UK Affairs

Horatio and David discuss current UK politics. David argues that Labour’s credibility has been damaged by Angela Rayner’s resignation and Starmer’s handling of it, and that internal Left–Centre tensions are widening. He is scathing about David Lammy’s promotion and predicts Reform UK will overtake Labour well before 2029 due to a looming financial crisis and public disillusionment with both major parties. 

He criticises Starmer’s leadership, the Chagos decision, and the choice of Mandelson, and says UK defence is dangerously under-resourced and over-reliant on US enablers. He argues for missile defence and a stronger nuclear triad. Finally, he predicts a UK-led Western debt crisis driven by commodity-led inflation and policy missteps by Rachel Reeves.

Stay ahead of the curve.

Find us on:

Website                Official website of David Murrin - Global Forecaster

Instagram            @Murrinraw

Youtube                David Murrin - YouTube

If you have any questions that you would like David to answer on the podcast, please email David through his website. 

If you like our content, please to follow us and leave a review.

Transcript

Horatio: 0:09

Welcome back to the State of It Podcast. I'm back here with my dad, and we are currently in the car driving up to my first day at university. And we thought we'd start a podcast. So we apologise for any background noise you might hear, but I'm sure you can hear us well enough. Dad, how are you?

David: 0:26

Really well, thanks. Excited to be delivering you to university.

Horatio: 0:31

Yeah, it's it's uh it's gonna be fun, but we'll start on with a couple questions today on what's going on with UK affairs currently, it's because our currently our country is there's a lot happening, basically. So the resignation of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, has recent uh recently triggered by a breach of £40,000 underpaid stamp duty, has thrown Labour into a bit of turbulence and forced Starmer into a reshuffle of the party. David Lamy has now stepped into both Deputy PM and Justice Secretary roles. How big of a deal is it that Reyner has stepped down for the Labour Party's unity and working class appeal?

David: 1:15

Well, it's a big issue. I mean, it's a big issue because obviously in opposition the Labour Party spent an awful lot of time enjoying criticizing the Conservative Party for their level of sleaze and dishonesty. And Rayner was front and centre in that, and she represents the the left of the party and the trade unions, and uh she was part of the power balance, they demanded for Starmer to hold power, and she has been totally discredited, and so has Starmer in many ways, because in effect he supported her through this process. So the party that Rhenish criticizing the Conservatives of 14 years has in just a few short months, just over a year, proven that they're blatantly as bad, if not worse, than the Conservatives. So it's really significant. And Starmer would not have wanted to release um Angela Rayner from the government simply because she represented the balance that held the left at bay. And he also tried to remove um Red Ed, uh the energy secretary, but he is so left-seated. Um he, I think, probably ref the word is refused to go, and probably said, if you I go, the left will revolt. And so we're now left with his green energy policies, which are costing everyone so much more than it should do, and strategically undermining our nation's energy supply. But and it's really opened up a battle between the sort of centralist and the left of the Labour Party, and one which I think is going to tear them apart ultimate.

Horatio: 2:49

If you're a working class man and you've just realized that the um Deputy Prime Minister is has has not paying less down to what are you thinking of the government? Well, I think you're also just your average, you know, you you feel betrayed.

David: 3:08

You feel, you know, really betrayed by yet another group of politicians who you probably generationally supported and thought were going to be different from the Conservatives who are exactly the same.

Horatio: 3:20

Because the neighbor was meant to be the government that's going to bring money to the working class.

David: 3:25

That that hope was completely dismissed and shattered with Reeves' first budget, which you know nailed the very people that I mean there are various forms of stupidity. I think Reeves ranks probably at the highest in that her first decisions as chancellor really nailed on the head the working class people they were meant to be supporting. So I would imagine Labour parties are just followers, unless they're truly die hard and can't see it, a large majority must feel really disenfranchised. And that's why reform um is seeing the support it is, because some of its increased support are being drawn from disgusted Labour supporters, as it's received disgusted conservative supporters which have been betrayed by their party. And the combination is we are seeing a phenomenal reset of the traditional Labour conservative structure and a feeling across the country that neither are fit for purpose or should ever be given the control. And then you're looking at the new options available.

Horatio: 4:31

I wanted to ask, what what do you think? What does promoting David Lamy say about the way Starmer wants to move forward with his government?

