns me about when we see escalating political violence.

And the callousness that I guess was embodied to a point in the message that was sent around. But then the subsequent callousness around you, which was kind of, you're the president-elect of the Oxford Union with dreads and with trackies on, and a whole kind of barrage of abuse that was sent your way.

And I guess you've had to, to a point, a chance to articulate.

"How this kind of timeline of events came about."

But there seems to be, to a point, a kind of a nuance in how all of these things intermingle and play with each other. Um, and how would you have been met with the same hostilities were you someone else? And I mean, that is.

"Yeah, that's the counterfactual. I think that that does rest on some people's mind. I mean, what do you think? Do you think you would have been treated differently if you weren't a black guy with dreads from from Fulham?"

I mean, I think it's a topic that, especially whenever I talk to friends and I talk to family, it's something that is always kind of brought up. Is this idea that, you know, part of the reaction is because of the way I look. It's the way I present. And kind of going forward, it's something, you know, you're aware of. But I guess you almost don't realize just the, just how serious it can be until kind of it hits you. And you know, like when, when, when certain comments or certain things you say are taken out of context, it's very hard to kind of close that bottle up again. And I think, you know, you're seeing a lot of kind of different misconceptions now about who I am. I think you're even seeing people clip up parts of speeches I made in which kind of they're trying to paint me out as this kind of violent person.

"Violent revolutionary."

"To effectively create change in the world we desire. Inside prop will argue that at times there is simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation. And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with. This view, the view that some institutions are too broken, too regressive, too oppressive to be reformed. Like cancers of our society, they must and they should be taken down by any means necessary."

And then quite literally 20 seconds later in that same speech, I go on to then advocate for peaceful protest in saying that.

"Sometimes violence, violent protests plant the seeds of their own demise. Revolutions may overthrow oppressive regimes, but what follows? History has shown us that extremism in the pursuit of justice often stumbles after its apparent triumph. A battle won, but the war often lost. A victory undermined by the chaos that comes next. See, this house believes moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Yes, I argue tonight that moderation is not just a virtue. It's a strategy, a necessity, and the key to sustainable change.

I think the problem with that specific speech was that it was really unclear in the way that you said your argument, what you, what you stood for. So that mean that clips.

"I feel like you can use the words like."

Again, this is the problem when you kind of take, when you can take things out of context. So clearly in the full context of what I said, I think it was quite clear actually, my view, which was that, you know, at the end of the day, peaceful protest, I do think is the most productive way to kind of go about making institutional change, at least currently in the world we live in. And I think, I think again, when you're able to take words out of context, they lose their meaning. And if you took the context out of, you know, something that everyone said at a certain time, you know, any, like, any anyone could find themselves in this situation.

I think.

"I think the graciousness to a point has been lost of."

"What the union and what debating is about, which is to develop your ideas and they will, they won't always be coherent and astute in the way that you would aspire for them to be."

Yeah. 20 years old. Yeah. No, Tim Stanley defended you in the Telegraph on that point.

Yeah. Exactly. And I just think that that has been lost in all of it. I mean, I would argue it's kind of become a bit too serious, the kind of debating chamber of Oxford. And I understand the kind of the credence of it all and its place within kind of British culture and history.

Um.

But at the end of the day, it is a student union designed to foster debate, discussion.

Yeah, I get it. I do. But I also see the other side of the, like, it's Oxford. It's like one of the biggest exports of this country. You know, Oxbridge is, it's kind of like how we, part of how our national image is on the world stage. You know, there's a famous story about Hitler reading about 1930s emotion that, you know, Oxford students wouldn't fight for king and country and thinking that that means that they were ready to attack, you know.

Um, so of course, it has, it has this steeped history about of political importance and it, it's where a lot of politicians cut their teeth. So I, I do see the other side of that of that ledger. I think one of the problems, George, was that in the aftermath of it, when you apologized, you qualified your apology. And I think for a lot of people, if you say, "I'm sorry, but," it doesn't sound like an apology, right? And it sounded like you doubled down. Could you explain a little bit more what you wanted to get across with that statement? And do you feel like that was misinterpreted to any degree?

I mean, I think one thing that's kind of lost in all of this, especially in the news stories that, you know, don't like, misrepresent the situation, is that again, my comments were retracted and deleted immediately after seeing the video, which was horrific. And also, I had then apologized on my social medias to the people that kind of had seen that, you know, and I talked about the need for empathy in our politics and our discussion. And I think when giving a qualified apology, I'm very much coming at it from a point of not only, not only do I want people to obviously see that I'm remorseful for the comments I made and for the way people interpreted them and understood them, but also that that reaction comes in a context. You know, it doesn't come in a vacuum. And like the reaction comes as a result of the political climate with which Charlie Kirk, you know, spoken, the political climate with which Charlie Kirk stoked. And, you know, when you, this is someone that, you know, had had various different views that again, don't exist in a vacuum. You know, some of the, some of the kind of rhetoric which was espoused could be very harmful. I mean, he said, he said, he said in a jubilee debate that, um, black people were better under the Jim Crow era, when black people were being lynched in America. Like we were like, subjugated to like, some of the harshest discrimination that's been seen in the world.

"Blacks in America did not have the same rights they had today. There were less, they were less murderous. There was less break-ins. Why is that?"

So I'm sorry. Are you trying to say that blacks thrive under subjugation?

No, I'm not. I'm saying they, I'm asking the question. The data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad. It was evil. But what happened? Something changed. They committed less crimes.

Maybe they were afraid. I mean, 4,000 black men, women, and children were killed in violent lynch.

That's your explanation. But I just.

Racial terror permeated American culture for hundreds of years.

Black America is worse than it has been. That affected the generational psych of an entire group of people.

I'm sure it did. I'm not discounting that. I'm just trying to understand why is it the more social welfare we've done? So we've spent 20 trillion dollars on uplifting black communities. 20 trillion. And black Americans are poor. We've done everything that's been asked.

