Live Q&A: Iran, Trump, and 'no d*ck energy'

This is a global player, original podcast.

It has been quite the week, a full-blown regional war in the Middle East with huge consequences

in the United States, in the UK and Europe and of course for the region as well.

It is our sixth show of the week and we thought given events we would try and make it a

bit special.

Yeah, so we asked for your questions.

It was live on YouTube and you can still find it there.

Lewis wore a special jumper for the occasion.

Welcome to the news agents.

The news agents.

It's John.

It's Lewis and welcome to a live question and answer edition of the news agent streaming

on global player and YouTube.

We've been asking for your questions.

You've sent many of them in fabulous questions and we're going to get to them over the

next 35 to 40 minutes and please keep the questions coming.

You'll be able to listen to this episode as a normal podcast just like you normally would

at around five o'clock.

You can really live it.

It's more lucky enough to be watching it live, can we live it over the course of the weekend.

And before we come to the first question, Lewis, can we discuss your knitwear?

Please.

What do you want to discuss?

Well, it's a blue jumper with mountains, 1924 and the Olympic rings.

I've never seen you as a winter Olympian.

A winter sportsman.

Why'd you say that?

Have you ever been skiing?

I went to the Birmingham dry ski slope once.

I fell over.

It's the 102nd anniversary of the 1924 winter Olympics, John.

And if that's not a good enough reason to wear a jumper in celebration, I don't know what

it is.

Where were they?

Well, can you guess?

Shamanie.

Correct.

More winter Olympic 1924 trivia to come throughout the show.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes.

Oh, yes.

Oh, no.

Right, let's get on to the first question and not make Lewis Goodall's knitwear options.

The subject.

You asked.

Anita has been in touch.

My 14-year-old, who studying GCSE, has asked if we are now in World War III.

What would your response be?

PS?

Love the podcast.

Big fan.

This is obviously a question which is actually being discussed a lot at military level and

strategic level and actually quite a few very senior, disturbingly chillingly.

Senior military figures just from the UK in the last few years have told us that we need

to start thinking about ourselves not in a post-war state, but a pre-war state because

the idea is that we are now in a period of great power rivalry, not entirely dissimilar

to perhaps to the world we saw in the run-up to 1914 and the First World War.

And the reason it is chilling is because although we in Britain kind of think very often

about the kind of Second World War, for example, as having a very settled sort of start date,

which is the first of September 1939 when Nazi Germany invades Poland, of course, lots

of historians, and particularly the historians, depending on where you are in the world,

will put that date at a rather different moment, you know.

In Asia, you might put it in 1937 or in 1931, the start of the 1933, depending on when

you define the sort of outbreak of war between Japan and China, likewise different parts

of Europe, Central Europe would, if you were in Czechoslovakia, for example, you'd probably

say it started in 1938.

So there is absolutely a case to say that you might say we might look back in decades to

come and say that actually we are now, as we speak, in a war state and it started in,

I don't know, 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea or 2022, when Russia invaded Crimea, I think

though, and that's all totally possible, I am wary, though, of being too deterministic

about history.

And the fact is, although we can always look back on history and sort of identify big structural

forces and that has a sort of air of determinism or inevitability about it, the fact is we do

have agency, yes, the world does feel a lot like it did, perhaps in the Cold War or

perhaps in the years leading up to 1940, lots of great powers, lots of proxy wars, lots

of attempts to conduct hybrid warfare, use different militias and all sorts of different

things with lots of regional hotspots, which any given moment could pull in the great

powers, but we're not there yet, and our leaders can avoid it, and there is a danger

sometimes of making it sound like war is inevitable and that becomes a self-affilling

prophecy.

To your point about people will take different views about when the war started, the most

classic is the United States of America that thinks the Second World War was from 1942

to 1945, after Pearl Harbor when America then entered the war, that's when it sees the

war going, what was happening during the blitz in London is not part of America's view

of when the Second World War took place, I suppose the other thing I would say about this

is that I think there is a temptation when you say it's World War 3, to think of it,

oh, it's going to be like World War 1 and it's going to be World War 2 again and there

are going to be these trenches, and you know, Flanders field is going to see tens of

thousands of lives lost over a patch of muddy kind of field that has been blown to smithereens

a million times. I don't think it's going to be like that because there are so many

nuclear powers in the world right now and I think that that will limit people's ambitions,

country's ambitions to push it to the limit because they know that nuclear armageddon

could follow, but what I do think is so depressing is the scene of yet another kind of action

being started with no idea of what the end of it looks like, you know, we've seen what's

happened over the past week in Iran. What does the end of this look like? When is America

satisfied that it has achieved its warrains? What would lead to them declaring victory? And I'm

afraid it is just entirely down to Donald Trump and what he thinks, but in the meantime, you know,

you're hearing all sorts of strange reports, maybe uncoroperative, but you know, the Iraqi forces

are thinking of crossing into Iran and I mean, this is this is where it can spin out of control

so quickly. And the one thing that is so true of history and this isn't being deterministic,

it's just a, you know, historical fact, it's much easier to start wars than it is to end them.

