Thinking Class

#072 - Douglas Carswell - How Britain Became A Divided, Broken, Nanny State & How To Fix It

• John Gillam

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 56:40

Douglas Carswell was a member of the British Parliament for 12 years. He also co-founded Vote Leave the Official campaign that won the 2016 Brexit vote in Britain. The author of five books, Douglas has written widely about bank reform and monetary policy, as well as publishing a libertarian history of human progress. 

In this episode, Douglas and I think out loud about his plan to save Britain, why advocating for remigration is a necessary step to restore the country's identity, why the United Kingdom needs to undo Tony Blair's legislative legacy, why politicians, slogans are empty and the country needs detailed plans to fix its issues, why the US' poorest state, Mississippi, is richer than the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom should re-evaluate its global alliances and focus on the anglosphere, how the country evolved into a nanny state, how personal responsibility and gratitude foster the conditions for a free society, what the UK does better than the US and vice versa, and how human nature impacts politics and culture and much, much more.

In the exclusive Substack Q&A, we also discuss Douglas's views on on UK politics, digital freedom, and the future of the political establishment.

You can find Douglas's work here:

You can follow and subscribe to Thinking Class on:

You can watch the full show on YouTube or you can watch/listen to it on Substack

SPEAKER_01

Hello, classmates, and welcome to Thinking Class. I'm John Gillam and today I'm speaking with Douglas Carswell. Douglas was a member of the British Parliament for 12 years. He also co-founded Vote Leave, the official campaign that won the 2016 Brexit vote in Britain. The author of five books, Douglas has written widely about bank reform and monetary policy, as well as publishing a libertarian history of human progress. In this episode, Douglas and I think out loud about his plan to save Britain, why advocating for remigration is a necessary step to restore the country's identity, why the United Kingdom needs to undo Tony Blair's legislative legacy, why politicians' slogans are empty and the country needs detailed plans to fix its issues, why the US's poorest state, Mississippi, is richer than the United Kingdom, why the United Kingdom should reevaluate its global alliances and focus on the Anglosphere, how the country evolved into a nanny state, how personal responsibility and gratitude foster the conditions for a free society, what the UK does better than the US and vice versa, and how human nature impacts politics and culture and much, much more. This was a real pleasure to speak to Douglas, who has recently hit the headlines for a contribution he made to the Telegraph, his plan to save Britain, which there is a link for in the show notes. Do go and read it. In the exclusive Substack QA for paid subscribers, we discuss whether Douglas would return to frontline politics in the United Kingdom and what he focuses on now, and how future generations will look back on Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. Make sure to like, subscribe, follow the show on YouTube, give it five stars on your favourite podcast platform, and check it out on Substack where paid subscribers get the opportunity to contribute questions to a special QA to my guests that only paid subscribers get access to. Let's grow Thinking Class together. Enjoy the show, classmates. John, thank you for having me. It's great to be here. Well, great to have you in my digital ethereal realm. I think for our listeners in Britain, they will know you perhaps a little bit more than my listeners in Australia or beyond. But you are, of course, making a name for yourself in the state of Mississippi in the US, which is now where you reside. You've also made a little bit of a splash of late in a series of articles that the Telegraph have been releasing on immigration and its impact on the United Kingdom. And you wrote an article about Britain's nine-step plan or your step, uh, your nine-step plan to get Britain back on track. And there was specifically uh uh a few areas which which probably made uh waves a little bit, insofar as one of them was talking about re-migration, something which had never really been spoken about out loud before, but the likes of Robert Jenrik, yourself, Rupert Lowe have all started to talk about the need for remigration and an aggressive integration plan. So maybe let's start there, because I think this will be of most interest to a lot of people. Why do you think that remigration should form part of a plan to get Britain back on track?

SPEAKER_00

I mean, I'm an immigrant myself. I'm talking to you from the United States, and I think it's a wonderful thing if people who want to leave one country and go to another become part of that country, and I think it can do a great deal of good. But unfortunately, that um idea of positive immigration just doesn't match the reality of what is happening in the UK. Um a lot of people in um the debate about immigration are very wary of saying things that can uh be defined as somehow um supremacist or racist or what have you. And I think this has prevented us from having an honest conversation. Uh one in 27 people living in the UK today has arrived in the past two years. So this is a a huge change in the demographics of the country. And I don't think it's a change for the better, because if you look at the available data from Denmark and the Netherlands, a lot of the people coming in from non-Western countries into Europe are of remarkably low quality in terms of skills and capital, have a remarkably high propensity to commit crimes, um, and often if they come from Muslim countries, bring with them questions of cultural compatibility. Now, I'm absolutely sure that there are many, many Muslims in Britain as there are in the United States, who are fully integrated citizens of those countries and do a wonderful job of being uh fully integrated citizens. But I I think we need to address the fact that within the Muslim community in Britain um and Europe, there are a large number who are culturally incompatible, who are not going to integrate, who want a different way of life, a different system. And at some point, someone needs to address this. The the promise of a multicultural Britain was that it would become more vibrant, it would be diversity was a strength. Actually, diversity has meant that some of the most diverse parts of the United Kingdom uh are beginning to resemble the third world because we've imported the third world. And just because somebody comes into the UK, it doesn't mean that they become British. And they certainly don't, I think, become English or Welsh or Scottish. They bring with them uh uh uh aptitudes and a propensity towards uh criminality sometimes. And um, it has to be said uh time preferences um that mean that they are not going to um become British, they are going to change what it is to be British, and I think for the worse. And I I think we need to stop mass immigration and we need to begin to undo it. And my proposal is to come up with a way of doing this sensibly, rationally. Um, if we don't act, we will, I think, within a generation or so, cease to have a country called England where the majority of the people are English. Um, and you know, it's imperative, I think, that we act now. If if if we think that England is worth having, you know, most groups around the world, Turks or Indonesians or Chinese, believe that there is something worthwhile about having a Turkey or an Indonesia or a China. Um, are we really sure that we want to have England a minority English country? I'm not sure that we do.

