Special Episode - The Political Firestorm at 10 Downing Street: Dr. Alan Mendoza

A great number of his employees don't like him, they made it obvious, and the companies

“already said in the local elections, you know, you're gone.”

I'm host Michael Allen with Beacon Global Strategies. Today I'm joined by Dr. Allen Mendoza, the chief advisor for Global Affairs at Nigel Ferrage's Reform Party. Today we'll discuss the British political firestorm in golfing, Prime Minister Kear Starmer, the Iran War, the state of the special relationship between the United States and the UK,

and the apparent appeal of the Reform Party. Stay with us as we speak with Dr. Allen Mendoza. Allen Mendoza, thank you so much for joining that segmenters. I great pleasure to be here, Mike. Well, we're happy to have you.

I've gotten to know you through the years, especially as you've associated with the Reagan Forum in Washington, DC, and you have had such a story to an interesting career already, and we're going to get into your move from the conservative party over to Nigel Ferrage's party in the work you're doing for him on foreign policy.

But since we first invited you, we've had the Iran War and consternation in Europe about

that and British role in the world. And now Starmer is fighting for his political life. So this is the best moment to have you, and I can't wait to get into these issues because they're incredibly exciting. So here we are, we're on the other side of a successful visit from the king to the United

States where he had all the right moves, said all the right things, please, everyone.

“And here we are, I think I hope about to get to a better place with our relationship with”

the United Kingdom. But Starmer is fighting for his political life, and I'm not so sure he was on board with many things the United States wanted to do anyway.

So first tell us, I mean, when did Starmer begin to spiral?

Was it in please explain the controversies around Epstein or was it before that? Well, it's a very complicated one because here you have on the surface an extraordinary situation. You have a prime minister who won an extraordinary large majority in the general election not even two years ago where Labour turfed out the Conservatives off to 14 years.

And you know, they didn't just win, they won by a landslide. But the problem was that the landslide was a very sort of almost impossible to have a narrow landslide, but it was because basically the way our system works. Labour won a third of the popular vote, but one-two-thirds of the seats. So it meant that it was a mile while an inch thick to use the phrasing.

And so he started from position which looked very strong. I've got a massive government majority, but in reality, people had not necessarily given a massive vote of confidence to his government. And then very quickly it went wrong from day one because there were no real animating ideas to his government.

There was no sort of sense of philosophy, no underlying belief or program that was sort of being enacted. And as a result, because of that, and just to highlight that point, the two most successful governments in Britain over the last 50 years were Margaret Thatcher's and Tony Blair's down to agree with what they did, but in terms of changing Britain and getting things done.

And the reason I would posit they managed that was because both of them had an underlying ideology. Thatcher at Thatcherism, Blair had what was called the third way, and they then were able to bolt on, a whole program for government around that basically. Well, Starmer didn't have any overriding philosophy, nobody knew what he was about, what

he was for. Labour's spent the whole election with what was called a Mingvar strategy, just carry the vars across the room, hoping that doesn't smash, don't say too much because it might smash or someone might knock it off all the rest of it. So, you know, you didn't have that start, but then events started to quickly cascade and

lead him into very difficult terrain, we had the Southport riots, we had the various U-turns on winter, a few of our pensioners, you know, other matters he tried to get through his back benches didn't like yet to come back. And so very quickly, what was a position of strength became a position of weakness, you've blown off course, buffeted by global events and domestic events, and things took

“her, I think, a much worse turn, more recently, with the whole Peter Mandels in episode,”

the links to Epstein, and the suggestion that, you know, Mandels such a never been appointed

as ambassador and in fact, he was only appointed because Stama just wanted him for that job

of solidifying everyone's mind that this was not a government that was doing things properly, it was a government that was doing things accidentally and after results, you know, it

was seeping support, you know, add to that, it was always, if you look around, crime is, you

know, is rife, demography is a disaster, people worried about growing, you know, the influence of radical Islam, migration, illegal migrants, you know, that problem not solved, and then of course, national defense, looking very weak, you know, context, what we've seen in Iran and beyond. So if you put all these things together as well as an economy that, you know, it wasn't

in top gear and people began to, you know, already with the turn of the year go, how long can this government last? And then to seal on it, you had a local election results last week, which, with disaster for the Labour Party, they were absolutely smashed in the polls, losing around 1400 seats.

“I think it was in terms of the number of seats they lost and, you know, reform UK, winning”

comprehensively, but Labour were leaking seats everywhere to reform, to the Greens, even to the Conservatives in certain places, Lib Dems, in Scotland to the SNP, Clyde-Gymre, they were being roundly defeated, of course, everywhere, everywhere, and when you get that point, people are going, what is all this about? Yeah.

Where are we at? Who is this guy leading us? Where's he leading us to?

And if I was a Labour MP, I'd always conclude he's leading us to disaster.

That has set itself up for this situation now where it looks like he's going to be challenged. I stress, it looks like, because it's a very, another complicated process to get to the standpoint, but clearly his authority has shot and nobody can believe that he will lead that party into the next general election. Okay, so we'll get to these in the event soon on Starmers speech earlier that is trying

to save him and then people that might challenge him next, but, you know, I consider myself an ally of Britain, I love our history and I might not want you off. Exactly, and I'm excited about the special relationship, and I loved King Charles's line with that we just can't rest on our history, though we need to have a agenda going forward. And I get that Donald Trump isn't exactly one, two, coordinate and consult before major actions.