That context doesn't just disappear. And, you know, my comments again, they were rash and they were ill-considered. But.

They weren't considered.

They were ill-considered.

Yeah.

But they don't exist in a vacuum. And I think that has kind of been lost on all of this.

So do you think that some people will hear that as you saying to a certain extent Charlie Kirk bears responsibility for his own death?

I'm not saying he bears responsibility. But well, I'm not saying he bears responsibility. But as a political commentator, it's not, it's not that you, it's not that you deserve what you get. That's not what I'm saying at all. But when, when you, when you, when you speak into a political climate, when the way in which we talk about politics, as you're saying, is becoming desensitized, is becoming more polarized, it leads to.

"It can be inflaming."

Exactly. Like it can be inflaming. It can, it can, it can be difficult to tease apart individual influences. It can be, it can be difficult to tease apart why exactly someone has done something. And you look at the overall environment and you go, "Well, people aren't willing to engage with each other. People are are spreading these, like, spreading these, kind of ideologies, or they're spreading these, kind of points of thinking that subjugate certain people, that, you know, call for the non-existence of others." And that's difficult for a lot of people to deal with. And I think again, I'm not saying violence is the way to kind of go about acting out those frustrations. I think there are much more engaged and much more healthy ways to do that. But I think this is, I guess, especially post-death, something that all of, everyone in the political commentary space needs to, I guess, start to consider is the, A, the messaging, and B, what exactly is the end product of that messaging? Like, is, is that messaging something that could then be used to justify doing really, really hateful things? Because I think that's something that we should then be considering why exactly we're putting out that messaging.

Yeah, I think, um, I think there's, I think there's an ar, there's an element of the kind of leftist discourse that wants to make an argument along the lines of, and I saw Shan Ramsey say this, who, um, is a TikToker, but this idea that the chickens came home to roost for for Charlie Kirk. I think that there's something quite unnerving about that narrative. Whilst look, I, I completely accept that there's been some revisionism on who Charlie Kirk was. You know, Charlie Kirk bust people to, um, the capital insurrection. You know, he said, I, I haven't seen that specific clip, but, um, I'll take your word for it, but, you know, there's plenty of things, you know, this idea that women, you know, shouldn't have jobs, etc. I think it's like, it's ludicrous. But there were all things that ultimately Kirk was saying out loud, and you could go, you literally could physically go to him and make your case in the opposite direction. And I think the concern that I have is that whilst you can hold on the one hand that Charlie Kirk was involved in some coarsening.

"Of political discourse in America, we, I, I'm really, really nervous about the idea that like we, we kind of stoop to that level to a certain degree. And I think that that, there's you have to always think that anytime someone looks like they've been killed for their beliefs, that's an assault on all of us. That's, that's an attack on all of us who believe in, in, in democratic norms. Um, and that's not to say that, you know, rhetoric and and and uh, political discourse hasn't changed in a really unnerving and kind of concerning way in America. I think it has and I think we're importing some of that over here. Um, but I think we still need to be really kind of robust in calling that out.

And a level of kind of cautiousness because to me, in some senses, it could be read that what you're advocating is permitting that even to happen on a different side, which, as you've said, Freddy, I mean, I'm not saying that's what you said, but I think it can be read into as such."

But they're definitely reading that that's their argument. That would. Yeah, that is.

"Um, and as you said, the kind of coarsening of kind of political discourse is an affront to all of us. But not only is it an affront to all of us, it completely erodes the integrity of a democracy.

Going forward. And as we lurch into kind of an unknown kind of territory around how democracies traverse this weird new world that I think we're on the cusp of.

The inflammation of conversation and debate and discussion is possibly only going to become.

More inflamed. And I think just to add to that, right? I think, you know, we've just seen a terrorist attack at a synagogue this week."

Awful.

"And and then, you know, the day, this is obviously like a very controversial thing, but like the day, uh, I think that evening, right? There was pro-Palestine protests in in the UK. Uh, I personally think that those were ill-judged in my view because.

We need to lower the temperature of discourse, right? And at the moment, what I'm seeing is that every identity in this country, pretty literally, every identity feels that they are the victim of some form of subjugation, oppression on the other side. The Jewish community, you saw, if you saw the clip of David Lammy giving his speech outside, blood on your hands, you're all guilty of. You have allowed two haters in Manchester on the street. You have allowed. You are all guilty. You do not want speaking here today. You do not want. Shame on you. Shame on you.

They were attacking him, saying that you were responsible for this by allowing those marches. Right. On the other side of those marches, those people are saying, "Well, you're allowing this." And then you see a, then you see a burning attack at at a mosque, which I'm, which is absolutely heinous. The, the thing that everyone, you know, when we make a call for unity in the face of stuff like that, no one wants to hear it, which to me talks to a febral environment that actually should be alarming all of us. And also, what is it? And, you know, you made this point earlier about the communications environment being radicalizing to a certain degree, right? But if that is the case, then we really need to be even more upfront about how we, like, turn that dial down in my view."

I mean, you touched upon it a bit earlier, this kind of grievance politics. At least that's how I read it to be. And for all of the kind of identitarian woes and challenges that I think the country are in, and they're not just kind of the trivial kind of wokeish leftist identitarianism, but deep-seated sense of people who are not accommodated by government in any way, be it for their ethnicity and their race, or their class, or whatever it may be. To me, it seems, and not to be too Marxian about it, but there's, we're in an economic crisis which is fueling some of this stuff.

Yeah.

"And so."

"That's that fear to exactly. And the underpinning aspect of it is the fact that as a country, we are struggling with the reality that people are getting poorer. And the promises of meritocracy and social democracy no longer manifest for most people."

What do you say? I mean, is that a fair observation?

We're not asking you to solve that by the way. No.

"You still haven't finished your degree. But um, you know."

"In five years time, you can."