David: 4:40

Well, what does he like? I mean, David Lamy is about the least impressive foreign minister I can think of. You know, his policies are well and truly anchored in the left. You know, whether it's the Chagos Islands or his blind support for the Palestinians, again, you know, people who do not understand that they are being manipulated by Iranian money that basically funds an anti-Israeli position, exaggerates the things that are happening in Gaza because the facts that are coming to the oppress, I would contest on a logical basis. Talked a lot about that. And Lami falls squarely into that categorization. He has proven himself to be one of the weakest foreign ministers, and there he is now in the deputy foreign minister's and deputy PM's role, and it attests probably to the desperation that Stama has in a cabinet with a very, very few capable people. Right.

Horatio: 5:32

And recently The Guardian has said with reform UK surging in polls, now even ahead of Labour by around eight points, the party led by Nigel Farage is gaining traction, especially on immigration. This comes as Labour struggles to articulate their clear economic messaging amid a 40 billion budget deficit. What is the real likelihood Reform UK is going to win the 2029 general election? I think it's about 100%, saying 99%.

David: 6:02

I think the real issue is not that they're going to win the election at the end of the natural term of this government. It's that this government will lose control through a financial crisis well beforehand, and that the party reform will be elected. And it's going to be elected because the conservatives have lost the trust of their voters and they're just literally going to crumble in front of us. It's happening to Labour. Labour were the accidental government. Remember, they only got in because the split on the right and reform split from the Conservatives. They didn't get in because the people wanted left-facing policies, much as Starmer would like to think and articulate. They really got in accidentally. And at times like this, when you know the entropy of the world is so much higher as we move more and more and deeper into global conflict, all systems tend to move to the right and they move towards national protection, national values, which tend to be conservative values. And the anomaly for Britain was the splitting of the right vote, allowing Labour to come in, which have then introduced neo-Marxist values in many ways, cloaked all the in, but that's what they've done. And so they're a little bit like they're swimming uphill against a tide of entropy, because these policies are wealth-destructive, and in fact they're just destructive full stop. And what's so interesting is whenever this political movement from the left arises, they never refer to what happened in the previous cycles. And every single time their policies ended up with a bankrupt system and a system that was weakened by a lack of national identity and commitment to defend itself. So it's a very dangerous choice of government to have for Britain at the moment, at a time when we're under national threat. And you couldn't think more as an example is the failure to spend money on defence and curtail welfare when our national survival depends on being strong and having increased defenses against not just Russia, but its allies, China, and now the axis of autocracy, which no doubt has eyes upon Europe and coming to support Putin and the Eastern Front.

Horatio: 8:08

Reform is promises to deal with immigration and make change and move forward in make basically make a lot of change in the country. And people want that because they're fed up of how the country is run. But there's also a lot of questions to do with Nigel Farage's um other policies and how he'd run within obviously. I mean, he's gonna deal with the immigration, but what is that what else is he gonna do? Like with the NHS, with education, with other policies?