SPEAKER_01

You mentioned that it's time to take sensible, rational action. What are some examples of sensible, rational actions that we could take on this issue?

SPEAKER_00

I I think number one is to recognize that we have a moral uh legitimacy in saying no to people coming in, that if you come in in contravention of due process, if you overstay or you come in illegally, uh we don't need to appeal to some supranational authority. We we we can just remove you. We have a British uh ruling elite who don't have the moral authority or the courage of their convictions or the moral claims to be able to do that. And again and again we see a judiciary unwilling to deport people, to remove people, to kick people out. Um once we recognize the moral legitimacy that we have to deny people entry and to remove people who are in the country unlawfully, incidentally, most countries around the world would kick you out if you overstayed your visa. Um, once we recognize that we can do that, I think we then need to remove the million to half a million people in the country who are there illegally. I I think we need to then look at people who've come into the country perhaps lawfully, but who are essentially welfare dependents, living at public expense. Again, there's good evidence now from the Netherlands to show that large numbers of non-Western migrants living in the Netherlands are perpetually, um particularly those from Muslim countries, are perpetually dependent upon uh welfare handouts. Uh, we need to be able to remove people, even those who come in legally who do that. And then I think we need to be prepared to address the real elephant in the room, um, the uh growing number of people in Britain who are Muslim, who want Sharia law, who don't share the values that I think you have to have to be a member of Western culture. And we need to be prepared to amend the 1981 Nationality Act and revoke the citizenship of people, yep, people who may have been born in Britain, but who have views that are incompatible with what it means to be British. Um I don't think we should be hesitant to do this. I think we should be prepared to do it. Um the alternative is that we uh cease in a number of decades to have a country that is recognizably British or recognizably Western.

SPEAKER_01

Well, you mentioned that there is also work to be done with those who've arrived legally, even, and particularly taking action against those who take out more than they put in, whether it's to do with uh economic reasons, welfare reasons, or indeed lack of cultural integration. And it seems that the likes of Switzerland and Sweden are starting to do this in their own ways. Here in Britain, we've got Nigel Farage, who at the moment represents the high watermark of uh the shift to the right on this. And yet, I think many people may have seen, if you spend time online, uh, snippets from his various interviews with Stephen Edginson and Winston Marshall, where he effectively said he, and thus reform, wouldn't be actually willing to do some of the actions you are suggesting because it wouldn't be politically feasible. So I suppose my question to you, Douglas, is do you think the concept of re-migration and some of the actions you've outlined will become popular with, resonate with the British public?

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

I I'm I'm very loath to criticize Nigel. I I think he's been very brave on a number of issues. I've goodness knows, I've had my differences of opinion with him, but fundamentally he's a force for good. And I think um I'm I'm I'm not going to sort of split hairs. Um, but I I do think that my role is, you know, I'm I'm not living in the UK. Uh I look across the Atlantic with a sense of uh um uh sadness, um, but also frustration that um people on the centre-right more broadly aren't doing and saying what needs to be done and said. One person who I think really is beginning to inch their way towards a a proper public policy solution is Robert Jenrick, actually. I've been very impressed by him. Um I uh look my my job is if you compare this with making movies, my job is to be a script writer, to offer some good lines and some uh a script. I don't really care who gets to play the role. I don't, you know, you you can be the casting director and find someone to to read from the script. I I just want this to be done. I don't really care who does it. I also think it's really important that it's done and done sensibly. You know, Poland, who are in the ECHR, um, I think only this week announced that people who are seeking asylum in Poland can't do so from within Poland. They need to be removed and then apply. Um one of my proposals is for a deport first um appeal against deportation second from outside the UK. I I think a lot of countries are doing this, and I think if we don't do it and we don't do it sensibly, um, you're going to end up with the Tommy Robinsonification, if I can put it that way, of British politics. I mean, do left-wing judges want to go there? I I don't think we do.

SPEAKER_01

Hmm. It's interesting you mentioned that. I I've had uh also someone who wrote uh in this telegraph series on immigration, Sam Bidwell on the podcast, and he's known for his work on looking at legislative changes you can make to deal with the big issues facing Britain, immigration being one of them. And in a conversation I had with him around Christmas time, he said, unless we start to secure our borders, those politicians that we have now will fade away. We will jump from those who are presenting themselves as sensible centrists and not wanting to offend people's sensibilities to having more strident people like Hirt Wilders, uh the Netherlands, uh, or one of the leaders in the Netherlands. Uh, do you subscribe to that? Or do you think there's something about the British character that would stop that from happening?