But do you see, I think like, what, like, what I'm trying to, I think what we're both trying to say is that we, there's, there's one side that I think we are, you know, I can see your point of view, but on the other side, I think like, in a way, what you had come in was the, the reality crashed at your door about how much that you are actually, like, by being president-elect of the union, you're actually someone with some political capital in this country.

No, absolutely. I think, you know, 20-year-old, you don't, you don't think what you're going to say will ever reach national news. Um, I think you're absolutely right and I think it's a very apt kind of analysis of things. Things happening in a country like, like I said, talked about a lot of fear and a lot of that fear is stoked by uncertainty around, like you said, cost of living, around kind of the future. Like, like it's harder to, it's harder to go to university, it's harder to, it's harder to buy a home. Life is more expensive. Like these things weigh on people's minds. And like you said, like when, when all of these things are more difficult, and then you go on the news, and then, or you go, you read in the papers, and you see people trying to score political points by blaming and blaming. And you see, you go online on the internet, and you see more and more people just angrily engaging with each other. It becomes very difficult to again, pass apart what is true, what is not, pass apart what is, what is almost productive, and what is not. And you end up with a lot of people who again, are just scared and trying to protect themselves. And as a result, fall into a lot of these kind of really harmful ideas. I think that often times are used to kind of turn people against each other. And, you know, you saw, I guess, the really sharp end of that afterwards. You're getting retweeted by Elon Musk.

"You've got essentially the, I mean, the former prime minister calling for you to be expelled from university."

"You know, really crazy levels of like, um, uh, of online scrutiny. I mean, the highest you could probably possibly argue in the world level of scrutiny."

Yeah.

"Um, I mean, how was like, how has that affected you?"

I mean, it was insane. Like the first couple days especially, like was so difficult. I mean, like, it's, it's kind of, you know, you, you're not really a public figure, and then all of a sudden, I've got like, every news hated, like, I'm hated, and every news channel under the sun is, is.

Talking about me, calling for my head. I had people hurling abuse at me. People turned up at my parents' shop. They, they, they were, they were shouting at my parents. I had, you know, a journalist in America call for me to be shot, saying that it would be worth the 50-year jail sentence. And it's like.

Exactly. And you read all of these things and like, it's so difficult to sit here and, and take that, you know, on the chin. I was like, I was lowkey scared to leave the house for like days on end. And.

"And you're kind of, it's, it's, it's diff, it was really difficult. It was really difficult. Like, I won't lie. Um, and in all of this, I'm trying to take things day by day. And like, I'm obviously, you know, you learn, you grow from that experience. And I'm just like, you know, I don't want this, I just, I don't want this to be the end of me. Like, I want to be, like, I had, I had big aspirations of wanting to improve the world around me. Like, I went to Oxford not, not just because it's Oxford, but like, I said, because I want to point for my community, because I want to be the change that I hope to see in the world. And a lot of, a lot of not just the hate and the death threats and everything, but like, almost I felt like I was mourning that loss of opportunity to be able to go and now make something of myself and improve the world around me. Um, and I think that was very difficult. And I think in coming to Oxford and then trying to get back on that horse and trying to kind of do, do work and start to kind of help, help, help mend and amend things, kind of has kind of helped put me back into a better mindset of, look, at the end of the day, like, you're still 20. And, you know, if every 20-year-old ever was blasted on international news, you know, I don't think anyone would make it. But this is, this is a learning opportunity at the end of the day. You know, in the same way, anyone who says something dumb on a group chat and then gets held accountable by their friends, I'm going to take it in the same way, you know, and develop some tough skin. And, you know, this might even be an experience that I'm able to then use to then go and more, more effectively make the change I want to see. More effectively engage in those debates, more effectively be able to help people in a way that is productive, instead of is instead of being part of this kind of ecosystem of of hate and fear and engagement."

You, you had a similar experience, didn't you, during the claim?

Yeah, I mean, I was listening to that and I could completely empathize because, I mean, we've all said stupid things, which I think is the guarantee of this conversation.

"We've all, we've all made mistakes, bro."

And I mean, trivial throwaway comments before you know it, get exacerbated. And in the face of quite abrasive opposition, things can get brought up and things are obviously miscommunicated. Um, and you find yourself defending things that were so far from.

"The intention."

Um, of what you were trying to articulate.

"And yeah, I mean, I had my experiences. I mean, I made a, I commented on a friend's post, um, years ago about, uh, she said something about drinking white men's tears and I put, 'Being my favorite drink.' It was, I mean, it, exactly. It's so, it's so, it's so ridiculous. Um."

Do you apologize now?

Of course. I mean, it's.

"I tell you off later as well."

I mean, it's a stupid comment. It has no kind of validity in anything.

"Um, and it was a throwaway thing that I, I don't even remember saying it."

Look, I think, I think people need to have better grace for for hearing people be accountable. You, look, you, you've been accountable. Um, you've had your n, like the harshest kind of reputational dragging that you possibly could go through.

"At the start of your."

"At the start of your life. You haven't even finished your your degree yet. I think it will, I think you're learning the lessons of it and it will make you stronger. I think even this conversation, I think we're kind of challenging some of your politics and and making you think about this sort of stuff. But that's part of it, bro. Like when I was 20,

There was not a chance in hell I would have been doing this. My views have changed so much over the last year, let alone the last, um, five years, right? So the idea that this is the end for you is that's [ __ ]. And you know, I think going back to like, and this, you know, Charlie K made this point a lot, which is what people liked about him was this idea that like the substance and the content of what you say in your character is ultimately what determines your success. So, you know, you are not in a position to, to, to like, give up on yourself, right? Like, you are constantly working on yourself and improving. And, um, I think as a society, you know, not to like, get too philosophical, but like, the punitive justice system isn't just about punishing people, that's a punitive bit, it's also about reformation and restoration, or whatever. You know, you made a social transgression, it's not illegal what you said, it wasn't unlawful. You know, and you've had social consequences as a result, and you're going to grow and improve as a result of it. I think that's part of like, a society that's meant to enable that. I think in some ways, it was so harsh, some aspects of it, that that kind of shows the teeth that are being bared by society right now.