David: 8:43

Okay, so let's can we do we'll come back to that question, it's great. But beforehand, let's let's really talk about immigration. Okay. And immigration is galvanizing the country because it is a true crisis. And we need to go back to understanding where the roots of the open doors policy came from. And it's been persistent with the Conservative government and the Labour government. And the reason is that it's a treasury. I call it a treasury orthodoxy. And they are a number of orthodox constructs which I think are fundamentally flawed. And one of them is the bigger your population, the bigger your GDP, and therefore the greater tax take you have. Well, that doesn't work, and I know we have proven it time and time again, when basically it works really well with an empire is rising and expanding, and that fuel of people comes in and that allows the system to keep momentum up and accelerate. It is a dire strategy when a system is mature and infrastructure is bursting at the seams, and certainly when you're non-selective over the qualities of the people you let in. So if I was to point my finger at one group of people, it's the Treasury Orthodoxy to open the doors to let more people in to create more revenue. Wrong. And Liz Truss was right about that. And she was to judge it. She basically went to go and attack them, uh, or not attack them, but undermine the Treasury Orthodoxy by getting rid of the permanent secretary. And that was the beginning of the charge, which led to her downfall. So the first thing that Farage is going to have to do is he's going to have to change a Treasury orthodoxy, which is A, about immigration, and B about raise tax levels, get more revenue, which doesn't work either, because people find ways not to pay it, or they stop working and become disincentivized. So I think the best way to think about the reform's domestic policies are they are traditionally conservative. They seek to have a small, adaptable government, which means he will create a revolutionary policy towards the blob, this sort of left-facing civil service, which basically does not serve our country en masse anymore. And he does understand that has to be swept clean, but a much better version of Doge with more selectivity would be appropriate in my mind. And he also understands that you need radical reform for the NHS rather than just give them more money and tinker away. I mean there are lots of things that I know I would do. And first is I would shift responsibility for our health and well-being on each person rather than they go off and smoke and drink and do all the bad things and say, hey, you fix me. So we need a responsible health policy. I can see him coming up with that. I can see him really addressing many of the major issues. But one of his problems is he still hasn't put together a cabinet, a leadership group around him that are capable of government. I do think whatever happens, he's going to be elected, whether it's a one-man show or a two-man show, he's going to get the mandate to lead the country because we're so desperate for change and only he offers it. The question is whether his ego can be reduced sufficiently to allow very capable people around him to build an effective government. And really good leaders understand that bringing in great people who are better than themselves in many ways is part of the hallmark of building a better, bigger system. And that's how you manage them with management skills and leadership skills that then differentiate your leadership. So, and so those are the main things I can see with reform. I think their foreign policy really is nascent and scarily a shadow of Trump foreign policy, which genuinely would not go down well with the British electorate, which is exactly why at the moment reform is basically focusing on the domestic policies. And I think that's the thing that should most concern us. And as you know, a country that wants change, we should also influence how that change happens. And there should be voices asking for effective defence and integrated foreign policy, in effect, a grand strategy for Britain that Farage and reform bring, because otherwise they'll bumble around just like the previous failed governments. So I think they're coming in, but I think their their offering has to be has to really be refined and matured to create the outcome, which I think Farage wants for the country. And genuinely, you know, there are there are all leaders have strengths and weaknesses. But so far we have to remember he's quite different. He stood aside after creating Brexit. He didn't seek power and recognition in the traditional way, he didn't hold on to his power. That itself is a refreshing quality, and he does have some very refreshing qualities, and he does have some Achilles heels which he really needs to work on to be the potentially great leader that the country needs to affect change.

Horatio: 13:36

Starmer's leadership has come under growing pressure, first from Rayner's depart departure, then from internal dissent, economic strain, and Mandelson and weakening. Sorry? And Mandelson. And Mandelson, weakening poll numbers. How well do you think Starmer is navigating this period? Does he retain enough authority or is his leadership slipping in key areas like unity and public trust?

David: 14:01

So from the moment he was elected, in fact, before, my warning was that Keir Starmer is a very linear man. And as you know, I've explained and we've talked about before, that means linear people just don't have the empathy to connect to the electorate, and they certainly don't have the lateral strategic thinking power to come up with strategies that are needed. And if you think back, he's very much of the Ilke Brown, uh, Theresa May, Sunak, and now Starmer as four linear leaders that we've had. And the net effect, he's one of the only ones actually got elected of the four, funnily enough, the rest got there by default, it didn't last long. And so he's fundamentally flawed from that position. He was elected by accident, and so from the moment he entered, everyone was going to have a very, very short string in terms of expectations of change and delivery. And if he didn't create effective mechanisms very quickly, people would become increasingly frustrated. He's not only failed to create effective mechanisms, he's proved to be incredibly crap and incompetent at most of the things he touches. The exception being he's very good at falling to Trump and very good at working with Trump in a subordinate role, which is slightly humiliating for a Brit to watch, um, but is effective in a world where you don't want to go and basically offend your main benefactor and the main power base of your alliance structure. So that's the one thing I'd say he's done well, which doesn't really bode well in terms of true leadership abilities. His failure with Angela Rayleigh is clear. His absolute failure with Mandelson is really his undoing because he had a very effective ambassador who was non-political and highly capable and respected, and he decided to replace her with a political appointee who was Mandelson. Now, Mandelson has been known as the Prince of Darkness, he's one slimy politician, he's you know been knocked out of office three times for nefarious activities. So taking a risk on him was really big, and this stuff about his links Epstein were well known. It was a bomb waiting to go off. And it shows Starmer as a man of absolutely little judgment. Um, and I think when we go back and look at the rebellion in the Labour Party, it was the last straw and a major humiliation. So I don't think he's handled it well. I don't think he's handled the country well. I think, you know, the Conservative Party put us on a downhill slope in varying degrees over 14 years. Starmer jumped in the cockpit, took the plane up to 5,000 feet, put the stick forward, and is in a nosedive straight for the ground. It's a completely different level of destruct wealth destruction and national destruction that Starmer's presiding over. Do you think he's gonna make it to the end of his term? No, not even close. What how seems to be even even now well, even now, there are leadership challenges with Andrew Burnham, you know, the the Birmingham um mayor, all just coming to the fore. Um there is there are going to be leadership challenges to him. And as the as a party conference comes up in the next month, I think we'll see tremendous dissatisfaction with his his record.