SPEAKER_00

I I wouldn't count on that. I mean, I think we've had a succession of Blairite governments running the country since 1997. I know Blair was only Prime Minister for 10 of those 27 years, and most of the rest of the time the party in office wasn't even Labour, but they've all been essentially Blairite, whether it's Tony Blair's government, David Cameron's government, Boris Johnson's government, Gordon Brown, or the hapless Theresa May, they've all basically been Blairite. They've all had the same series of assumptions, soft-left assumptions. And when it comes to these issues, their assumption is that rights are universal and rights come from subscribing to supranational conventions. Um they're basically of the view that human nature is universal and people are interchangeable, that someone from Eritrea can become English. Um and that's just not the case. Um I don't think it is possible for someone from Eritrea to ever become English, just as I don't think it's possible for an Englishman to ever become Eritrean. I think it shows a remarkable naivety about the world if you think that that is so. But unfortunately, this mad um narrative, this mad fiction, this mad fantasy of human universalism is the ruling doctrine of our elites. And I think we're now at a stage, thanks to the internet, um, thanks to people like Sam articulating the views he has, it's creating this pressure for an alternative view, an alternative policy. Um, I I suspect that that Blairite elite is going to get blown away. I mean, I hope that happens uh uh electorally with an alternative coming along. That could be in the shape of reform, it could be in the shape of a uh a more Robert Jenwick-style Tory party. It's it's going to happen. I wouldn't count on the passivity and the good nature of the English middle class because the Blairite elite have treated that tolerant, law-abiding middle class um with such contempt for so long. Um I I I suspect that um that that British calm and reserve is actually pretty paper thin now.

SPEAKER_01

You mentioned the impact of the Blair Wright legislative legacy just a moment ago. And indeed that formed a part of your article in the Telegraph. And I've had uh people on this podcast like David Starkey talking about how uh Britain, England needs a great restoration act to undo the Blair Wright legislative legacy. We've had Lowe, Rupert Lowe of uh well, currently of reform, but probably not in the future, uh, talking of the need for a great repeal act in a similar vein. What does and where would we start with undoing that legacy that Blair and his successors have left behind?

SPEAKER_00

I think the first thing to do is to accept the Starkey analysis, which is that we have had this almost sort of revolutionary, it's not been a spoken revolution, but it has been a revolutionary leftist assault on our way of life for 30 years, to the point where they told us, in all seriousness, they told us that men could become women. This is a logical extension of the idea that human nature is universal. Um, they told us that, well, they overturned the English idea of equality before the law and have now created a legal system in Britain where people in possession of 30 protected characteristics are privileged. We've created a legal code in Britain where white British people are legally discriminated against. State institutions in Britain, by law, have to favor non-white British people in the name of equality and equity. So this is a sort of leftist revolution that has happened in the space of 30 years. I think one of the manifestations of this revolution has been the demise of democracy in the sense that public policy is no longer made by people answerable to you at the ballot box. Power has been passed by this Blairite elite to unelected institutions, blaired this initially by creating an independent Bank of England to preside over the economy and the currency. Great job they've done there. Um Boris Johnson did this by giving a group of technocrats during COVID the power to put us under house arrest. The point I'm trying to make is that all of these Blairite governments have made the same catastrophic mistakes. So we don't need a revolution. As Starkey says, we need a restoration. We need a return to the idea that people who make public policy are accountable to the public. We need to pass power away from technocrats and put it back in the hands of people who are vulnerable to the opinions of people listening to your podcast. We need to do these things. Um I was slightly frustrated at the lack of granular detail. I know, don't go, don't get me wrong, Rupert Lowe's a wonderful chap. Um, they're all they're all right in their analysis, whether it's Nigel or Kemi or all the rest of them. But my frustration was a lack of detail. And I've been in the House of Commons for 12 years, long enough to learn that if someone is talking to you about what they're going to do but can't come up with the detail, they're probably not going to do it. Because when they get into office, they'll defer to their civil servants, and their civil servants will make sure they don't do it. So I wanted to come up with a plan, given the analysis, what can we actually do? Now, in order to change Britain for the better, in order if you accept the analysis that I put forward that Britain doesn't just need to change a government, we need to fundamentally change the way the country is governed. You need to recognize you're going to have a constraint on that in the form of the civil service and uh Sir Humphrey, and then of course the uh judiciary, the activist judges. So I wanted to come up with a strategy, not just a list of policies, but a strategy as to how you deal with that. And you would need to do a couple of things, and you need to do a couple of things right at the outset. Number one, you would need what are known as orders in council. These are sort of a British equivalent, if you like, of President Trump's executive orders, which he's rather magnificently, whether you like Trump or not. He's used those rather magnificently in his first month or so of office. The British Prime Minister could do something similar with orders in council. Orders in council to control our borders, to set visa quotas, to expedite removals from uh people who are in the country unlawfully, but also orders in council to establish authority over the civil service. You need also a government that creates a department of the Prime Minister so that the Prime Minister can drive forward change. Every one of the Blairite governments, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Boris Johnson, Sunak, Liz Truss, was hampered by their inability to deliver. And that's because the triumvirate at the center of the British administrative state, the Downing Street operation, the Cabinet Office, and the Treasury are set up to be dysfunctional, to be incompetent. Get rid of that triumvirate of dysfunction, create a department of the Prime Minister, give it the fiat to drive forward some of these changes through the appointments process, through power of the purse strings, uh, uh, through a whole bunch of ideas that I elaborate on in my proposal milestones. Do that, and you could actually change the country for the better. Simply change government, simply have, you know, Nigel or Kemi on our televisions complaining about the latest leftist outrage of some publicly funded museum or institution, and nothing will change. You need to deconstruct the leftist state from top to bottom. And I think you can do this, but you know, I wanted to come up with a very, very detailed plan as to how to do it. A lot of research went into this. Some people have suggested that actually I I I've got it a little bit wrong, I need more primary legislation, a few, a few fewer executive orders, uh orders in council. Great, fine. Let's let's let's improve on it. But you need the detail. Otherwise, people will vote for change, they will vote for an alternative to Keir Starmer, and they will end up with a government that is in office but not in power. And that is, I think, what we should all fear the most. We just don't have time for that. If the country carries on as it is, both economically, fiscally, and demographically, it will become a third-world country within your and my adult lifetime. That is, that is already beginning to happen.