"Absolutely."

"And I guess there's a moral obligation, I think, on all of us to accept your words in the spirit that I think you've articulated them to us.

And just have a comprehension. And I think as a society, we have to recognize that the internet is changing how we communicate with ourselves, like our historical selves and our future selves and ourselves today. And if we're so dogmatic about it, then no one's going to get anywhere. And people won't have the scope to do all of the brilliant things that you aspire to do.

"And it only undermines, I think, the institutions that we uphold to be valid within a democracy. Surely."

No, exactly. I think it's, it's difficult. I think obviously in this landscape, especially as people who want to do good, you know, to have one mistake or one kind of thing that you say be an indictment for the rest of your life, you know, I, I also don't think it's even particularly productive.

I think often times you'll find that same kind of indictment then leads people into certain, certain, certain kind of pipelines and platforms that end up almost flipping the mentality on their head. And it's like.

"You think people get red-pilled by basically being cancelled?"

I wouldn't, I wouldn't go that far. I mean, it's definitely, it's definitely something that happens sometimes. I wouldn't say, you know, that's the only way things happen, but I think it's one part of internet discussion. It's one part of internet discourse that we have to be quite clear about. You know, that cancel culture isn't productive. You know, it doesn't, it doesn't help people really move on or learn from an issue. If anything, most people who get canceled only become more entrenched in the problematic views that they were canceled for. And so when we look at kind of cancel culture, you know, like historically, the left has been characterized as the ones weaponizing cancel culture, and now you look and it's the right who are weaponizing it. Like, it's, it's, it's been an insane heel turn that now suddenly because they're in power, they want to defend certain viewpoints. They want to kind of.

"Words really do."

Exactly. Now, now suddenly you can't say certain things. I mean, you know, people, people have, people have a very strong reaction to the way my words were misinterpreted. But there are websites and organizations in America that are getting people fired from jobs, not even for doing anything as close to what I did, but simply for quoting things that Charlie Kirk has said, or simply talking about the fact that this is a man that held divisive views, which is insane to me. Like, that is not productive. That is not healthy. That's not how you engage in debate. It's not how you engage in discussion. And again, like I said, that's not something that's going to help someone flip and suddenly start to be like, "Oh, yeah, no, no, I see your perspective." What? No, that's just going to entrench them further in their views. They're going to go, "These people clearly don't care about me. These people are only out to get me and thus let me, let me retreat further into what I know." I think like this cancel culture we're seeing online, you know, which has become much more prevalent post, post Charlie Kirk's death, I think is worrying. It's worrying for the principles of free speech. It's worrying for internet discourse in general. And I think like, it's something that I think we, we all need to begin to tackle and engage with and and look and go, there are more productive ways to deal with this. There are surely more productive ways to have a conversation or to disagree with someone than to immediately go and and nuclear and try and ruin someone's life.

"Yeah. But that's what people, people want to to do that, don't they?"

Yeah, I mean, they want to have there to be as significant as consequences as possible.

"And they, well, want to reclaim a sense of authority over your words. I mean, as much as it's a conversation around free speech, or whether it is a conversation around free speech, I think more fundamental to that, it's a conversation around the exercising of power and who, what can be said and who can or can't say it."

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the fact that they've spent so long complaining about and saying that we need to be absolutist about free speech, and now it's just been a complete turn to saying like, "No, actually, language can incite violence." It's like, "What the [ __ ] were you lot saying?" Like.

"What's your thing? Free speech for me."

Yeah. Yeah. Me speech, not not free speech, right? Yeah. Free speech for me, but not for thee. And it's, Timothy Snyder's got a really good uh little post about this on his Substack, which is worth a read. But essentially, we've got to a point where, um, you know, discourse is really being shaped by like, online communication realities, right? So like, if something works for their base, I'm talking like MAGA or the right of the populace right here. They're happy to just kind of like, give into that, whatever that is. So that anything's a problem. And it's like, okay, no, let's, let's have a completely open discussion, say whatever the [ __ ] we want. But if you're, we're all in agreement here that this person should be deplatformed, then of course, objectively they should be deplatformed, right?

Um, I mean, so what's, I mean, what's the crack with with the union, bro? Is it like, the union going to deplatform you? What's going on?

The union going to deplatform me? I mean, given ongoing proceedings, there are obviously certain things I can't talk about cuz, you know, you don't want to unduly influence processes, but, you know, there have been many calls on both sides. You know, some have called for my resignation, some have, some of many have called for me to stay. You know, there's been large-scale support statements that have come out. And at the end of the day, I'm at the behest of the membership. You know, I, I want to stay and post. I want to be able to deliver. I want to be able to use that platform not just to atone and to make good on, you know, the kind of things we've talked about today, but again, to begin to engage in that debate, engage in that discussion, be able to steer conversation a way that I think is really, really helpful. And, you know, if the membership, if the membership want to see me continue to do that, then I would love to continue to do that. And.

"Would you be gutted if they, if it meant you couldn't carry on?"

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Like, you know, I, I worked hard to be in that place. It means something to a lot of people, I think, as well, just to see someone who looks different, who speaks differently, who isn't willing, who is willing to present themselves differently in that place. And I think it would be a massive loss for me, for a lot of people, to kind of see, see that capitulation to this kind of online pressure. See that capitulation to to what has been a lot of abuse held at, held at me and abuse held at an institution that has historically stood for free speech. I mean, it's funny actually, you brought up the, the King and Country debate.

Um, which, you know, was a monumental part of Union history, uh, in 1933, when they voted that they wouldn't fight for King Country. And, you know, it was like a massive media scandal at the time. The, the, again, right-wing media, the institutions were like, "How dare these people?" You know, Winston Churchill's son actually came to, he was at Oxford at the time. He tried to have the debate expunged from our minute book. Someone tried to rip the pages out the minute books. Insane drama. And they hold like a massive referendum about whether or not this should be a part of Union history going forward, whether or not we should expunge it from our minute book. And the members voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it in the minute book. You know, like, someone, someone once told me, the union, uh, the union succeeds not in spite of its controversies, but because of its controversies. It's a, it's a bastion of free speech, as it likes to, you know, as it likes to advertise itself. And I think it should uphold that, you know.