Well, indeed, and that actually relatively minor things in the grand scheme of things, unexpected

things can create much more minor than the sort of thing we've seen this week can have consequences

that's literally less for generations. I mean, on paper, the murder assassination

of an Austrian Archduke on the streets of Sarajevo should not lead to the greatest conflagration

at that time that the world had ever seen, and yet it did. And we are seeing, and with the

Middle East, you have a kind of region which is not unlike the Balkans or Central Europe was

in the First World War is that you have basically a tinderbox of different ethnicities and religions

and, you know, states that have a long history of warfare with each other, anything of which.

And lots of states around it that, you know, until like, as we've seen with the UAE or the Gulf

State, they had no anticipation of being dragged into this until this week and then find themselves

at war. So there are always echoes. And I think the thing with Trump, people often like to say,

oh, he's really unpredictable. Sometimes that can be a good thing. It is true that that makes

world leaders less cognizant or less able to predict how, how he will act. And it might make

them a little bit more cautious, but it's also true. The flip side of it is, is that he tells things

like this. He does things like this without any, any, let's be honest, any understanding whatsoever

of the historic, ethnic, religious, or deep political schisms, which operate in a region like

that. And all he thinks about is new cycles, when a region like that operates on generational

centuries-long cycles of politics and warfare and strife. And then into that, you have Donald

Trump's quicksotic personality. And I think you're seeing the consequences of that this week.

So last night I had someone give me the best analysis that I've heard so far of why this all

makes sense. And it's quite interesting to listen to. So let me run it past you. Trump next month

is going to see President Xi in China. President Xi from China showed his power over Donald Trump

when he said I'm going to stop the export of rare earth metals and Trump then had to reduce his

tariffs as a result. America has taken control of Venezuela oil. If it took control of

Iranian oil as well, then that is going to be a big hit to the Chinese economy, which imports a

lot of oil currently from China. And therefore, when President Trump goes to see President Xi,

if he's got control of Venezuela oil and he's got control of Iranian oil as well,

that gives Donald Trump an awful lot of leverage in his negotiations.

I mean, what does that give you?

Iranian oil look like in practice. Well, what's he going to do? Occupy the country take control

of its ports, of its oil production. I just don't know what that looks like in practice.

And also, maybe. But then, I mean, the short term corollary of it, as we discussed yesterday,

and even medium term one, is that the country that he's empowered through the spike of the oil

prices, Vladimir Putin and liquid gas prices, a man who was basically on the run this year because

he was running down his foreign currency reserves. And because of the fact that it's led to a spike

in oil prices, what has Donald Trump done, he's lifted some of the embargoes that the sanctions

on Russian oil, because he's terrified of prices going up at American petrol pumps.

I don't know. I sometimes say, I mean, I was, you know, he was interesting to hear someone come

up with a rational explanation, because so far, I know, it's been very difficult to see anything

where you think this is clearly thought through. But I, you know, I've, we've talked about this

a little bit before as well with Trump, which is that I just think that this, we all want to find

the rational explanations for these things, because because John, you and I, and probably everybody

listening and watching this right now, we all crave it because there is safety in reason,

and there is safety in logic. We like to try and think that there must be some sort of

deeper meaning and deeper motive behind someone as powerful as that, because if that isn't true,

it becomes terrifying, right? It becomes terrifying to think that basically so much of the fate

of the global economy of global order and our lives basically rest upon the inner life of a man

who defies reason and doesn't think very much. And so we spend all of our time analyzing desperately,

trying to find the thread, trying to find what might be behind the sort of throne, you know? But

like sometimes the Wizard of Oz is just that there's nothing there. There's nothing there beyond

this sort of screaming bag of wriggling political urges, right? Which is basically what I think he is,

you know? He's a man who is easily persuaded. I think Netanyah who has probably done that. He's

a man who I think he's got addicted to the use of military force. He's a man pretty uninterested

in the in the boredom of domestic politics. I think at this point, he's a man who's vanquished

most of his foes. He's a man who needs enemies and he needs adversaries and he's a man who likes

to be, you know, likes to think, frankly, he has big dick energy, right? And what better way of showing

that than deploying the full mic of your American military? I find that scary. I kind of think it

puts us out of a bit of a job because our job is to try and find that in a deeper meaning,

but I fear that very often it is just imposing order on a disorder, which actually exists. Lewis,

we got a question from Netanyah who's 14-year-old is suffering for a GCSE. I use that phrase.

And you talk about big, dick energy. Can I just say, Netanyah, maybe your offspring should not

be using that phrase in their GCSE offspring? Well, is this brave new world? Yeah, I'm

a child. I just don't know what gender. So I'm just saying, your child should not be using big

dick energy and I'd like to apologise for Lewis Goodall and his use of languages. My apologies,

my apologies. We've actually got a question as well before we get to that from Nick Garrett on

the YouTube live chat since we're talking about Trump, who says, could Trump use this war as a

pretense to restrict or even cancel the midterms? Again, it's a leap. I think that the midterms

will happen. I think that the midterms are going to happen, but it's going to be a different sort

of way that Donald Trump is going to try to control the outcome. And if you look at what the

ICE officials did in Minneapolis, and it's notable while we're talking about what's happening

in America, the Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Knowham, was fired yesterday by Donald Trump.

I think it's going to be something like that. And it goes like this, you invoke the Insurrection

Act, which means that you put federal forces in certain places where you think there could be disorder.