SPEAKER_01

You mentioned at the beginning of that, Douglas, that the problem is there are so many politicians who talk about problems, but without coming up with a plan to actually deal with them. You've done that, you've published it. There's been some pretty high engagement, I would say, from where I'm sitting online, at least within the public sphere. Have you had any high-ranking politicians without betraying any confidence, or indeed their teams getting in touch with you to engage on these matters? A absolutely.

SPEAKER_00

I I I'm not going to breach confidences, but I've actually had a number of people reach out so much so that I'm actually shortly going back to the UK to actually brief some people on some of the detail on this. Um I look, I I'm not a member of any party, I'm not for or against any political party. I I I I love them all if they want to do the right thing. My advice is free, it's candid. You know, listen or don't listen to what I've got to say. I'm really, really encouraged by the number of people who've reached out. It takes a certain humility, I think. I I know I was a member of parliament, but it takes a certain humility to be prepared to listen. But I think actually that the right is in such dire straits. I think we're beginning to see the signs of a willingness to think differently and to listen. So I am encouraged, very encouraged. It's not going to be an easy task. It's not going to be, you know, there are going to be modifications and changes. We all need a little bit of humility. The last time the country was in this sort of dire strait in the late 1970s, it took a pretty collaborative effort. And I think we need something like that again.

SPEAKER_01

Douglas, you've been rewarded then for your work with uh some red-eye flights. And on that note, let's talk about your time in the US and how you straddle between US and Britain and that unique view it gives you. Britain, as we know, and the United Kingdom has left the European Union in very recent years, as in since January, the United States has uh starts to tread a new path uh in the international order. Uh what's your take on what Britain ought to do? Is the Anglosphere more important than the European Union when it comes to our international relationships? Where should Britain go or should it strike out alone?

SPEAKER_00

I I'm often asked by American friends what I think of Brexit. They know my role in Brexit, they know of the country's current economic difficulties. If they watch the BBC and CNN, they assume that one is the cause of the other. Um, and I I try and explain it to them by saying, imagine that the American 13 colonies had secured their independence from Britain and put that Chancer, Aaron Burr, in charge. Um, it would have been a disaster. Well, Britain has kind of done something similar. We secured our independence from the European Union and then put a bunch of Chancers and Spivs in charge. And we we we we need to rethink some fundamentals. And part of that is what should our relationship be with the world? Clearly, you know, Europe, I think, should be a friendly power. Um they've not always been very friendly disposed towards us. Even today, when they've got the risk of Russian aggression, um, there's an extraordinary lack of appreciation of the British effort. Um, I think this very week the French are demanding that we allow them access to our waters to fish in, in return for us being part of some sort of military alliance. I would have thought if you faced a real threat in the form of a revivalist Putin, you would be grateful for Britain pulling more than her weight. So Europe is an ally, but will always be an unreliable ally. America, too, is an ally, but I think we all recognize that America will operate in her interest. And if she goes through what you might call a sort of Jacksonian spasm from time to time, she may not be quite the reliable ally that she was perhaps when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street. So we we need to recognize these countries that are allies, but they're not they're not our mother. They're not gonna they're not gonna um nurture us. We need to be a grown-up and take care of ourselves. And part of that is getting serious about alliances with some of those other Anglo Sphere countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Part of it is about getting serious about investing in in defense. Now, in my proposal, I suggest that public spending in Britain is too high. And unlike most people in the game of uh complaining about high public spending, I come out with some specific proposals to reduce public spending. I think you need in the term of a parliament to reduce it by about $170 billion, sorry, billion pounds. But you also need to be realistic and recognize we're going to have to spend more on defense. During the Cold War, Britain had the equivalent of roughly four divisions, two dedicated to the defense of Europe, one to defend the UK. Um I think we need to have the equivalent of four divisions again. That means initially increasing defense spending to 3% of GDP, ultimately to 4% of GDP. That needs to be done. Um the sooner we start doing it, the better. We need to be much, much, much better at how we spend the defense budget. We've uh done a very good job of blowing the defense budget in the interests of a few privileged contractors. We've not got very good bang for a buck. We need to reform defense procurement. Um but we need to recognize that you know um it's a tough old world out there. And um we have lots of interests that are permanent, but friends who sometimes are more friendly than others. Um we need to be realistic. Our overarching aim should be to be part of an Anglosphere alliance where trade is free, we uh abolish tariffs unilaterally, and we collaborate with other English-speaking democracies. And um, you know, I I I think that requires uh some fundamentally root and branch reform in institutions like the Foreign Office, um, who I think have been so bad at actually delivering on the kind of relationships around the world that we need.