"Yeah, I think, I think it should. I mean, I, I'm not like, no offense, but I was never like a lover of the unions, but like, I think it's been, it's, it's the reason why the unions keep coming up in like, political discourse is because basically most of the media class went to Oxbridge and those who didn't go want to want to go."

Yeah. Absolutely. Want to have a. I think it still has, I mean, despite what I said earlier, it does have a relevance in.

"The kind of future of the country as well as its history."

And it is a special place and it should inspire provocation, interest, ambition.

Absolutely.

"And I think that's manifesting. You would, you still be rocking up in your tracksuits?"

I mean, I can't be rocking up on debate days so in my tracksuits, but you guys will see me around Oxford still bopping about, right? Right.

"I think what's also interesting is that if they were to remove you,

It would be such a flagrant politicization of what had happened that in some ways you could argue is counter to the union spirit.

Because, you know, free speech is about, you know, you say what you want regardless of fear or favor, right? So.

As long, what you said, whilst we've made it clear you disagree with it, we disagree with it, most people do, is not unlawful, right? It's like, you're able to express that even if people don't like that opinion. I just feel like it would be so self-defeating for this app place, like, bastion of free speech to then deplatform you over that after you've shown contrition.

"Qualified your views etc."

Yeah. And I think, you know, since being back in Oxford, the one thing I've told almost anyone who's talked to me about it or asked me about it or has kind of brought it up is that, look, I'm willing to talk about this. Like, this is something I'm willing to engage in. I'm not trying to hide away from this issue. It's why I'm here. Like.

"You know, and I think."

"Someone like the union is the best place to be able to have those conversations, you know, to challenge me on my view, help me learn, as well as we challenge each other and ultimately come to a come to a resolution. So, you know, I very much would like to stay in post. I very much would like to follow through."

Look, I mean, let's, let's, let's broaden out. Okay. From we've spoken a lot about Oxford, what happened. I mean, we've spoken about political violence as well and some of the concerns we have. I do think that society's in a bit of a powder keg right now and it's kind of like it looks like it's ready to explode to a certain degree. And there are people who are willing this on. And I don't want to be seen as a show who's also saying like, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, right? Like, um, what do you think we can do now to lower the temperature in political discourse?

I mean, firstly, you kind of do you accept that politics is febril and society is, I mean, you've spoken about it, but do you actually think it is, or is this just a kind of hysterical period we're in where obviously people are passionate, but it's not as bad as maybe we.

Yeah, exactly. I, I, I vehemently disagree with it. It's not that deep camp. I do think everything is that deep.

Agree.

"And I think, you know, especially given the death, I think this might be an inflamed period, but I also think it's, it, that inflammation doesn't come again out of nowhere. You know, political tensions are rising globally. You're seeing, you know, large-scale movements in polit, on the political spectrum. You're seeing the, like, the Overton window in America shift to the right. You're seeing the Overton window in the UK shift to the right. In Europe, you're seeing various different kind of political movements, like tensions are rising. That's undeniable.

Um, how to, kind of, how to, kind of bring that temperature back down is a difficult question. I think, I think A, I mean, it starts with, you know, having conversations. I think being able to give people platforms to have conversations. I think B, it comes with, you know, education as well. You know, prioritizing education. And I think like, one thing, one thing in America, you're seeing which is really concerning is like, the departments of education are being defunded. You know, you're seeing books being banned across libraries. I think that's really scary in terms of, you know, people need to be able to engage with literature, to be able to engage with different ideas. And when that opportunity is taken away from people, well, of course, they're not able to engage with a variety of different ideas. Of course, they're not able to engage with a variety of different perspectives because they've not been taught to. I think prioritizing less of a reactionary culture, less of a culture that is, you know, steered by clicks or views or engagement farming, and more about.

"Again, reaching a resolution or reaching a solution to a problem, I think is key. I, I'm not going to purport to kind of have all the pro, have all the solutions, but, you know."

"It's like I said, I, I, I do kind of a lot of different community society stuff in Oxford, and a lot of, a lot of what I've been trying to do there is about having interesting discussions and having interesting conversations. Like even last year, I, I, it's funny you talked about Red Pill. Um, I actually held a panel on the manosphere and repel content and.

"Kind of learned a lot about myself and learned a lot about that sphere in that. And one thing that I think came out of that conversation that was really prevalent is the need for community. That a lot of people fall into these kind of issues because there is no community around them. There's no comm, like, there's no community of people to take care of them or to catch them before kind of you start to kind of fall into these hateful, hateful kind of spirals. And I think, I think I, personally think a large part of that is bringing back community centers, bringing back third spaces, being able to fund those spaces so that people can, you know, talk to different people. Like, I, I grew up in the youth club, you know, and like, that was, that exactly, that was that was a great space for me to be able to talk to so many different people who don't just look like me, who don't just come from the same places I do, but, you know, hold, come from completely different perspectives, have different views. And I think it's been a large part of why I'm so community-oriented. And I think that shift towards the community is key in terms of being able to bring back people together, bring, bring together conversations."

So you, like Labour's 55 billion pound to regeneration, regenerate high streets. Have you seen that?

I have seen that actually. I think high streets are a big part of it. I also think again, like those community spaces, like bring back art spaces, bring back funding for the youth clubs, like bring back sports.

"And even pubs. I mean, I just think."

"Even the pubs, exactly. You can't afford a pint these days."

I mean, I think pubs are a huge, or what's happened to pubs is a huge scandal because as much as it's about the pub.

It's everybody. It's the public house. It's everybody's sitting room. You can go in there and talk about anything. I grew up in the department.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, you're in the youth club.

