Transcription
Well, let's talk about the state, or more specifically, the deep state. You say the Bank of England sabotaged you, the Treasury, the civil service. Tell me, tell our viewers and listeners about this deep state and the people who really are controlling, uh, our governments.
I think it's important for people to understand because people think the prime minister is all-powerful, or the chancellor is all-powerful, and they can go into government and they can just pull the levers, and things will happen. But actually, the government is controlled by the permanent bureaucracy, by the civil service. It's them who hire and fire the people that work in the government. They control the budgets of each government department. They make the decisions about how policies are implemented. So, even if a policy has been signed off by a minister, it's a civil servant who says whether it's legal. It's a civil servant who implements it. It's a civil servant who signs off the budget for it, and that gives those people a lot of power.
Now, the Bank of England governor has what I would describe as unaccountable power. He's appointed for eight years. He can pretty much only be sacked for gross negligence. So, he is able to make decisions about the economy independent of the elected government that have massive implications for people's lives. So, what has happened, and it's got particularly bad in the last 30 years since Tony Blair, uh, got into office, is lots of power that used to sit in the hands of elected people now sits in the hands of the unelected. And they are making decisions about monetary policy. So, what interest rates are, what, um, how much money the Bank of England prints, that's a decision the Bank of England essentially makes. They're making decisions about fiscal policy. So, if you look at the budget coming up, you'll hear a lot about the Office of Budget Responsibility, the OBR. They're the people that essentially set the tram lines which the chancellor has to operate in. And the same is true, by the way, for things like migration. You know, there's an independent government legal department that decides what's legal and what's illegal. Uh, they are the people who are saying, "Sorry, but you've got to put these migrants up at four-star hotels." You know, that's so, what I'm saying is that this bureaucratic apparatus is there. It is essentially driving the decision-making of government, and ministers pretty much have to go along with it.
But, with the Bank of England, though, for example, surely it's better. I would trust an expert in banking and, uh, and finance than a politician.
Well, that makes you part of the globalist elite. Basically, JJ, you're part of the problem. I'm part of the problem, because if you're basically saying you want the country run by unelected technocrats, you're not a Democrat. You're not a Democrat. You believe in unelected technocracy. It's a position. It's a point of view, but it's not democracy.
I just think, no one voted for Andrew Bailey. I mean, by the way, he's not even a competent technocrat. He's an incompetent technocrat. But even if there were competent technocrats, the fact is no one elected them. And if, just allow me to expand on this point.
You know, these are people, broadly speaking, the senior people in the Treasury, the senior people of the Bank of England, they believe in net zero. They believe in mass migration. They believe in Keynesian economics. They believe in high tax and high spend. They were responsible for printing vast amounts of money after the financial crisis, during COVID. That has inflated asset prices and made it very difficult for young people to get on in life. So, they have a world view. They're not neutral technocrats.
They have a world view, and we can see this world view emerge from time to time. So, Bailey has recently criticized Brexit. You know, he has promoted net zero. Mark Carney, who is the ultimate version of these people, you know, made lots of money out of the whole climate change agenda, or what Donald Trump would call the climate change scam. Uh, he then went on to be prime minister of Canada and is busy ruining Canada's economy at the moment. So, you know, these people are not neutral experts. They are people with an agenda who have huge amounts of unelected power.
And what is going on in Britain is the public is incredibly frustrated by this because they keep voting for governments that limit immigration, for governments that want lower taxes, want lower taxes. And governments aren't delivering it. And you've got to ask, why is it that the public keep voting for lower taxes and lower immigration, and politicians keep delivering the opposite? It's not because politicians are stupid. It's because they're part of this system which has a particular world view. And you're essentially saying you prefer the world view of these unelected technocrats to the world view of the British people. I mean, that's what you're saying, JJ.
You sound like you've been listening to the Joe Rogan experience far too much. That's what you sound like. This is what I'd like to see happen here. Okay. I would say, okay, Liz Truss becomes prime minister. You then get to put in place the, who's in charge of the Bank of England, who's in charge of the Treasury, who's going to be heading up the civil service departments. That's what I think that should be happening.
But I don't think it should be politicians put into those positions. I think it should be just the people who are best at those jobs.
Yeah, but who's deciding who's best?
Well, yeah, the prime minister. The prime minister should decide.
Then that is a political appointment. Fine.
Yeah, but as long as it's not an actual politician.
But what's an actual politician?
I don't want an MP running it. Like, we've got Rachel from accounts now in charge of things.
She's not in charge. This is what I'm trying to say to you, JJ, that I'm no fan of hers whatsoever. But she is not dictating monetary and fiscal policy in this country. It's being run by the Bank of England governor. It's being run by the Office of Budget Responsibility. It's being run by the Treasury officials. And until people really understand what is going on and how the country operates, we're not going to fix it. That's what I'm saying to you.
And, you know, even if somebody is bad like Starmer or Reeves, they are elected. None of these other people have been elected, and they can't be removed. That is the fundamental problem. And by the way, you know, Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer are fans of the unelected technocracy. You know, these are, you know, she worked at the Bank of England. We don't know exactly what job she did, but she worked at the Bank of England. Keir Starmer was head of the CPS. So, these are people who are ingrained in that system and that way of thinking. But nevertheless, they are elected politicians. And we have a system in Britain where the unelected are far too powerful, and they get no accountability. You know, they don't go on shows like this. They don't get questioned on Laura Kuenssberg. You know, even though, you know, the Bank of England has failed at every single policy it's been responsible for. It failed at financial stability. It was its job to make sure things were stable in 2022. It didn't do that. It failed on the pensions industry. It's failed on inflation. Even though inflation is over target, the Bank of England still lowered interest rates. Why did they do that? They haven't been held to account for that. So, these institutions are failing. And I could, it's not limited to financial institutions. It's also true of the Climate Change Committee. It's also true of the Home Office. I mean, we've just seen failure after failure at the Home Office. Yet, none of these people are get sacked.