SPEAKER_01

Dear classmate John here, this isn't an advert, so you don't need to reach for the skip button. If you're enjoying the show, then show your support by liking, subscribing, and sharing on whichever device or platform you're watching or listening to Thinking Class on. You can find me in the show on YouTube at Thinking Class. You can also subscribe to me on Substack, searching for the at thinking class handle, or by entering thinkingclass.substack.com in your browser, and you can receive reflections, blog series, and recommended reading to your inbox. You can also follow me on X at Thinking Classes. Thanks for listening, thanks for sharing, thanks for showing your support. Enjoy the rest of the show, classmate. Let's talk about the economic situation uh in Britain. So a lot of the things you mentioned require public spending, and uh, for anyone who's paying attention to the news at the moment, uh, which will be about a week before this uh episode is launched, uh, Britain is trying to balance the books, as it does. There's lots of lots of spending going on, there's lots of penny pinching going on. So that'll cost money. Uh if you look at the UK compared to the state which you uh now live in in the United States, Mississippi, which is the poorest state in the US in the league table, Mississippi is still richer than Britain. Why do you think that is?

SPEAKER_00

Well, it's fascinating. I think Mississippi overtaking the UK in 2023 in terms of per capita GDP was a milestone moment. It really, I think, vindicates free market reforms. In the four years that I've been here, Mississippi has made some significant changes. Uh, income tax, um, this very day, the governor of Mississippi is signing a bill to eliminate the state income tax entirely. It's a flat 4% now. It will be eliminated entirely by 2037. Um, he's doing that round about the same time that in Britain, there is a spring statement where Rachel Reeve is increasing the tax burden. Um, if you want some indication as to why Mississippi is now richer than uh the UK, that that is one exhibit A. Exhibit B is flexibility of the labor markets. There is a constitutional amendment here in Mississippi that means that everyone is an at-will employer. Um you can hire and fire at will and you can walk out of your job on the spot. Um we've removed a lot of the red tape licensing restrictions in Mississippi, the bureaucratization of labor certification, if you like. Um, so Mississippi is an incredibly flexible labor market. As a result of that, in the past two years alone, there have been $25 billion worth of inward investment into a state of three million people. That is in marked contrast to what has happened in the UK, where the government has made the labor market less flexible and made it more punitive for an employer to take on uh employees. So I think if you compare Mississippi and the UK, it it is a very good example of what happens when one society liberalizes and and allows the free market and the other doesn't. I was quite surprised in 2023 when I started writing articles in British newspapers, pointing out the fact that the UK had overtaken Mississippian per capita GDP terms. I got a barrage of criticism. In fact, several people complained to the press complaints commission about the data I used. Um it shows a sort of almost Soviet-era denial of reality. Um, the British thinking classes aren't thinking. And I think this is a big part of Britain's problems. You've you've got a whole bunch of centrist dads running a lot of your institutions who don't understand the fundamentals of the free market. Um, it's impoverishing the country. In Mississippi, if you want to build something, you can pretty much build something. Planning decisions are made very locally, and there are some uh municipalities that are quite restrictive, and some that are anything goes. And as a result of that, you're seeing businesses pouring into Mississippi, houses being built in vast numbers. You've got a a huge building boom here in Mississippi. So I I would urge anyone in the UK who has this idea of Mississippi as being all about a river and cotton fields and steamboats to think again. Um, the southern US is going to become a huge global powerhouse. It already is. Um, Texas is no longer hee-haar and oil fields, it's astronauts and artificial intelligence. Mississippi isn't far behind. Britain could be too, but you're not going to get there if you keep raising taxes and regulating.

SPEAKER_01

Uh I nearly buffed it in right at the start there as you're talking about tax rates and cash in the pocket to ask have you got a job going in your office? And I'm sure there are plenty of people in Britain who would make that jump if given the opportunity. And it has been uh proffered in various circles online that uh Trump could give Starmer a good bloody nose if he were to change the visa requirements to make it easier for Britons to move over there. Do you think that with the uh sentiments that the new administration had brought in, specifically around demographics, future of the country, that you've been speaking about in this podcast, do you think they would ever countenance the idea of easing visa restrictions for Britons?