Horatio: 17:16

Can you just kick him out if they just don't like him? Or does there have to be a valid reason?

David: 17:21

They well no, they can create, you know, I think they can do the same thing as conservatives, create vote of vote confidences and have those votes within the party, and basically you'll see very clearly the division between the true left of the party, you know, linked to the labor to the trade unions, and the more moderate side, who would like to think themselves as blairites, although I don't think there's as many of those as as we even think in the party. And the other thing that's very relevant is there's a you know the the the Treasury has always been extremely left-facing with its policies and dogmas, and so it's been moderated by the conservatives to some degree. I say some because I think they still do take policy. And and here's the real rub, much as Rachel Reeves is really pretty much incompetent, it's pretty terrifying to imagine if Rachel Reeves was replaced by someone who came from the left, uh, then there would be, you know, a dogma coupled with uh a Chancellor, and there would be no holding them back, and the speed at which they'll bring about the demise of m what was a capitalist British system, and um the fulllight of capital and the failure to gather taxes will be shocking. That's interesting.

Horatio: 18:32

And there's recently from the viewers who live in England would know more about the operation Raise Your Colours, which has been a movement in the UK from far right groups, it's a far-right group to raise your colours, um, to raise I don't know, awareness or some people see it as patriotic, others are you know there's very, very mixed of mixed opinions on it. And I wanted to ask, what's your take on the movement? Is it really reinforcing British values or is it too harsh and looking like anti-immigration?

David: 19:17

Well, okay, so the underlying trend that we have globally and should be having in a healthy response as entropy increases into the 2030 peak cycle is to move towards the right. And, you know, you say far right. I mean, I don't think it's considered far right. Yeah, I mean it's considered far right, but I do not consider it by my value system far right to raise your national flag in an appreciation of the pride you have towards your country. And the fact that it's been labelled as a far right response, I think shows you just how the architecture of politics has moved dangerously to the left. And in fact, you know, that left construct of inverted commas woke thinking is is includes with it, it's quite interesting. I did a whole marination on this was out this week, which is how those from the right can really understand those from the left and you know what drives them to make decisions, and how would you objectively look at those decisions using the five stages of empire model? Are they constructive to the system or destructive to the system? And the first observation I made is everyone likes to think they're a good person, and everyone thinks their actions make them a good person, apart from a few sociopathic people who probably honestly know otherwise. And so most people from the left think they're really good people, and if they're good people and they're conscientious people, they have to do good things. So, you know, they have to define bad people that then they can dislike to be good themselves. And from that process, and part of it is colonialism and empire were all bad. They were nasty things that we did to other people. But what that fails to understand is that the evolution of human social organization into empires has evolved. And you go back to the Roman Empire, and 70% of all people in the Roman Empire were slaves, humans, literally human batteries to do what I would describe as push back the entropy of the universe, and we use human battery power. It was only when steam power came along, and that's why Britain led the anti-slavery movement, is because we were the first in the Industrial Revolution, we didn't need people to be human batteries at that stage through indentured labor or basically through very low labour rates and create the revolution. So you can see social systems evolving, and they evolve essentially with more energy available that's cheaper, that powers a system, but the more sophisticated the empire system and organization, the more power it needs, which is one of the problems we face in our modern world. So this idea of you know, everyone was bad because it had slaves, well, that was a decision we took to power our empires, then we replaced them. And Britain itself, I think, yes, it did some, you know, things that empires do, inflict themselves on other people in various ways, and there were massacres, like, you know, the Amritsa massacre, which we shouldn't be proud of. But there was an awful lot more we should be proud of, and it was part of the evolution of mankind. So putting our judgments back on their value systems in the past, I think doesn't work because we don't learn from history. So this idea that everything is bad that doesn't fit our value system now, so we forget and rewrite history, is a very left construct. And what the movement from the right is saying, when you put an English flag or a Union Jack up, it's saying, I'm proud of who we are. You know, we're not perfect, but we have been instrumental in making some of the most significant decisions in the modern world as you know, children of the British Empire. So why shouldn't we actually feel proud of those good things? Yes, doesn't mean we didn't do bad things, doesn't mean we have to learn from them, but it's actually a reaction to this eradication of history and rewrite of history, which is truly damaging to learning its lessons and doing better next time.