And if you're worried about election security, you may be put huge numbers of officers

around precincts, which are heavily democrat, where large numbers of Hispanic people go to vote,

which ensure that maybe the Democrats win that particular district. And does the Hispanic

person think, I don't want to produce my papers. I don't want some guy poking a gun into my

chest and say, show me your passport, show me your illegal citizen in this country. And they stay

away and you suppress turnout in that district and you deliver victory to Republicans who might

have otherwise not stood a chance. I think that is a much more foreseeable route than Trump going

down the route and saying, it's war, we can't possibly have an election. And I would just say that

America was in a world war, was in the second world war and the 1944 presidential election

still took place. Indeed. I think that the, I mean, look, I think if this war is still going on,

it come November, then something bad has really, really happened that this has sort of gone out

of control, in which case we're probably going to be having a different conversation for stock.

I think like you said, John, I think it's far more likely that if the midterms are contested,

the outcomes are contested and they're interfered with, which I think is totally possible,

at least in some places, then I think that it's far more likely to come about and arise as a result

of internal domestic reasons that Trump puts forward. Much more akin to the sort of things we saw

in Minnesota, Minneapolis, that we reported on in January, that it's about immigration. He claims

that, you know, foreign migrants, illegals are sort of interfering and then he deploys ice and

all of that sort of stuff. I think it's, I think it's far more internal than anything to do with more

or something that's going on externally. Before we get to the next question, John, just an important

bit question here, which country was banned from competing in the 1924 winter Olympics?

Well, actually, technically, I refute the basis of your question because in 1924,

when those countries gathered, it wasn't the Olympics. It was only to create the Olympics in 1926.

Okay, well, all right. Oh, all right. All right, Stephen Fry. Just as a reminder for those who've

just tuned or tuned in, we're doing this because I'm wearing a jumper in honour of the 1934 Winter Olympics.

You're very performative, aren't you? You just, you just want to be the centre of attention, don't you?

No, what me? You asked the three of us on this show, leaving the BBC to go and start our own

podcast and show all about us what we want to be centre of the attention. No, I don't wonder for

so. Come on, which country was banned? Russia. No, Germany, because of the First World War.

Still hadn't got over it. Still hadn't got over the Treaty of Versailles.

I'm very much not, and I think that I don't think the Germans got over it for some time.

Next question, as you say, we had that question from Anita, and now I've got a question from Sean

Hagerty. Sean Hagerty. Sean Hagerty, not Sean Hannity. I would be quite surprised if Sean Hagerty

were a viewer of our show. I mean, hey, look, they're all welcome. Everyone's welcome.

Everyone's welcome, Sean. If you ever fancy doing some guest spots,

should Keir Starmer, Sean says, stay polite with Donald Trump, or is it time to start returning

the insults? I can't imagine Keir Starmer insulting anyone really. No, and, obviously,

the Jeffrey Howe thing about, or the Dennis Healey thing about, about Jeffrey Howe.

Savage by, dead sheep by, dead sheep, I don't think I can't quite see it. Yeah, exactly,

and I've fun enough, there was, there was something else that maybe think of Jeffrey Howe and Dennis

Healey early this week, which was when, you know, kind of America says, jump. This was, this was

the kind of charge laid at Jeffrey Howe when he was the conservative foreign secretary, Margaret

Thatcher's government, and Healey was the shadow foreign secretary. And, you know, in he, and it

was after kind of the latest bit of capitulation by the UK to the US. And, you know, and Dennis Healey

said to how, when America says, jump, you say, how high? And I think that there's an element of

that as well going on now, whereas actually, Starmer has said no. Now, I don't think it's a time

for returning insults. I think it's a time for, if you believe that what you're doing is the

right thing. It's the time for standing firm and just being very calm, very measured, but I think

to get into a slanging match with Donald Trump, no one wins. Donald Trump has always got better

insults than you. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like, you know, there are members of his cabinet

today who tried that. Yeah, long-distance pass, you know, yeah, exactly. And, and some of his

fiercest advocates today, Ted Cruz, all the rest of them all try to play him in his game. And

the truth is, no one is as petty or as vinyl or as willing to go as low as he is. Yeah, you

can't beat him. And so you might as well, I mean, David to conclude you might as well join him.

Starmer is not in that category, but he has to conclude, he has to work with him, right? I actually

think that we've been saying all we, yeah, there've been some stories about, you know, splitting his

cabinet and, you know, about his personal political strength, whatever. I still think that there

is a strong possibility that we look back at this week and say that Starmer acted, it was actually

it had one of his best weeks because he has, despite the enormous clamor that I still can't quite

understand, the sort of British war media war machine has sort of got into full gear as well,

completely forgotten about every single lesson of of Iraq and I, the Libya and our constant

meddling in the Middle East. I don't say this is a pacifist by the way. I say this is someone's

quite hawkish on quite a lot of these matters, but nonetheless, I'm pro-American, but nonetheless,

basically 90% of the British media has been desperate for Keir Starmer to do something that

personally almost no one in Britain wants him to do, which is to sign up to a war without

objective, without end or without method, sign up British troops to take part in it, basically

completely outsource our foreign policy to the most unhinged occupant of the, uh,

Oval Office who has ever existed and they want him to do that and put British troops in harm's

way for no apparent reason, just because Trump wants him to do. And I think that he has shown

a fair bit of steel and a fair bit of judgment actually in refusing to do so. And people often say

that, you know, they think that he ought to be stronger and that he ought to, you know, show us

who he really is. I think he has shown us who he really is this week. Yeah, it's to be commendate.