SPEAKER_00

I wrote a slightly tongue-in-cheek piece suggesting that actually if Trump really wanted to apply pressure to Britain, he could simply say that anyone under the age of 40 uh in the UK would have the right to come and work in America. I I think if that happened, you would see tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people moving. It's actually become really quite difficult to move from the UK to the United States. And I think if that was allowed, um, you would, you would, you would see a mass exodus of very talented people. Now, I I wrote that partly to make a point, but I I also think that if that were to happen, one of the benefits of it, it would force the government of the day to recognize that it has created a society with its high tax and high regulation and a nanny state mentality, and and frankly, sort of state-sponsored neurosis, is created a society where people are materially and I think emotionally and and uh in all sorts of ways uncomfortable. Um I I think if if America was to do that, it would force change in Britain. Um I I don't know if you're familiar with um with um uh Ayn Rand's novels, but one of them is is based on this uh uh it's a rather verbose, lengthy novel, um, Atlas Shrugged, but the the the the idea is that all the talented, productive people uh clear off and go and live in a place called Gold's Glutch. Well, I think America is as close as Gold's Glutch as we get. And if people in the UK were allowed to uh move to Gold's Glutch in stateside, I I think it would force change in the UK. But I I hope it doesn't come to that. I'm I'm hoping that um, you know, even even Keir Starmer, I think, will be forced to do the right thing when he begins to run out of money. I I electorally, we're several years away, four years away from an election. I I I I think perhaps more likely than Trump doing something on the visas, I think one thing that may force change is the bond market. You know, at some point the bond market is going to look at British IOUs and say no. And I think you might, long before you see anything from Trump, I think you might see the bond market actually force the government begrudgingly to start doing some of the things that it needs to do.

SPEAKER_01

Douglas, you talked about Britain having morphed into a nanny state. And let's talk a little bit about that because uh even when I was growing up in the, you know, I was born in the late 80s, growing up in the 90s, you could find kids pretty early on saying it's a free country in response to people who didn't like what they had to say. And since then, we I suppose from a top-down perspective, we have legislation around hate speech, we got non-crime hate incidents, and uh from a more emergent uh or uh perspective on authoritarianism, I suppose, um, the free speech union will tell you that there are all sorts of vexatious complaints that are made by the public, but corporations and employers that see people lose their job for things that they say online. Uh the question I've got for you, Douglas, is when did England and Britain stop being a free country? And do you think it can be again?

SPEAKER_00

It's really sad, isn't it? I mean, I I came to England from Uganda. I was born and raised in Uganda. And Uganda in the 1970s and 80s was anything but free. And when I came to England, I was told and taught that it was a given that you could do and say things. Sticks and stones may break by and bones, but words may never hurt me, and all that. And like you, I remember the sort of the playground phrase, it's a free country. At some point during my adult life, that has changed. And I don't know if there was any one particular moment. I I think the 2003 Communications Act, which made it a criminal offense to say something that's grossly offensive, I think that was a key step towards the loss of freedom. Uh I think there have been a thousand little micro steps towards losing our freedom. And because, like the proverbial frog being slowly boiled, because it's happened incrementally and gradually, we've not really noticed it. Um it's also impacted the country temperamentally. I mean, I'll be honest, one of the reasons why I left the UK, there were lots of pull factors about coming to America, but there was one push factor. I simply couldn't stand, I couldn't bear it being in London during COVID. The mad neurotic people in the street I lived in standing on their doorstep collectively, like some mad Latin American crowd applauding a state agency and our house arrest in order to serve the state agency, the NHS. I I couldn't tolerate it or stand it. Um that people would actively snitch on other people for sitting on park benches in Richmond Park. And most of all, I couldn't bear it that the only people who seemed to stand up to this nonsense were some rather unsavory skinhead characters who were prepared to fight and have scuffles with the police in Whitehall. And I thought, is it really the case that the only people in my country who think like me are the sort of people prepared to fight with the police? And I thought, I don't want to live here. I don't want my family to grow up here. I don't want my daughter to come back from school, and the only thing they think about is social distancing. This is a form of collective neurosis, and I'm not going to be part of it. I will not be part of it. And I I made sure that I wasn't part of it. I moved to a free country where these things are largely voluntary. Um what do we do about it? Well, I I think we need to recognize that it's the way that we all collectively think that is a big part of the problem. Years ago, when you would hear people say it's a free country, you would also hear that other phrase of mind your own business. A country where people mind their own business is actually a very healthy country. It's frankly no one's business whether I use plastic drinking straws or not. It's frankly no one's business as to whether I insulate the walls of my home or not. It's frankly not the business of the state to raise my child. It's my responsibility. I I think a key part in the change in the English mindset is the creation of this idea that it is the state's responsibility to help me raise my family and my child. We need to return to the idea that as a parent, it is your responsibility to raise your child, no one else's, yours, it's on you. And I think if we return to that idea, we will eventually rediscover this idea of English liberty, uh, of people minding their own business. I'm so struck when I visit England by how often there is some form of collective neurosis. It was famously COVID during lockdowns. Um, then I went to England and everyone was worrying about Ukraine or global warming or whatever the great drama of the day is. Perhaps people should be less concerned about um sharing this sort of collective neurosis and more worried about the content of their own house and the content of their own bank account and the content of their own wardrobe and the content of their own child's mind. Worry about that. Clean that up before you clean up the ocean's plastic, the plastic in the oceans, before you fix the world's problems, before you fix the world's geopolitical problems. Take responsibility for yourself. Um, take responsibility for your own family, mind your own business, and be grateful. I I think one of the reasons why England has become a less free country is because we've forgotten the art of gratitude. Gratitude is the key to a happy life. And I see this all around me in America. I wonder why these Americans are so much happier than Brits. It's not because they're richer, although they are, it's because they know how to do gratitude. They have a day called Thanksgiving. They give thanks daily for being American, they give thanks daily for their families and their communities. And I think that is a bedrock of what we need to return to. From gratitude and happiness, I think you can then begin to instead of outwardly projecting your insecurities and your neurosis, you can you can take responsibility for yourself and your family. Uh Jordan Peterson, I think, once wrote something along the lines of, you know, if you want to save the world, start by tidying up your bedroom. Um, that's that's how we've got to change the English mindset in order to become a free country again.