Horatio: 23:04

Hmm. It is quite I I think some people find it. Sorry, that's the radio. Some people find it quite far right because a bunch of recent first generation immigrants, I believe legal immigrants, have been raising their country's flags. And there was this thing, I think up in Birmingham maybe, that some people raised a British flag and they all basically took it down and had a go at him. And that's where Rase of Colours came from. But I I agree with you.

David: 23:39

Look, I mean, going back to this issue, and it does touch on what are the catalysts for this, I think, rising sense of national identity, which is so important. And actually, reform echoes that, and so does Nigel Farage very well. You know, and it's not about being part of the road. Why shouldn't we? I'm proud that I'm British. I'm proud of our history. I'm not proud of what we are doing right now to ourselves, which is basically self-humiliation, but I am proud of what we are and our role in the world and what we should be if we just remember that pride. But when someone comes into our country and they raise their flags seeking to be an immigrant in our country, that's not a good sign. Because if they wish to come here, they need to live by our rules, our values, and associate with our national sense of pride. And if they bring their own and want to be an isolated community or ghetto, they shouldn't be allowed to be here, in my opinion. Because, you know, right now we need a reaffirmed national identity because we have enemies at our borders that would see all of us done it. And that includes Russia and China and its allies. And the only way we're going to resist them is by a strengthened sense of national identity, a shared sense that transcends all of our differences. So groups that come in and basically are separate and refuse to do that will weaken the whole system, and we can't afford to do that at this stage.

Horatio: 25:00

Yeah. Do you think Stama because Starmer struggles to identify sensitive subjects to talk about them and really put his opinion out there? Do you think if he supported national identity, it would help us or create more problems?

David: 25:18

Well, the trouble is he comes from, you know, the left. And the left are, and obviously he's a strong advocate for it because he's presided over the Chagos deal. And the Chagos deal is, you know, a set of islands that basically are absolutely geostrategically critical in the Indian Ocean. For example, the B-2 bombing raids that that were launched against Iran should have been launched from there, but this whole Chagos giveaway prevented it, so they'd go the long way around. And he wants to give it away when the people don't want it to be given away to an island 2,000 miles away that never owned them in the first place. But somehow it fits his sense of righteousness as from the left and this you know colonial price to be paid model. No, the trouble is that no one would believe him because he doesn't believe it himself, and he certainly isn't a man of passion or conviction. He did what he did because he just wanted power. He was a technocrat, you know, he's a prosecutor, and even that carries with it a huge stigma because he was a prosecutor over the period of time when obviously the whole Pakistani rape gangs were taking place, and you know, he could well stand, that could stand as a catalyst for his downfall. He's hardly a man to look at and think, you know, you're a wonderful, wonderful leader that inspires me. I'm afraid looking through his glasses, I don't think he inspires anyone, and that's why he won't last his term.

Horatio: 26:44

Going on to British Defense, which has uh been under scrutiny recently over troop numbers, aging equipment, and whether the UK can independently defend itself in if faced with a serious military threat. At the same time, global tensions are rising from Russia's war in Ukraine to China's assertiveness. And there are questions about where br whether Britain is too reliant on NATO and the US. That raises a bigger issue about leadership in a war time, in a time of war. Do you think UK has current sorry, do you think the UK currently has the capability to defend itself without heavy reliance on its allies? And how well do you think Keir Starmer would manage Britain if found in a major wartime situation?

David: 27:29

A lot of questions there, H, and everyone's pertinent.

Horatio: 27:32

Or let's start, let's start with do you think do you think Britain could defend itself with the current equipment set up and military numbers it has right now?