Yeah, and look, I agree completely. And we've both been on the same page of this. As with someone

last night, former senior civil servant, who was saying he should have just done one thing or

the other. You either go all in like Canada and Australia did, or you make a principle stand,

and then you don't, but you don't move from that. But I don't really understand that because how

could he, when our allies are being attacked, how could he then refuse? And if American soldiers

are being fired upon by Iran, how could he refuse the American opportunity to defend, to use

our bases to defend them? With, on some sense, we would then be partly responsible for their deaths.

But you wonder whether it will move again, possibly. I think that there's going to be another

nudge and David Lamy, the deputy prime minister, sort of almost hinted as much this morning in a

radio interview that, you know, Britain could start taking out some of these. Well, I suppose if

more Britain, if the Iranians start to attack British military assets, sort of more, I know it's

sorted out. Missiles are a factor. Yeah, but if it starts happening more sustained way, and there's

certainly if anybody's killed or anything like that, and I suppose we'll have no choice, although

it does seem that, you know, the Iranians are running out of missiles. They're running out of

ballistics quite rapidly. So I'm not sure the extent to which they're going to have missiles and drones

spare to start attacking. Oh, yeah, I mean, it's interesting that because is it possible that,

I mean, it may be that they're running out of ballistic missiles, or they're rationing them,

because they want to play this very long. And so to still be able to cause mayhem and surprise

by, you know, launching another ballistic missile attack. Possibly. I mean, all, all, all I,

all I just think we've got to the end of the week. And it's clear that this is spiraled so rapidly.

Yeah, out of control. As a by John. Yeah. And I think that Starma could see that coming,

and didn't want any part of it. And I think that's fair enough. And Sam, in London says,

early this week, a marine veteran named Brian McGinnis shouted protests against the Iran war

during a congressional hearing. He resisted being ejected from the chamber, or a Republican senator

named Tim Sheehy himself a former Navy seal joined the effort to throw McGinnis out. As McGinnis

clung to the door and shouted, no one wants to fight for Israel, she his forces snapped his arm.

Has something left a soul of American civilization? Has so-called toxic masculinity in America now become

weapons grade? Sam, it's a very interesting question. And it's very troubling the way some of

the political debate is covered. And I know we've got a question as well about the language being used

by Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, except he's still the defense secretary, where I think-

Smalled energy, I think. Yeah, Hegseth. You've got a thing going here. Yeah, well,

you are going to be banned from the studio. One more use of the word dick, okay?

Okay, sorry, John. There we are. Yes, the circle. We've just got to keep certain standards up here.

We may have got to leave you to see. We want to keep standards going. For God's sake, this is

Britain. I don't know. I think that for the most part, the thing that struck me when I moved to

America was the civility of so many people. And these two things are going side-by-side, which is

kind of gives a lot of dissonance. In the sense that you meet people and you'll meet a, you know,

mega-republican, and they'll be polite, and they'll be charming, and they'll be very,

but then you kind of hear their views, and they start getting very aggressive. There is undoubtedly

much more fratboy-towel-snapping energy, and the way that debate is conducted has moved into

the political sphere. I would say that America has always had a much more robustuous political

dynamic than Britain. And, you know, you go back to the first Gulf War and storm in Norman Schwartzkopf,

who was in charge of US forces then. And it was the first time we'd seen sort of video film

of a tax-taking place. And it was, you know, a kind of bridge, somewhere, a lorry going across

the bridge and the bridge getting blown up, and them all having a laugh about it. I mean,

some of that stuff has been going on for quite a long time now, but I do think you're right. Look,

you know, the tolerance of opposition and respectfully disagreeing is not something you're seeing

a huge amount of in the States right now. No, that's right. I mean, look, I do think that there

has been, in fairness, that there has long been this strain of political violence in the United,

so I don't just mean political violence in the streets. I also mean, in terms of the rhetoric,

it's always just beneath the surface. It's weird, because on the one hand, in Britain,

our parliamentary activity at the House of Commons is often much more robust than we see in the United

States. I mean, the Congress, I mean, you know, it's better than anyone, John, but you know,

I've sat in congressional debates, I mean, quite literally, I mean, it is absolutely. I mean,

I can even think of some of our rival podcasts I'd rather listen to as opposed to that.

I mean, honestly, how are you doing, Roy? Anyway, no, do you care, Niju?

Right. That is the last time. That is the last time. Anyway,

you know, they are literally a, you know, a senator or whatever literally goes into the chamber,

literally gives a speech to an empty room about from the presiding officer, literally just a

bullet on the record, no debate, no nothing. We don't have that, you know, thankfully our chamber is

much more alive. And yet, occasionally, in American politics, the strain of kind of violence that

we sort of saw this week, just beneath the surface, even an apartment is there. And obviously,

the most famous example is what happened with Charles Summner in the Civil War. You know,

Charles Summner, an anti-slavery senator, two days later, pro-slavery, Congressman Preston

Brooks walks into the Senate chamber, nearly beats him to death with a cane on the Senate floor.