SPEAKER_01

As you were talking there, it it took me back to a thought, uh, a train of thought that was going through my head uh just today, actually. Uh I was looking around, and this is going to sound uh very, very judgmental, but here I go. I was looking around and I was thinking Britain has probably never been lonelier, more depressed, fatter than it is now. And I looked at the way people were dressed, and I'm not saying I've always had good sartorial choices or tried to dress smartly. I haven't. But it struck me just how many people are dressed in a way that is trying to exude uh coolness and indifference. And um it made me think that that seems to be the widespread mindset. And within that, you know, I know having grown up trying to cultivate that mindset myself, this kind of rebelliousness, uh, this repudiation of everything that was old and stuffy and traditional, but really I was just bombing the rubble of something that had already been destroyed in in many ways. And I think that that coolness, that indifference, people, I I live in Edinburgh at the moment. People are walking around one of the most magnificent cities that this uh island has ever created, you know, it exudes a confidence and a conviction and an understanding of uh beautiful forms and uh uh education and indeed enlightenment. And here are most of us exuding indifference and coolness and talking about how we need to end various forms of oppression and suffering and whatever, and generally going at the establishment, which doesn't really exist anymore. Um and in gratitude, you're exactly right. That's exactly what it is. We're walking around in the fumes of this great civilization. And if you look at the modern buildings being thrown up, you know, there's a hotel that's been built, which is um which is called by some of the less impressed locals the Third Hotel, because it's built in this modern style and it's got this big Curly top and all the modern buildings just so out of kilter with what's around them. And if you look at people on the streets, you know, if they are bothering to look up from their phones, they're taking pictures of all the beautiful old buildings, and yet that's the period which we try and turn our back on and say, well, there's nothing good about that. And so maybe that's a good point to talk about what Britain maybe has done well, but does do well because it talks a lot about what it doesn't do well. You're in the US. Um, what do you think the US does better than Britain? And what does Britain do better than the US?

SPEAKER_00

Up until recently, I think both Britain and the US were extraordinarily successful twins of what you might call Anglosphere civilization. Um the UK until about 20 years ago was very, very similar to the US in terms of GDP per capita. The UK, I would say, was probably more successful as a center of innovation than America in per capita terms. Um the country um produced, you know, split the atom, um it made discoveries, DNA, penicillin, the jet engine, the hovercraft. Um, and I think per capita terms it probably slightly had the edge on America. Um Americans may disagree, but they were much or muchness, um, the two Anglosphere countries. What's happened very recently in the past 20 or 30 years is that we have become far less successful in relation to our size than the United States. Um, economically, we've had no significant per capita GDP growth in 20 years. Uh, we no longer innovate. Our universities have, I'm afraid to say, the standard in our universities has declined. You've had a bit of that in America, but there's enough diversity, genuine diversity in American higher education, uh, for that not to be quite so uh uh uh uh uh important. It's really a case of the UK losing its edge. Um, you know, it would be unthinkable that Elon Musk, had he moved from South Africa to the UK, would have built a company making electric cars and be planning a manned mission to Mars. Um, what why is that? What is it about the UK that has made us this way? Why is America so much more successful? Um I I think America has a a system of 50 different states that really does help it a lot. If you have a federal structure, you you can only have so much muppetry in so many states at any one time. Um, you know, America, well, you know, Britain might have had Matt Hancock during lockdown, America had uh Como in New York, but you had against every Como at a state level, you had, you know, people like here in Mississippi, uh a governor that got it right. You've got this, you know, uh a thousand flowers bloom approach. Um I think that's a bit big part of it, but you know, America's system is not magic. There's nothing in the water, or the laws of physics aren't different here. Most of Britain's problems are self-inflicted. Fundamentally, the root cause of Britain's ailment is that over the past 30 years, the ability to determine public policy, and ever more public policy has been made to micromanage the nooks and crannies of our lives, public policy is made by people that aren't answerable to the public. And that is the root cause of the problem. It's it's almost uh a textbook example of how to destroy a country with with red tape and top-down regulation. But it can be fixed. It can be fixed. Um, but unlike America, you don't have different states as an example of how to do it. Um so it's I think it's a sad story, but it's not inevitable. It can be fixed.

SPEAKER_01

Lingering on that uh difference between the UK and the US and its constitutional setup, uh, and indeed the US's federal system. Uh, I've heard and read Peter Hitchens make the case before that um perhaps it would be good to return to the ancient kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon era and allow there to be some local form of government and and some some proper power handed back that in a way that is to areas which are not um inorganically defined. So these are things that have existed before. Do you think, regardless of Hitchin's suggested approach, do you think that is something that could work within Britain and England's?