David: 27:42

Look, Britain is part of NATO, and so Britain would not be defending itself upon its own. But what Britain has allowed to happen with the Conservatives and the Labour Party is a national disgrace. What is critical for a government is its first responsibility is the defence of the realm, and our armed forces are in a disastrous condition. The Royal Navy is it's truly lamentable. It's type 45s, four of them at least, are in long-term dock out trying to change its engine refits. Luckily, if you get one or two working, the updates that would allow them to defend against the most modern hypersonic light vehicles aren't even on the table. Our 23 frigates, you know, they're being shipped out because of metal fatigue, they weren't designed to be in services long. The other frigates coming online are not sufficient in numbers and too late. Our carriers have no self- the less the litany is terrifying that our navy is, and our navy is our prime protective mechanism because Britain's main responsibility is to protect the Northern Atlantic, to police the Iceland Faroe's gap against Russian submarine extrusions into the Atlantic. And our capable to cap our ability to do that is severely limited on a historical basis. We're lucky to get a submarine afloat of our few five astute submarines in service six to be. We are in a lender lament. The army doesn't exist in an ability to project power. The Air Force, despite having apparently enough aeroplanes, only has a few serviceable at any one time. And if people understood what that really means, we have no missile shield in the age of missiles, and we're not planning to do that. In fact, it's got worse and worse. And I've been ringing warning bells for years, but I never could have imagined in my wildest dreams that as the tensions build and the clear threat from Russia and with China coming into that European support role for Russia, it's so clear, and yet we refuse to spend money on defense. And Starmer's assertion that we're spending more than anyone else is just a lie. And plans to increase incrementally in two years. Just a lie, because how are they going to deter Putin? They're not, because he knows that nothing's going to change for literally four or five years. So w I'm amazed there isn't a national outcry. And I think we should be looking at Ukraine and thinking that could be us, because the Russians are tooling up with cheap drones, and that's why the numbers and their strikes are increasing, and they're going to keep tooling up until one day they can do the same to London. And we don't have the defenses we need to protect ourselves. And how do you think Starmer would manage a wartime situation? I think he would be absolutely appalling. I think his understanding, if he understood the situation that he's put Britain in, in terms of its inability to defend itself, he would have to be in a lamentable state of guilt. And I think the reason why he isn't is maybe he doesn't feel guilt, which is another issue, but more importantly, because he just doesn't understand how bad the situation is. And I think he lives in a total state of dissonance, as do all the people around him, that essentially it we haven't been at war for years, so we're not going to do it again. And I'm afraid that's not how the continuum of history works.

Horatio: 31:09

Do you think now you you said a couple of minutes ago that it doesn't matter if we're too reliant on NATO because we're an alliance, which is I agree. But then do you think we're too reliant on the US? Oh look. Because we we obviously we've got an alliance with them, but it's not the same thing as NATO.

David: 31:26

Okay, so so you've got to think of what we do, because America is our alliance with America comes through the NATO construct. I didn't know that. And and essentially NATO is the backbone of combat power within NATO. But what's really concerning is the key systems that America provides are enablers, whether it's the satellite surveillance systems that only France has a few of, where compared to a multiplicity of those in America control, which provide reconnaissance and targeting systems. It's things like you know, super stealthy F-22s and B-2s, and you know, the Europe only deploys 35s, which are not of the not quite of the same capabilities, although they do different things. Um, the warships with anti-missile capabilities, the anti-missile capabilities in Patriots and Thiads, they're all core American mechanisms. And without America, it would be very hard for Europe to fight the type of war it really mentally and strategically has planned to fight. So we do need to replace American enablers with European enablers. And what's interesting is you know, what do they look like? Well, we need to have a full satellite reconnaissance suite. So that means Britain needs to have a dual space agency and to get satellites up there, which are our satellites that we control, which allow us to real-time monitor everything in Europe and find targets, so we don't have to rely on rely on a storm shadow and an American GPS position to the target. And that's exactly what's happened in Ukraine, which is why America can dictate the use of French and British storm shadows by the Ukrainians, and just quite frankly says, you know, no, you can't use them.

Horatio: 33:16

Do you think sorry, uh going back to um Britain's leadership during a wartime situation? If we look back up to World War II, Winston Churchill was not a leader during at the start of the war, and he was not a leader at the end of the war, or he was, but once the war finished, he didn't become a leader, he was kicked out. So do you think that's a very possible way that could happen with our government? As in, it doesn't have to be a a wartime leader from the Labour Party, it's just the most capable leader at the time. And if you think, who could it be?

David: 33:55

Okay, so it's a really good question. Um so Winston Churchill had a fascinating history, as you know, you all know, probably listening, whether it was um joining the cavalry and being at the last cavalry charge at Onderman to becoming a journalist and going through the South African campaign, being captured and then escaped, and then rising to be a politician, becoming first sea lord, uh, working with Fisher to you know create the dreadnought revolution, which was way more than a just a dreadnought revolution, it was a revolution of the Navy, which allowed the Navy to take form and ultimately win the Battle of Jutland and maintain naval hegemony. And um Gallipoli was his idea, although I would argue it was a great idea, it was poorly executed, but he got the blame for it. He then went off and fought on the front for three months as um a colonel of a regiment, took inordinate risks, and then was brought back and became Ministry of Arms. So he saw the First World War and he also studied his Marlborough's ancestral you know history to understand what led to the war that Marlborough became great in. And like some of the work that I've done, he saw the hallmarks of conflict coming in the way systems became intolerant and made parallels with the Nazi Germany. So he was a clear advocate that Germany was never going to be a benign, a benign effector in Europe. And where as war moved along and you know, the peace franchise with with Chamberlain, everyone thought it was going to be brilliant and work a bit like listening to people initially responding to Trump, to thinking that you know appeasement ever works. Judge, you'll never did.