And this is one of the sort of great events that leads up to the Civil War beginning in 1860,

you know, literally a guy beats death. And actually, when a guy who beat Summner went into the Senate

chamber a couple of days later, he was cheered by pro-slavery, the pro-slavery side. So this does

this strain, like of violence in American politics, is longstanding. It's long been there. But I

think it's fair to say that with a hyper-polarization, hyper-hyper-partisanship that we now see in American

politics and the kind of twin realities, which sort of you could argue kind of existed in the 19th

century, you could argue the kind of more settled post-war world with the kind of exception in American

politics and American history. And I think it's a sort of strong case for that. But nonetheless,

you have seen all of these views and come together and you see extraordinary scenes like we've seen

this week. Yeah. And the fact of the matter is that, you know, you're absolutely right. I mean,

Senate debates, congressional debates, the hearings are tedious, often, beyond belief. A House of

Commons, I mean, you know, when the Nazis bombed the Commons chamber in the Second World War,

Churchill decreed that you actually had to maintain that one that they it should be adversarial,

the MPs facing each other from one side to the other, two that it should be too small for all the

MPs to fit into so that you had that sense of it being crowded and slightly claustrophobic. And if

you know, if you ever visit the Commons chamber, you'll notice there are two red lines on either side

of the green benches down the carpet. And those are two sword lengths apart, which means you mustn't

cross there where you could attack each other with a sword. But of course, they don't do. So we

have a very adversarial system. But we do not have that history. I mean, you know, yes, they've been

terrible instances of MPs being killed in recent years. But we don't have that same sort of history

of political violence in the same way that they do in America. Just saw some more 1924 trivia.

Oh, good. Um, an Olympic medal was given for an event, something that had taken place

two years before. Can you guess what it was? It was just for a special category of Olympic

event that has not been repeated ever in any Olympics since before. Firing, firing someone out of a

cannon. It's not a circus libation. Well, they coo the clowns. You are not choosing this podcast

to a circus, Mr. Goodman. Okay. It was actually given for Mount Everest. There was a special

award for a category called Alpinism given to the members of the 1922 British Mount Everest

expedition, even though they didn't reach to summit, but they still got a gold medal for not

getting it pathetic, isn't it? I mean, the rots started to set in in this country when that

happened. We started to reward for rewards for failure. Exactly. You should have saved it until,

you know, Threadman Hillary got. Of course, we've got a new award, haven't we, John? Oh, what?

The crime agents? No, not the crime. No, I don't think about them. I've talked about the

Golden Globes. Oh, yeah. The Golden Globes have now got a lot of cast awards. Yeah, we are going to

be there. So if you, if anyone does know anyone on the Golden Globes award committee, whatever that is,

then we're very grateful for your representation. And obviously, we're available for bribes and

other means to which you could influence the decision of the judges. All you need to do is ask

will give corrects. And we've got another YouTube question here, which is, when is the next

live tour? Well, it could be in LA if we get the Golden Globes. Is it possible to do that with a number

of holidays? John and Emily have great question. Great question. I don't think it would be possible.

Well, unless we did it in the Asia Pacific. Yeah. I mean, Emily is, as we speak, feeding can

grooves, I think, which is, she seems to have been doing rather a lot since she's got to Australia.

See, I go to Australia so often, though. Well, yes. I mean, we're only on the sixth of March.

Between you, I believe you've spent a whole month in Australia this year.

Wait, were you, were you here last week before? Well, I was away for five days. Yeah, well,

you were in Lanzagrotti. I think that is like, honestly, I think I deserve that. Lanzagrotti. That's

what they call it. It's actually very lovely. Honestly. But it's not the Asia Pacific, is it? Well,

no. They won't let me go that. I can't go that far because if I go that far, one of you will end

up feeding some bloody Joey in New South Wales or God knows where. Are you suggesting you are

indispensable? Yes. Should we move on? Yeah. I think we've got a voice note from Adam in North

London. Well, actually, hold fire, John, because we will bring you that question and answer that

question right after the break. From a range of trusted voices and award-winning journalists.

Good morning. I'm Nick Ferrari. It's time to get to your calls.

Find out the latest news and hear every side of the story. I will say the UK has been very,

very important. They were on relationships that this is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with.

The Prime Minister sticks to his guns over Iran. But if Iran is the question,

is it a Chilean response, even the answer? The conflict in the Middle East.

Follow it live on LBC. Listen on our free global player app or the LBC app.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah. It's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group,

Void We're Prohibited by Ma, CTNC's, 21 Plus, sponsored by ChambaCasino.

It sports greatest soap opera. And we've got your VIP pass to all the drama.

This is Up To Speed, you knew Formula One Podcast. With me, Will Bucston, David Coolthard,

Naomi Schiff, and Joli Shalop. Expect unfiltered race reactions behind the scenes insight

and blockbuster interviews. Plus answers to the questions you've always wanted to ask.

Like to everyone drivers pass their driving tests first time? Yes. Spoiler, they don't.

When the race begins over, we're here to keep you up to speed. Listen and watch today.

Search up to speed on global player. Up to speed.

The news agents. Good morning news agents. I'm Adam from North London and I wanted to ask

which former Prime Minister would you most like to see a comeback of given the current geopolitical

tensions? Go on. You're not allowed to say Tony Blair Jones. I'm not going to. No.

But I think, well, continuing on from where we started, which is that the world

increasingly looks a bit more pre-first world war, maybe like Lloyd George.