So, you agree with me though, that we should have non-politicians, but they can be?
I just think, what, like, it's your definition of politicians. So, let's look at the American system where Donald Trump has brought in people like Elon Musk or like Scott Bessant, who were involved in other jobs and are the best person for the job. You know, that to me is a good system.
That's a good system.
But those people would be defined in America as politicians because appointments, not politicians.
We're just splitting hairs here. I think we're, we're splitting hairs.
Well, let's say you've been given, uh, time to actually put your ideas into action. What would your vision of the country have been?
Well, first of all, we have to get out of our, our growth, our debt, economic death spiral. You know, we're in a death spiral that the country is bringing in less and less money. We're putting up taxes more and more. It's a doom loop because the more you put up taxes, the harder you make it to start a business. The lower the economic growth is, the less money is coming in. So, my fundamental vision was to change that, to do things like get fracking, make it easier to build things in this country, lower taxes to attract business. You get the economy growing. You're bringing in more tax revenue, not because you put up tax rates, but because there's more activity. That's the tax revenue you want. Then you can actually use that revenue to improve, improve public services. At the same time, you've got to cut out all of the waste and you've got to, you know, we've got to stop funding illegal asylum seekers to stay in hotels around Britain. We've got to deal with those things. So, alongside that economic change, you also need to get rid of the, the rest of the Blairite legacy, the Human Rights Act, which means that illegal immigrants stay in this country. You need to get rid of the Equality Act, which has embedded DEI into everything we do. You know, there's no worse crime in Britain apparently than being accused of being a racist. You know, that is the worst possible crime, uh, you could commit in modern Britain. Uh, you know, the, we have to take on that whole unelected bureaucracy that is driving our country into the ground. That's, that's the bottom line. And what my plan was to do is to in 2022 get the economy in the right direction so that we could put to the country in 2024 the really big changes we needed to, to make Britain great again. That's, that's what I wanted to do.
And, you know, I was not ena, I was not able to even do the start of it. Yeah. Because I was thwarted not just, not just by the Bank of England and the Treasury, but also by people in the Conservative party who didn't want the country to change, and they still don't want the country to change because they're doing quite fine out of the country as it is.
Well, the markets were panicked. Um, but, and as you say, you weren't even able to implement the plan.
When you say the markets were panicked, the markets were reacting to the Bank of England.
What did the Bank of England do? It announced the sale of £4 billion pounds of gilt the day before the mini-budget.
Then it failed to properly regulate the pension industry. All these pension funds were caught having bet on interest rates being low forever, which they were never going to be. And the Bank of England had failed to properly supervise that, which was their job. And of course, one of the issues with the market reaction was the Bank of England is very powerful with the economic institutions, and they were there pointing the finger at me, uh, pointing the finger at the mini-budget rather than admitting what they'd done. You also had politicians in parliament on the Conservative side deliberately trying to undermine me and saying that they wouldn't vote for fracking. You know, they wouldn't vote for cuts in the welfare budget, which I was putting forward. So, that made life very difficult. Fundamentally, if the mini-budget had had the support of all the Conservative MPs and it hadn't been undermined by the Bank of England, we'd be in a different position today. That's the.
So, that's the situation. What?
But there's very few people, lots of people sort of point a finger and say, blah, blah, blah, but very few people argue that the policies were wrong.
So, the fundamental policy that I was forced to reverse by the OBR and the Bank of England was raising corporation tax from 19% to 25%. Raising corporation tax to 25% has been a disaster. It's been a disaster. And yet, people won't talk about that. So, they won't talk about the policies in the budget. They'll just say, "Oh, well, you know, you were only in any off in office for this much time," or, "You were, you know," but that's.
But this is the thing. I don't think your, your plan was wild and crazy, but the Bank of England were against it. You have, um, conspirators even in your own party trying to.
Particularly in my own party.
So, then was it a case of, is there any part of it where, where it's perhaps if you had communicated with these bad actors a little bit differently that maybe you could?
Bad actors are bad actors. You know, they don't sort of. This is, you've got to understand that. And this is what people who want to change Britain have to understand that there are powerful vested interests who don't want things to change, who benefit from the status quo, who actively promote the status quo. That is what the Bank of England are. We've got a governor who supports DEI. He supports net zero. He supports max mass migration. He hates Brexit. That's his position. That is not just him, by the way. It is the whole institution is of that view. The whole Treasury is of that view. They don't want a successful prime minister who is going to implement policies to undermine that world view. Likewise, in the Conservative Party, there were people in the Conservative Party who backed net zero, who didn't want fracking, who want to be part of the status quo. You might call it the Uni Party. They don't want. But the point is that these people, you know, I couldn't go to them and say, "Change your entire world view." They don't want to. You know, this is, and, and they are busy. They have powerful positions with the press, with the media. The Bank of England is very powerful with the media.
Media don't want to print any stories that are critical of the Bank of England. You will find that.
Not here. We're here.
We want you saying that that's the general view.
Okay. So, these, these institutions carry a lot of power with the media. So, if you're trying to communicate an alternative narrative, it is very difficult. And if you look at what happened to Trump in 20, you know, in in 2016 to 2020, he faced a lot of those issues because the mainstream media, the CNNs of this world did not want to, uh, did not want to communicate that stuff, which is hence the importance of things like the Joe Rogan show in actually being able to get the message across. And we don't have enough independent media in Britain to be able to get the message across. That it's very important that people understand that these forces who don't want change aren't going away.
They're still very, very powerful.
Well, we now have the Daily Espresso for you to.
Well, that's going to, that's going to break through.
It is. It absolutely will.