Horatio: 35:33

You're going that way. Stay on that. Sorry, some directional issues.

David: 35:42

Um and when everything went, Petong, they created the coalition government, and he became head of the coalition government. And the coalition government is exactly what would happen in a war. They would have to find the group of all parties working together. The difficulty that we've got is our whole political establishment, there's no militarization inverted commas in our political establishment. Very few MPs have had military experience of significance above the level of captain or a major, and then basically have a military background that then could be suffused with leadership. I've seen no one that basically impresses me at this stage.

Horatio: 36:24

So you don't think anyone could because Winston Churchill was a strange man. People didn't need him. He was a unique unique man. He was a Marmite man, people loved him in the world. Let's call him the Marmite man. Okay, he's a Marmite man. And the only Marmite man that I can really think of, I'm not thinking about his military history or anything like that, is Boris. Yeah, the point. Do you think that's a possibility? No, tell you. Well, first of all because he seems like a he's a strong character.

David: 36:57

Well, he but Boris is I but I describe Boris as a very lateral person, hence his appeal and solution to an intelligent man, um, with a historical context, a very poor strategist, and someone without any sort of military appreciation, but to his credit, he was the one that mobilized Britain to support Ukraine before any other European power, and he ensured that the other European powers and America were dragged in to support Ukraine, and without him, Ukraine wouldn't be there. So, interestingly enough, there's a definite equality, but do I trust him to basically have a strategy and understand how to play that great game of strategy? Absolutely not. It weren't because it was a singular decision that he decided to say I'm going on, which was appropriately right. That's not the same as wartime leadership. So I would be terrified.

Horatio: 37:52

But surely there's someone better than Starmer.

David: 37:55

Uh well, that's I think actually, interesting enough, and I have to, you know, say this John Healy is probably, if there is a person, might, you know, the the one that's most credible in the Labour fraternity. He has not managed to beat the Treasury's spending hiatus advance, but he is a person that believes in defense and has credibility in a safe pair of fan hands. Not convinced he's very strategic. But if you had to choose who out of Labour would you I choose to be a wartime, it doesn't have to be a Labour, does it? No, well it doesn't. It would not, but probably there that'd be the predominant party in the coalition. So I would, if he was in that, I don't think he would be an unsafe pair of hands. I think he would be a safe pair of hands.

Horatio: 38:41

Yeah.

David: 38:42

Um, but what but uh because our role is slightly different, it isn't a singular point of failure or success, it's part of an alliance. It would probably, you need, you know, you can operate with less of a churchyard. Um right now, we just have to realize collectively we have no missile defence for our island in the age of you know increasingly massed missiles, whether they're exquisite or cheap systems, and we need a national campaign to ensure that the technology that is available, like for example, the Asta NT new technology, which the French are bringing in and the Italians in in 2027, that we don't have a plan to, is something we should be doing now.

Horatio: 39:21

So that actually leads me on to my next question, not but you know, the same question. Do you in the in a previous podcast, in the last one actually, we you you said nuclear war isn't really an option because it just levels everything. So is Britain's nuclear deterrent still a genuine safeguard, or has it become symbolic?

David: 39:47

Well, ultimately, no, it's critical. It gives us uh a place and a top table, it gives us the ultimate sanctions if we ever attack with nuclear weapons to return fire and level the country, and it's critical to ancient. The problem is we have neglected our UP to our fire if we have three submarines in a cycle of four, you know, the emissions to submarine that extends 180 days, which is beyond human endurance. And more importantly, with the advancement of Russian submarines and their sensor systems around Fast Lane and the exit, we do have to consider that our deterrent is no longer as secure as it was. And I do think that what we should have done or should be doing is not buying 12 F-35As, which a number of other powers have to drop an American iron bomb, is that we should have bought 12 B-21 raiders and have a strategic deterrent capability, which goes back to being a tripod in effect, and then add to that to long-range missiles like you know, prompt strikes or whatever else, and add nuclear weapons to them so we have a proper triad, so that we have strategic deterrents and we also have smaller warheads and tactical deterrents. The reason I say that is without that, you increase the probability of aggression by Putin, and with it, you lower the threshold for nuclear weapons because you have a proper ladder of escalation and you reduce the probabilities of warfare. So we need to spend enormous amounts of money on that protocol, which again we've neglected.