Man was on, I was on a P, bro.

I remember I was, I was talking with someone and I say, we need to repoliticize the pubs. And I was like, exactly. Like pubs are, pubs are hubs of community. You know, in the, in the same way, you know, in London, I guess the youth clubs are those hubs of communities. When you go into more rural areas, it's the pubs. You know, you've got like 15, 16-year-olds chilling in the pubs. And I think they've become almost depoliticized spaces when they could, they could be used to do so much more. These are spaces that are open, centralized, that everyone knows about, that could be used to do community projects. They could be used to do art projects, or used for spaces for children to come, like during lunchtime or after school, stuff like that, that, you know, I think, I think there are ways to be so much more creative about the way in which we build and.

tailor and engage our communities. And I think when we start to do that, you know, you'll start to see kind of the the empathy grow. You'll start to see kind of like just that human interaction that is so beautiful. I think it's like it's a large part of why I love London so much is like the multiculturalism, all the different communities that blend together. And I think, you know, that isn't something that just has to be inherent to London. That is something that can exist across the UK. All you have to do is foster that. All you have to do is is is work actively towards building that.

Well, I just think that we don't even have to reimagine some of those institutions. They have existed long in the history of this country. And I think that's how we have been quite a moderate stable country is because the civic forum has long been a sightful conversation. Be it the pub, be it the youth club, be it the um PTA or the the women's institute or whatever it may be. And this decline in kind of volunteerism, but decline in the civic space or the pub or whatever it may be is socially corrosive.

Yeah, absolutely. It atomizes us more and more. I think it's interesting you brought up multiculturalism there cuz I think multiculturalism is on the line at the next election. Um, and I think it's worth reflecting on why that is because your state comp in London still got free people into Oxbridge. And I think people in London find this difficult to understand, but actually to be poor in London is kind of the best place to be poor in the entire UK. It's got loads of social cultural capital. Obviously, it's a huge city. Rich people, Chelsea, rich by poor side by side, right? Um whereas some of these other communities in other parts of the country, like where I grew up, right, had a homogeneity. I'm not I'm not saying this as being like I'm pro like monoculture or whatever, but there was a sense of like the community spirit was upheld it despite the fact that it was economically sliding backwards. So, if you listen to these kind of right-wing agitators who are like ethnationalists, what they're saying is that people have come into these places and now they've actually they've lost that and they're blaming it solely on like the complexion of that community because they've got a few immigrants now there when really obviously the story is actually about social and cultural and and financial um failure. So I think there's something's got to happen where everyone in whatever community they are in across their country needs to see it as responsible on them to go and volunteer and pick up litter and whatever regardless of your backgrounds you know.

And as much as that's true there's there needs to be a recodifying as to what the value system that we're all trying to work towards are there are so many people who subscribe to a different version of Britain and what it is to be British and its subsequent values and cultures as a consequence that as much as I see that to be true, you can still kind of get disperate aims of what people are working towards. So there needs to be a national conversation and I think there needs to be an ongoing national conversation throughout our lifetimes as to what is the country that we aspire to be that we are that we want to be and what are the methods that we facilitate that. One thing that I'm personally quite shocked and saddened by is the fact that Labour came in uh such a volatile time. Um last summer obviously very febral, this summer very hot and very divided. And yet in all of that there hasn't emerged a kind of social cohesion policy, the integration policy. Integration policy is hard to do. It is hard but you have to have the aspiration to do it. I just I do almost find it quite scandalous that given that as you said multiculturalism is on the line at the next election but it's on the line I think right now yeah right now on a daily basis that the government fails to have the courage to recognize that people are having deep-seated opinions about it and we need to have a course corrective on what social cohesion looks like.

Yeah, there's been an erosion of of trust. I think I think the immigration problem in particular has been quite um like that for for those rural seats that are on the right has been the way in which they've been able to articulate that project for for themselves. You know, in hindsight, I think we should have lowered the salience of immigration and just fix the problems instead of just talking about it and not fixing them. But the distrust hasn't come just on the part of the public to politicians. I think politicians are deeply distrustful of the public and their collective ability to make also be very very unfair. I I just disagree. I think it's an instinct on the part of British people irrespective of your background of fairness. I hear you and I think people have a deep sense of all of that. But what is the kind of rallying cry for fairness? So I think as much as the public are distrustful of politicians, I I do think that the political class are deeply distrustful of I mean and that I mean not to revisit conversations from half a decade ago, but it culminated in Brexit and all of that kind of stuff was actually these people can't make a decision and we will stifle it at any opportunity we can and only fuel then a distrust amongst politics and people.

I think it's interesting you you characterize it a distrust. I would almost call it a misunderstanding like I think definitely there's distrust from the public towards the government. I think that's always existed you know it comes about in the way kind of our democracies formed as you know particularly aris aristocratic institutions in their history and have kind of developed onwards from that you know um but it's interesting that you talk about distrust from politicians to to public I think that distrust almost comes from just a misunderstanding of how to engage with people like I think it's almost clearer in America and I think the UK seems to be falling into the same problems like when when the Democrats talk about why they lost their election and they talk about um you know Carmela was talking about oh she couldn't pick Pete Pete she couldn't pick Pete Bha judge cuz he's gay because he's gay that's not why you lost the election you lost the election because your policy platforms were not clear because you couldn't engage with certain parts of the Democrat um Democrat voter base. It's the same thing in the UK. the Labour Party are floundering and they're looking at why we're why we're falling in the polls and they're going, "Oh, it's because we're not dealing with immigration hard enough and we're not dealing with the borders." No, it's because you've you've come in as a Labor majority and you've seem to abandoned all semblance of a leftwing party. You've seem to have abandoned all semblance of what a historical Labor party looks like. And that comes from a misunderstanding of the needs of the public. That comes from a misunderstanding of the wants of the public.