Lloyd George was a spiky, whatever. The world's movement. The world's movement, very clever

statesmen, represents the UK at Versailles. Versailles, which was basically that really was the

board of peace of its day, sort of world government. I think you need someone who is able,

who has that sort of like quick silver approach. And actually, you know, I mean, it's actually

in quite rare to sort of go on a sort of prolonged offence of Kirstama. But you know what, I don't

think that for all of his other faults, which are there, particularly on the domestic sphere,

I can think of worse Prime Ministers to currently replace right now. And I think there are other

Prime Ministers who would have gone along with the kind of drumbeat to war machine and assume

make the fatal mistake, which I think Blair did make, which was that a British Prime Minister

has to be with the American president, come what may. Despite the fact that whether it's that

the Vietnam War with Harold Wilson and LBJ or vice versa, with the Falklands. I mean, people

forget that for all of how close Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were. In the early days and

weeks of the Falklands war, Reagan tried to, because Argentina was an important ally in the cold

war for him, anti-communist ally, he tried to sort of be a sort of mediating figure between the

two sides, much to Thatcher's fury, eventually sort of ways in behind the British. But there are

lots and lots of occasions during the post-war period where Britain and America are not on the same

page. They're in the same book, like, expressed in the metaphor, but they're not always on the same page.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think that Starmer on the world stage has looked very comfortable.

I mean, it looks like he's kind of at ease with these people. He knows what the national interest is.

He knows where he wants to be. He's worked out that, you know, he wants to have a much closer

relationship with Europe and while still maintaining good relations with the US. I mean, I suppose my

slight hesitation about your question, Adam, is the idea that any British leader is going to make

any difference to the geopolitical tensions when you've got some Donald Trump in the White House

and you've got Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin? I'm not sure how bidible these people are. I'm not sure

what you could say to Netanyahu or to what is left of the Iranian leadership that would have

any impact whatsoever. And I just think that we sometimes exaggerate the role that we can play

in these things of reducing tensions in the world when this is superpower stuff and we ain't

no superpower. I know, this has been one of the things that's frustrated me throughout the course

of the week in terms of some of the commentary. I've seen loads and loads of commentaries saying,

you know, particularly from some commentators on the right saying, Britain has never felt less relevant.

Britain has never, you know, in all my lifetimes, like, yeah, well, we probably haven't been. I mean,

that's probably true because Britain has been on one long relative decline. We are in middle ranking.

Powerously important country. We've got important military player. You know, we used to be more

important than we are now partly because we were in the EU. We were a leading player in the EU.

We could corral that but the truth is some of those people who've been complaining those complaints

this week have been central to the diminishing of Britain standing over that period because the pillars

of our foreign policy used to be the transatlantic alliance at EU membership and to a lesser extent

our commonwealth connections. Well, a commonwealth has never been less relevant. The transatlantic

alliance is now led by a man who likes Britain in the sense of it. He likes the thought of it and,

you know, he likes the monarchy. He likes the thought of us as a sort of theme park but has no real

attachment to us or anybody else and is completely and utterly unpredictable. And we're now on the

outer periphery of Europe, out in the cold because we're not within the political structures of the EU.

So guess what? Yeah, we do feel less relevant than we have before because basically over the last

10 years, some of these people who've complaining, some of it structural as well and some of it relative

decline has consigned Britain to a less powerful standing than we used to have and that isn't

Keir Starmer's fault. Oh, and just by the way, in answer to on the Prime Minister's question,

of course, we did have a Prime Minister, not a bit of trivia here, who spoke some farcey.

So we couldn't have him, do you know who that was, John?

Yeah, it wasn't Liz Truss, was it?

How was she speaking something? I think she speaks in tongues these days.

No, anti-Eden. Well, I was going to guess Eden and I was going to

not help him with his Middle Eastern business. No, but I was going to say,

Eden is the person because my God, the mistakes he made and when you talk about the relevance of

Britain, I mean, wasn't that the turning point? The Suez crisis. When the globe was Keir Starmer

responsible for that, probably, for the Daily Mail. But you know, but there you had a time where

Britain thought it could still go on a posting period course with the French and the Israelis

to block the nationalisation of the Suez Canal and what happens is that America says,

no, you've got to stop and Britain says, no, we're going to carry on and America says, okay,

we'll bankrupt you. And Britain folded anti-Eden, we left, you know, had to resign as Prime Minister.

It was a catastrophe. And this is what's so irritating about the kind of, you know,

we don't hear much about global Britain anymore, right? Because global Britain and Brexit,

and look, as I've always said, you know, there's so many faults with the EU. I'm not a massive

actual EU-Urophile, but the fact of the matter is is that, you know, what happened 10 years ago now

is we basically decided to leave the EU on the basis of a world that we can see in 2026 no longer

exists. It was a still relatively settled post-cold Cold War world. It was a world where we assume

that the direction was against protectionism and towards free trade and a world where the geopolitical

order was relatively settled. What have we seen is that we are now, find ourselves as Britain,

little Britain, we find ourselves in a situation where we can't go into the world as global Britain

because we see massive both commercial trade and military geopolitical power blocks,

whether it's the United States, Russia, China, all playing out these proxy wars all over the

world engaged in massive great power rivalry and competition. And where do we find ourselves?

These people sort of complaining that we're not at the table, no, we're not at the table,

because the only way conceivably we really could have been at the table is leading or part of

a large European block. And that is no longer available to us.

Let's get this question from Matt in Bournemouth. Do you think one reason Trump has decided to take

this action in Iran now is to create another distraction from the Epstein files, love the show,

and please do another tour. There's a demand for us to be out on tour.