SPEAKER_00

I'm a great localist. Look, I mean, I think Britain long term began to lose its edge shortly after the North Kurt Trevelyan reforms of the late 19th century because that's what created a permanent civil service and created the bureaucratization of the country, an essentially parasitic elite who today give themselves all the gongs, all the medals, all the pension perks, um, all the other privileges, and produce remarkably little in return for it. Um, so I mean I think I I think hang on, there's a terrible noise in the background here. Is that interfering? Uh no, I can't hear it. So I I think Britain does need to pass power away from the central government, the civil service. And I'm a I'm a great localist. I I think there are many things that could be done at a county level in Britain that should be done. Now, people often say counties are too small. Well, you know, if Essex was a state in America, I think it would be the 20-something size in terms of population. Uh, Britain could return a lot of power down to county level. I mean, one of the things I think Britain ought to seriously look at doing now it's left the European Union is to abolish VAT and turn it into a local sales tax collected at county level. This is one of the reasons why America is so innovative and competitive. States like ours can cut their tax rate and make themselves more competitive. It creates this downward ratchet. It means that the tax dollars that are collected by state governments then have to be spent very, very wisely, very, very sensibly. So I think Britain should definitely go for localism. Um, I think the natural unit to do that is the county, though. Um, a return to county government would be a very good thing. I mean, Ted Heath made many, many catastrophic mistakes in his ill-fated premiership, one of which was taking us into the European Union. But I think the second big disaster was his decision to change the shape of local government, to abolish a lot of county government. I I would like to see unitary authorities at county level in pretty much every part of the UK.

SPEAKER_01

Well, let's uh let's see if the the parasitic um civil service and the political class uh decide they're going to cede some power. Perhaps that might be a bit of a pipe dream, but one of these days they might be forced to do so. Yeah, Douglas, we're we're coming into the end zone. There is a question that I like to ask all of my guests, and that question is a bit more personal. And it is, what have you changed your mind on during the course of your life that you might have thought was uh set in stone, a bit of an absolute, never thought was going to change. And what was it that made you think differently?

SPEAKER_00

I've changed my mind about a lot of things. Um, in fact, I I I quite like the fact I sometimes change my mind on things. I think it's a sign of weakness and inflexibility. If, like Jeremy Corbyn, you you have the same views today that you had 30, 40 years ago. So I I I do change my mind, but I think the biggest change is my view about human nature. I I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, I I had a computer and a fairly simple computer, and I used to write basic software on it. And I always assumed that that was kind of a metaphor for people, that people were basically a product of their software, software being culture and their experiences. As I get older, I realize that actually I think I got that wrong. I think that is the wrong way of seeing human nature. I don't think we are a product of culture and software. I think actually a lot of culture and software is a product of the hardware. I think things like our conscientiousness, things like our ability to trust complete strangers, things like uh our time preferences, deferred gratification. I I think a lot of these things are a product of hardware. And I think once you realize that, you start to realize that actually a lot of what we believe and have come to believe in the West over the past 30 or 40 years is an ahistoric fantasy and it's a dangerous fantasy. So I I've changed my view about human nature. As someone in the public policy space, this also means that I've come to realize that sometimes different outcomes aren't just a consequence of getting public policy wrong. Sure, all societies benefit from getting good public policy, making East Germany free market benefited East Germany. But even communist East Germany was going to be more successful than communist, I don't know, um, Ethiopia or communist Mozambique. And I I I think my view on human nature has changed. Maybe it makes me more cynical, but I I think we need to see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

SPEAKER_01

Do you think that's one of the biggest problems with public policy and how it comes to fail so frequently? Because uh there is a widespread universalism, which I suppose takes us all the way back to the beginning here, amongst our uh thinking classes, as you say, those who don't really understand human nature.

SPEAKER_00

Totally. Not only do they not understand human nature, you will be familiar with it's become a cliche, but unfortunately it's a cliche that people never think through, that um uh correlation isn't causation. Uh again and again and again you see this. You'll have a discussion, for example, about fatherlessness, and people will say households or people who grew up in households with a high instance of fatherlessness underperform by certain metrics. Therefore, the problem is fatherlessness. I as I get older, I think maybe we should turn that around. Maybe the things that explain those poor life trajectories are also the things that explain fatherlessness. Maybe causation is not correlation, but point to some underlying causation. Um, so yeah, I mean I think a lot of people in the public policy space are well-meaning. And it's good to be well-meaning, but I think sometimes we're naive as to what levers we can actually pull to change outcomes. I I think maybe public policy should aim to get the best possible, and I don't think that the best possible is always the um idealized outcome that people want. Um, some people will always make choices that seem irrational and against their own self-interest. And I I don't think as political figures, people should create a society where we try to change that. The consequences of those interventions, I think, is worse than the problem you're trying to address.

SPEAKER_01

Douglas, thank you so much for being so generous with your time. It's been a real pleasure to be able to speak to you about such a wide range of topics and uh wish you all the very best. Thanks for coming on the show. To keep up to date with all that I am doing, please subscribe to the Thinking Class YouTube channel at Thinking Class and follow me on X at Thinking Classes. Thinking Class seeks to understand the civilizational issues we face and why what our leaders do in response matters. Here, I seek to explore the ideas, values, and culture that made our civilization, those that are unmaking it, and how leaders at our public and private institutions should respond. Engage with me on YouTube or X or write to me at thinkingclasspod at gmail.com to tell me who you want me to speak to and what topics are important to you. I look forward to seeing you there and for joining me on this journey.

Head Shot

John Gillam

Host