And and also how class has been curated in this country and people still have a historical attachment to their area. That's why we talk about de-industrialized areas cuz they were once industrialized areas. And so I think you're right as as to a point the party divorces itself from its own political heritage of how and why it emerged. Um, there's going to be no kind of vision for the future until you reclaim some of that. Yeah, but I'd push back on that because the the de-industrialized community that the former workingass base of this country, we've slid way to the left of them on social politics and those people are heavily concerned about immigration. So for in their view, this is I'm just going to give the party establishment view, right? You need to reconnect with those people, which means understanding what their concerns are, right? And that's why that they've gone hard on this immigration stuff is because the voters that we won last time to be able to give us a supermajority were Tory switches. So they voted Tory in 2019. Those people now are voting for reform.

But again, I think that comes from misunderstanding the problem because again when you look at those working-class communities, a lot of that their feelings around immigration again like I say come from that fear of what they read in the media. It comes from constantly constantly engaging with the immigration discussion, but from the lens of reform from the from the setting of Brexit of like from the idea like the inherent idea that immigration is inherently bad or inherently a problem or that unmititigated immigration or you know is bad and we can't control immigration. you know, when again when you let re the reform party or the right frame the conversation, the left are never going to win the conversation because it's being framed in a way that is designed for them to lose it.

It it is ahistorical I think what you're saying. I mean I grew up in one of these areas the industrialized towns that had always voted labor and yet they were accepting of course there were challenges but they were accepting of migrant populations from all around the world and there has been a level of harmoniousness amongst different demographics of people for a significant period of time. So to concede that multiculturalism has failed because now the dominant narrative is around immigration and a more hostile rhetoric around people and and and race and all these types of things. But to overlook the fact that many communities from industrial industrialized and de-industrialized communities have been unwelcoming to those people um and hostile I think is just so false. And the Labour Party has a particular characteristic to try and integrate its kind of socialist social democratic thinking and an emergent kind of immigration narrative that informs I think to a point a center-left project. I'm not defending the rhetoric at all and I think the policy is I understand but I think there's almost an oversimplification and a caricature of people in parts of the UK when of course they've had concerns and to a point they've been exacerbated by politicians but to lean into kind of prejuditial supposed instincts I think is is quite wrong and it does a disservice to what the project of the Labor Party government is to do which is greater prosperity and uplift for everyone including including those communities.

But it's not about being prejuditial, right? My my my view is that the the future is of the country who learns to integrate as many new people because of the dem we can't argue with the demographics, right? We've got an aging population. The country that learns to integrate new people into its population while still retaining a sense of culture and heritage history that that is the the future belongs to that country for developed economies, right? So that should be where our message is. I think the thing is is that the numbers were just too high under the under Boris Johnson, right? and um under those under the tries post Brexit and you have to attend to that problem. You you can't what you can't do is say that because it's 100% salience of all the negative stories like when a migrant does X or Y [ __ ] up thing. What you can't do is always just say well we don't want to look or don't want to talk about that or whatever. And I and this is the thing where I think we're kind of all in agreement but I think we're all kind of our emphases are in different places. What the government should have done in my view and hindsight's 2020, right, is just say that we're going to try and create a prosperous Britain for anyone who wants to come and contribute to this society and who people who give in get out. And that's then that's what we're all about. And I think they've been trying to make that argument, but it's just not cut through. And then within that story, what you should be saying is that the way to be a country of immigration is to have control. If you have control and people think there's a sense of fairness, we can make sure that people are coming in and being integrated, etc., common language, common culture, etc. what what what the the image that people currently have because of small boats etc is that the government doesn't have control and that is being refracted into their personal lives because everything has slid and on the the final point I just want to add on that front you know it it was a view of in in the new deal right that we have to like lower immigration in America 1930s America because of deflationary wages you know you can keep on undercutting the labor market if you bring in people who for them that's loads of money to make right and that is part of the problem that we've had in this country post Blair and accept and we've gutted the unions and this is that is a significant [ __ ] challenge for the government to uphold. So I'm not I'm not saying that I'm like pro everything that's happening. I am you know but there has to be a common vision that surrounds all of this stuff and I think where there has been an absence of a social cohesive policy or an effort to do so. I mean, I don't think this country's had any social cohesive policy since 2010. and the fact that we're what 14? Yeah. coming up to 18 months of a Labor government and there hasn't really been anything substantive to suggest that this is what Britain stands for now and we want to have control and the government does have control of this and we can arrange our apparatus in the view of a certain kind of vision and future is a huge problem because you've well you've already conceded the ground but it's harder to get a tract on it when it just becomes escalating further and further and the goalpost changes as what it is to be British Because I think like like you said with the goalpost, the goalpost will consistently shift. I mean like I'm I'm I'm born in Britain, grew up in London, but what's our great British values? Great British values are constantly changing their the whims of the great British public. You know, in 1015 years, I might not be someone that upholds great British values. And I think constantly conceding to the right on these conversations of immigration, constantly conceding only shifts the goalpost further and further. only shifts the goalpost in a way where people like you can you can never satisfy everyone around immigration but I think what you can do is you can provide infrastructure you can provide um like more legalized routes like legalized routes that are easier for people so that you don't have to have people being smuggled in on dingies you know I don't think I don't think the solution to immigration is making it harder to immigrate I think the solution is almost having more legalized routes with more planned infrastructure for people who then come here who are then able to do work in uh ways that don't undercut people with like you know these larger these large large scale you know um systems or workplace kind of initiatives that can kind of bring people in and obviously you know I'm speaking in very kind of loose terms and generalizations cuz you know I'm I'm only 20 I don't have I don't have the policies set out but I I don't I don't think the solution here is shutting people out I think it's about being able to integrate them effectively and when you are able to integrate them effectively. You can see I mean with the win rush generation like they came here you know there was there was some some level of infrastructure and work set up for those people. There were communities that were able to be built because there was space and it was affordable and you've seen how you know the Caribbean culture has become such an integrated part of UK culture. I don't think a lot of people would suddenly tell apart from I mean all my junglers are white dreads now. Exactly. And like I think that's a major part of UK history and like that's something I think should continue to be a part of UK history. I think it's about integration and doing that in a productive way instead of trying to engage people in conversations around why they shouldn't be here.