I know, I know. Well, I mean, we're like the beach boys.

Really? Okay. Just take that metaphor one step further. What we're all blonde-haired?

Yeah, sex symbols. I've made of many decades standing in your case, John. Fewer decades in my case,

maybe a few more to come. Well, you at the 1924 Olympics. Oh, I was building up to that.

Yeah, I was building up to that. You were probably covering the Luzh.

Upway more Luzh, that was his joke. That was his opening joke.

Going on tour. You were doing the Luzh.

Yes, quite. Go on. Yeah, so I don't believe that the Epstein files

is part of this. I think that there are times... I mean, Trump has tried to distract people

away from the Epstein files and every single time has only made things worse. When he's told people,

there's no need to release the files that Congress shouldn't pass the law or try to pressure them.

Every step of the way Trump has drawn attention to the Epstein files. So the idea that you would

launch a war with Iran and Israel. I don't buy it. I just don't think that it's...

You know, the Epstein files will come back. God, are you going to entertain it?

No, I don't think... I don't think it was about the Epstein files. I think he does other things

to distract from the Epstein files. But as you say, John, I don't quite...

Frankly, frankly, the Epstein files, they've sort of come and gone as far as Trump is concerned.

You know, he has been able, despite the fact, despite the fact that there are potentially

questions for chance of him, despite the fact there are accusations made, particularly by some

Democratic congressmen and women who have seen the unredacted files, that they claim that Donald

Trump is in them and are in the files that have been redacted with his name on and so on. Despite

all of that fact, the truth is, the political pressure from his own side just hasn't been there

on him. He's managed quite successfully. The Republicans in Congress have managed quite

successfully to make it about other people. Frankly, you know, the reaction I think to the

Epstein files shows in America shows the extent to which Britain remains a healthier democracy with

a healthier political system and a healthier judicial system because we have seen action, take

place or be it, you could argue far too late and whatever, but there has been a response in Britain

and there has been huge soul searching within British politics about figures within British

politics, whether it's Andrew Manelson or whoever, connected with the Epstein files, even if it is

peripherally. I mean, for God's sake, it's almost brought down Keir Starmer, a man who has no real

connection to them whatsoever, other than the fact he appointed a guy who is mentioned in the files.

I think what it shows more than anything else, I don't think Trump needs to distract from them

because I don't think they've really touched him beyond the initial cost, perhaps, when he was

prevaricating over their release. Okay, we've got a question from Rory on the YouTube live chat. He says,

in 1924, we've got a theme going here, in 1924, Lenin died. Given Putin's advancing years, what

did happen if he were to die suddenly slash relatively soon? I mean, this is such an interesting

question, when the truth is, is that obviously Russia has only had since the end of the Cold War,

since the Soviet Union truly collapsed in 1991. It's only had two leaders. It's had Borussia,

Borussia else, and Vladimir Putin. Yeah, please have him, have him, have him, for

all of that. And Vladimir Putin, Putin has been in office now, it's 2000. On and off, President

Prime Minister, you could say, you know, he was still Putin's puppet, so it's had two slash three

leaders depending on how you can. And so therefore, everyone in terms of the political system in Russia,

it's Vladimir Putin's world, and they're just living in it. And I think what is clear is,

obviously, we saw what happened with Pregozion and the sort of aborted kind of coup there,

but my understanding is reading people who know the Kremlin, do Kremlin, and no Russia far better than

than I do, and say that Putin, in terms of his regime, is that it will be someone who mirrors Putin,

and someone who, if not chosen by Putin, but someone who, by definition, is a Putinist,

because they have survived within that regime for as long as they have. And if we're thinking in

the West, if we're sat here thinking God, if only Putin were to die, and then perhaps we could

get a business, a politician with whom we could do business, Putin has created a massive,

kleptocratic, plutocratic war machine, right, that is all centered, A, on this war continuing,

for as long as possible, you've got all of this, not only a half of the Russian economy,

been turned over to arms production, where you've got these, you know, thousands and thousands,

hundreds of thousands of young Russian men being paid more money than they could ever get within

Russia, huge parts of the Russian economy now dedicated to and based on remittances basically

from the war, Putin could drop down dead tomorrow, and all of those structural factors,

a sort of war economy, a total war economy would still exist, and whoever replaced him,

it would not be easy for that person, even if they wanted to, to stop it quickly, or to extricate

themselves from it. So, so much as Russian society been geared around this sort of new wartime,

as I say, plutocratic stuff. I think there are certain similarities actually with Iran, where,

you know, America and Israel managed to decapitate the leadership of Iran, but what, you know,

failing to appreciate how many layers of people underneath that, or of like-mind, who've been

groomed accordingly, to carry on the ideals of the revolution, and I think so it is in Putin's

Russia, where, as you say, Lewis, if you've made it this far and haven't fallen out of an eighth

floor window, or accidentally slipped on a bar of soap in the shower and broken your neck,

then frankly, there's a fair chance you're going to be fully signed up to Putin, and have,

you know, your hands dipped in the blood sufficiently, that you want to carry on that legacy,

so I'm not sure that any real change comes as a result of him game. Now, Michael Trough,

on the Sussex coast, has been in touch. How bad do you think the main local elections need to go

for Labour to make- for Labour to make here a Starmer's position as PM untenable?