Horatio: 41:30

Right, and I'm moving on to the final question. Rachel Reeves has been in the treasury and has undergone a lot of criticism for the way that she has managed the nation's finances. How likely do you think how a debt crisis is? What do you think?

David: 41:47

Well, first of all, I think it's very likely, but it's not just a British problem, it's a Western problem. And um I expect there's a couple of functions here. One is we are having a commodity price inflationary cycle. So if you look at the CRB index, it's going higher. And with it, long-term yields are matchingly going higher, just like it did into the peak of 1970. So we've got an inflationary pressure and we've got an issuance pressure where governments in the West are issuing more and more debt because they're compensating for lack of real growth and they're using financial leverage to compensate for what little growth they have. In the case of Britain, that little growth is almost minuscule. France is itself in a similar problem. But what is alarming is that Britain is actually, I would say, the most likely country to lead this charge thanks to Reeves' policies. And those policies have destroyed the growth engine of Britain. The first thing she's done is she's scared away the really wealthiest people who paid a huge proportion of our tax bill. So whenever people from the left say, oh, those nasty wealthy people, well, in fact, they're living by those wealthy people who use their money in businesses, create productivity, and then basically pay tax, which funds their left-wing views. And in a year, Reeves has like created the greatest exits of people that generationally have come here with their money, which is a disaster because now you can't balance the budget. Then you add the increasing problem of yields in debt, and we pay already twice as much for our interest as we do for defence. And we've missed every opportunity to take you know large long-term tranches of 30 or 40-year bonds, so we could capitalize our defence in one go as even inflation send the debt higher. So I think we're living in a time where we are very close to an accelerating debt spiral and the Labour Party won't survive it. Even if it's a global G7 phenomena, Britain will come out pretty badly from the cycle. Do you think quickly, do you think Farage could manage better than Labour? I do. I think he understands economic principles far better. Um, and I think, you know, the first thing that any government is serious is they have to tackle the welfare state. We have to become more productive, we have to encourage people to do things and earn. And, you know, giving them money to stay at home makes no sense. And we've got to mobilize people to be responsible for their health. All of those things I think Farage will do quite ruthlessly, and it would be a shock to people's system, but a much needed shock that will allow your generation to once more have a future rather than the moment. All you can really see is a bungee jump off a very high cliff. Nice, nice a positive outlook for the end of the podcast.

Horatio: 44:43

Always thinking about your future, my boy. Yeah, yeah. Just as we're arriving at university, that's fantastic. But you got anything else to say?

David: 44:51

No, it's a great set of questions. Keep in coming. And uh H and I plan to do this on a regular basis. Ideally, we like to be weekly, so we'd encourage you to follow us, listen to us, and um, if you've got any questions, please come in and we'll try and cover them. And if you found uh this discussion interesting, it is the tip of the iceberg, and you can find much more detailed assessments and predictions on the website wwdavidmarion.co.uk. Go and sign up for Murray Nations Gold, and there's all sorts of oh, we missed the turning, all sorts of wonderful opportunities to be had in increasing your understanding of how our world is operating or not quite operating at this moment.

Horatio: 45:33

Yeah, dad makes a good point, actually. If you have any questions, we can happily answer them. You can go to our Instagram account, Murrin Raw. That's it. It's just Murrin Raw R-A-W.

David: 45:44

And um sign up because you know we're in the early stages of that, and we're using that as another medium to reach out to young people.

Horatio: 45:51

Go go ask questions on uh the website. There's a there's a form where you can email David and we can answer them. Or just get in contact with us anyway, you can comment on the bottom of the podcast. But yeah, thank you for listening. And we apologize for any road noise because we've had a couple downpours of rain that has suddenly hit us, didn't last us very long. I hope you heard us, and the road noise is rather loud. But I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you we answered a couple questions that you might have had. And thank you for listening.

David: 46:22

And good luck at a university looking after your liver.

Horatio: 46:36

David Moran specializes in using the past to predict the future and is an accomplished public speaker, hedge fund manager, and market trader. Today he has authored four books: Breaking the Code of History, Lions Led by Lions, Now or Never, and Red Lightning. With the fifth book, Breaking the Code of War, set to release in the middle of this year. Feel free to check out his views and insights called Murrinations on his website, www.davidmurrin.co.uk