Yeah. Yeah. I just think I think this is control narrative is really central and I think I think my my major concern is that the current infrastructure the current way the discourse is going you know the tries at their conference basically announced that they're going to copy Trump's playbook which gives cart blanch to reform to do the same which they probably were doing anyway right but we need to really get a handle on two things number one the rights start with immigration their coalition begins by pressing the immigration button and getting the racist to come in, the non-racist to come in, putting the non-racist at the front of their movement. So that's the face of it and then they bring people in from that from that place. What the left needs to do is choose their their topic that the right don't have an answer to because we had Aaron Bastardi on the podcast and none of us could come up with a good answer to asylum hotels. Right? So that's why the right keep pressing the immigration button because they know it's going to be a problem. The left should focus on the inequality problem, right? We should build our coalition from the inequality problem. But that doesn't mean that you can still at the same time kind of turn your nose up and and disregard the immigration problem, the inequality problem. If you could attend to it properly, you know, I don't I don't have the answers either. We need to figure this out through the podcast. But, you know, if you can get people to feel a sense of that control is returning to their life, I think immigration would be less of an issue for them personally. Um, but at the same time, we should make sure that that control narrative is being reinforced by trying to get a better handle on that system. And control isn't the only kind of end point. It's a sense of agency. It's the fact that people do have control, but they can determine their own lives. And one of the significant handles that politics or politicians have completely lost is the sense of agency, especially turning to this asylum seeker conversation is it's not just that people don't have a sense of control um or that the government doesn't have a sense of control. It's people have no agency of the fact that people are coming into their communities and people can't say anything about it. Um and if the left and this has always been a project of the left is agency of the working classes, agency of people to determine their own affairs and have some control over that. And until that kind of key facet and I think it is a value system that can't be attached to ideology of can't be really entrenched outside of almost a sense of individual liberty until the left gets a grip with that because that is how the the history of this country have has emerged through a sense of individual agency until it's integrated as part of a leftist kind of program. Um, you can have all the control you want, but if people feel as though their lives actually aren't getting better because they want to do something, but there is still control, the conversation will only continue to rear its head and potentially in more ugly fashions as the future kind of unfolds.

No, absolutely. I mean, I think I kind of completely agree with your framing of inequality needing to be at the center of it because I think when you begin when the left begins to frame inequality and then tackle inequality effectively, the salience of immigration doesn't become as much of an issue. You know, when people are fed, when people have stable jobs, when people can afford to live, I think they care much less about the fact that, you know, the news is telling you that the immigrants are taking people's jobs. Well, whose jobs are they taking me? Because my job is safe. But when you when you can't tackle the rising inequality in the country, when you can't tackle the rising cost of living, all of these fears, you know, you can't you can't then it's very difficult to go and rebut someone when they say, you know, oh, the immigrants are taking my jobs. And you go, well, no, they're not. and you go, "Well, yeah, cuz I'm unemployed and I can't get a job." And then I look at the people Exactly. And it's it's difficult it's difficult to tell someone who's struggling who who who's in that mindset that no, you're wrong or that, you know, you need to look at it from this other perspective, you know, and even if you do tell them that, that's a very lengthy and kind of involved discussion that, you know, you can't really do on a national scale. So I think a large part of this is about tackling inequality because once you begin to tackle that inequality, once you begin to tackle that fear that the the issues with cost of living, you then immediately like the salience of different the salience of issues becomes completely shifted. You know, people aren't necessarily worried about the existential crisis of the UK. They're not necessarily worried about the existential crisis of their communities because they're fed, they're they're happy, they're enjoying life and they're able to as a result accept more, be tolerant of more, celebrate more, celebrate all of these different things.

Yeah, it's I mean, Mexico is actually quite a good case study on this if um they've actually kind of paired back the state whilst also trying to focus on inequality and giving people's getting money into people's pockets. Um, and also going after, you know, corruption, the blob, etc. They're kind of a quite a hetradox case worth looking at.

George, we we've kind of gone all over the shot. All over the shot. Um, thank you. No, of course. Thank you so much for coming on. I mean, I think I guess the last thing is to kind of say to you, you know, is there something that like a message that you want to kind of get out there before this goes bad in the world? You're rearing your, you know, you're you're putting your face back out there again. Is there something that you want to leave with people to to tell you about who the real you is?

Yeah, just just I think you know I think I think in times like this we all should just lead with empathy. You know I think it's very it's obviously very easy to say and I think you know even even in the mistakes I've made I'm learning that I need to lead with empathy. But I think it's key in kind of how we deal with these issues. It's key in how we build our communities. It's key in how we interact with each other, you know, and it's someone who wants to one day go and make change in the world. And I want to see the friends of mine be able to also go and make change in the world. And I want to I want to be able to foster a better life for for me, for people around me, for people who look like me, for people who don't even look like me, you know? I think we all need to a lead with empathy, b give each other all a bit of grace. um and CB just more willing to work together I think to kind of reach reach these goals and I I want to be able to continue to do that and I would hope that you know despite making a mistake that I am still given the opportunity to do that because it's something I would love to do and and I would hope that you know I'm able to do that going forward.

Respect. Thank you very much for coming.

No, I appreciate you guys having me. No, that was so enlightening and I think it's it's brought the tone to almost where it needs to be in this whole kind of discourse where people are just very emotional. So let let me I I was going to end it there, but this is the masculinity we should be that we're about. That's not what we're about. You know, people make mistakes and people can grow and change and I think we have to believe in that cuz ultimately, you know, we're all works in progress.

No, literally. They actually respect. I appreciate you guys.

Get Our Mobile App

Charlie Kirk's Death - George Abaraonye

Transcription