And if he is to leave, who do each of you think is most likely to be the next Prime Minister?

Um, I think that- I think one of the things for Starmer now is that the expectation

is so baked in of how bad that they're going to be, that it almost feels, it's almost hard to

conceive of how bad they would have to be for it to be sufficiently bad for Starmer to go.

Yeah. And I think that, you know, this Iran stuff as well, I mean,

who knows, who could still be going on, who knows what situation will be in by then?

Global instability helps Starmer. It helps Starmer enormously, partly because,

whoever would be Prime Minister, it's sort of locked into some extent. It would seem an act of

both pettiness, self-indulgence, but perhaps, you know, profound irresponsibility for the Labour

Party to choose a moment of huge global instability to replace the British Prime Minister,

because obviously it wouldn't be a quick process either. You know, it's not like the old days when,

you know, for example, where MPs used to just decide this stuff, you know, Harrel Wilson decides

that he's going in 1976 and, you know, within a week or so, Jim Callahan is in. It's not like that.

You're going to have to have, assuming that it's contested. You have a full Labour Party leadership

contest. It's got to go out to, you know, you've got to get the MPs nominating, then you've got to

get all of the members voting. You know, it's going to take weeks and weeks. And that sort of

stasis helps actually lock, structurally lock in an incumbent Labour Prime Minister for whom it is

already quite difficult to get rid of them. So I think if there is ongoing instability, the like

that we've seen the last couple of weeks or the last week or so, I think in a way that the

May elections become less important or seem less important. And Starma, however unpopular it is,

it helps him sort of lock himself in. So Michael, I think what's so interesting about your question

is that the second part of it is, who do each of you think is the likely successor?

Is what makes me think the first part isn't going to happen? That I think that, you know,

I think it's still underpriced. I'm not saying it will happen, but it's underpriced the possibility

of Keir Starma leading Labour into the next election. I think it's still very, very possible.

And so, you know, okay, I sort of saw your question and I thought, okay, we're treating. Well,

no, we're treating, you know, does he command enough of the left and he's possibly going to lose his

seat at the next election? And has he gone too far, too fast, too quickly? And there's upset a lot

of people along the way with his apparent ambition. And then you think, well, what about Angela Rainer?

Well, yeah, but has she got over our problems with the, you know, HMRC? And also, you know,

a moderate wing of the Labour Party going to vote for her. So maybe it's not her. And well, you know,

what about, and so it goes on that you think, well, no, they can't. Well, it can't be them in

Shabbana Mahmoud. No, the left of the party is not going to get behind her. And so every time I

keep dismissing somebody who is a potential leader, I then come back to the fact that, you know,

well, I think Starma will still be the leader. And also, I mean, it reminds me quite a lot of the

sort of, to mention him again, that the, the, the, Harrow Wilson period in the late 60s. I mean,

Wilson, I mean, we think of him now as having one, four elections out of five, but there was a

period, particularly after the evaluation in which he was profoundly unpopular. And he lost the

1970 election, but there was all this speculation constantly about whether he was going to be

challenged. It was easier to challenge to challenge a Labour leader then because it was just the

MPs deciding it. So, and yet he survived. One of the reasons he survived is, is ever the Labour

Party is deeply factional. And each faction is always terrified about the other faction winning.

And therefore, that they will be vanquished. And someone like Wilson was very, very good at sort

of playing those factions off against each other. And right now, right now, though, that if you're not

on the soft left or left of the Labour Party, you're worried because you know that if there's a

lead leadership election now, it's almost certainly Angela Rainer's, a Red Miller Bands, or

someone from the soft left for the taking. There is no way that the West Reaching or Shabbat

Moon particularly in the wake of the Green Victory in Gauntlet. And all of the conversation will no

longer be, is it might have been six months ago, who is the best person to beat Nadja Farage?

The actual question, the essay question is going to be, who can beat Zach Polansky? And that gives

you a very different answer to the essay question than if it had been something else. So, I think that

all contributes to this sense of clinging to Nurse Keir, Starma, for fear of something worse.

Okay, and we're going to come to this final question from Karl Wait. I want to say thank you,

Karl, for the question, but it's slightly problematic. I'm going to read it. Love the show.

Do you ever fall out with each other or have a disagreement on what you should talk about

on the podcast? Lewis? I have nothing to say.

I want to say that we love each other very dearly, that there is never a crossword.

Oh, shut up. We agree the whole time with each other and just support each other as fully

as we can as true and dear friends. This really is no dick energy.

But it will be a bloody lie. Now, of course we, um, yeah, have you noticed there aren't any live

shows going on at the moment? We all talked to our therapists about some of these issues.

The News Agents. Well, that was fun. That was great. I can't wait to see what jumper

I wear next time. Yeah, I ate seafood. No lemon style. Did he wear jumpers? Yes, he did.

Yes, of course he did. I mean, if you want a valdenic one, if you, that's the, that's the sort

of valdenic and chic that you're looking for. I wasn't thinking of basing my career on Null,

but you know what? I think we could do worse. Really? Oh, yeah. Not much worse. We'll see you on Monday.

I remember to tune in to my Sunday show on LBC. Oh, yeah. Of course. Of course.

And if you're very lucky, John might be listening, because if for once you might not be on one

of the alternative offerings. Maybe we'll see. Bye bye. See you then. Bye bye.