But I have to say, when I saw the Prime Minister dressing an audience on a Muslim holiday, him seeming to stress to everyone there, "Hey, you know, don't punish me. We had nothing to do with this," and, you know, suggesting, I don't know, it was almost as if he was afraid that he was going to get heckled and he was trying to inoculate himself. It didn't seem strong, it came across to me over here, and by the way, the clip went

everywhere of, wow, who is this guy? He's got no direction, but do I have that right? How would stead seem across the pond? Are you referring to what his comments around the Iran war? Are you referring to that?

Yeah, sorry. Okay. So, his line on Iran has been, "I made the right call.

“I," you know, said Britain should not be involved, and, you know, that's what I've delivered.”

Well, it's not true. So let's look at his claim here, Britain's not involved, Britain has been involved.

Britain wasn't involved over the first weekend, because rather disgracefully, he said

to the Americans, you can't use the bases in the UK, because we don't want to be part of this conflict. Now, it's really interesting that whole, you know, stance, because if you go back to 1986, Margaret Thatcher was faced with a similar question about the bombing of Tripoli, if you remember.

And she was asked by the Reagan administration, can we use the bases? Please, we want to use our bases, and her line was unequivocal. It was like, look, I don't want to take part in this. I'm not interested in taking part in this attack on Tripoli, but it would be childish and foolish for us to say to an ally that has had its bases here for 40 years at that point

in time, had to keep us safe and was keeping us safe from the Soviet Union and say to them, "No, we're okay with you doing that, but we're not okay with you doing other military things that you felt when you were an actual interest."

“That's what I got it right, Starmopolitan, it wrong.”

Nobody, nobody felt Britain should be part of the Iran war, it wasn't the case. But he then, of course, then did allow them to use the bases, after the first weekend. And he also said that Britain would participate in so-called defensive operations, which included what seemed to me to be offensive strikes on places that might be targeting Britain's allies in the Gulf.

So, you know, it's a lie that we weren't involved, we've been involved, we've been of it, we just weren't involved at the start and what, as a result, the damage was done, we damaged the relationship and no purpose, since we got involved later anyway.

the relationship with Israel is already at a very low end because of what this government

has done separately on Israel.

“And I think it is all linked to domestic politics, you're right to make a link with”

domestic politics. What is quite clear is that the Prime Minister is trying to appease a sectarian voter base in the form of parts, at least the British Muslim community, who are motivated to vote primarily on foreign policy rather than on domestic policy. And this, by the way, came out in the recent local elections, you know, we've had about

one in ten of the successfully elected candidates across the country, have been people who would call sectarian style candidates, they are either people who are themselves at Muslim and making a particular pitch to a particular segment of the Muslim community, all their people who are not Muslim, like for example members of the Green Party which did very well in the local elections, they were also making a very specific dog whistle pitch, or frankly

not even dog whistle pitch, an open pitch, to a segment of the population rather than the general population. And so this sectarian issue is right for an alive, I'm afraid Mike in our politics today, and it's causing difficulties because people like the Prime Minister are having to or feel, I think they do need to, but they feel they need to bow to it, and as a result, that

is impacting on our foreign policy, it's impacting on policies at home, and it's impacting on our effectiveness as an ally as a result of it.

“Well, that's what I was referring to with the holiday event, Stormer spoke at, he definitely”

seems like he was tried to appeal to that particular part of the labor base without reference to the special relationship or Britain's obligations abroad, or there's so many places

to take this conversation, let me, let me first ask you, what, I agree, you all have interests

in the Middle East, let's get to the Gulf allies in a second, but I feel like I read that you all had some inkling that we were going to do this, yet there were no British ships, even in the Mediterranean, or even anywhere, poised to get there in a timely fashion, as I read the newspaper, it seemed like you all had some obligations to help Cyprus, I think it was, and so talk a little bit about, did they just fumble their situational awareness or was this

a fault of the United States for not coordinating? Well, so again, I'm sure the U.S. did not keep the UK fully apprised about what was happening on what its plans were, and that said, we were told certain things, that much is evident, we know that, because we did move some f forces into position in February into the Gulf, so there was clearly some knowledge of some kind of activity was going to happen, and

not simply that, we must have surely factored there would have been, you know, potential Iranian attacks on bases that we had in places, because that's just how the Iranians operate,

“so I think there were two problems here, I think there was a failure of strategic view here,”

about what the Iranians might do, and therefore there was a sense of, oh, do we need to defend these bases or how do we mitigate any potential risk of which didn't, you know, carry through?

And I think the second issue was that, of course, this war has brutally exposed Britain's

weakened military state, because of course, famously, we're infamously, one of the reasons that we did not have a destroyer say, parked outside Cyprus, to Cyprus, to Cyprus, you by the way, that we have sovereign bases in Cyprus, these are British territory within Cyprus at how military states, military camps, so you would think we'd want to protect those, obviously the purpose of a destroyer is to do air defense, and from the perspective of missiles coming in,

or drones coming and shooting them down, but it seems that as we discovered, it was very difficult for us to move a ship there, because we didn't seem to have any that could do it, either they were all being refitted, or they were in other places, and you couldn't, therefore, prepare to move the right force, and then, of course, when the ship, the HMS dragon got there, very soon it had to be withdrawn, because there was a water problem with it, so again, lots of

question marks about, you know, the readiness, the ability of the UK to scramble forces at fairly short notice, or to plan appropriately and effectively, there's something that we might have suspected was on the way, so I think lots of failings were exposed by that episode, and none of them am cost Britain and British leadership in a good life. I want to come back around to immigration and the Muslim cohort and British society when we begin to talk about the reform party,

but let's just finish off Iran here. It seems that the United Kingdom and France are becoming more interested in helping on the straight of the straight of Hormuz, maybe not getting in the middle of an escort operation, if indeed we return to that soon, which is something that the United States is going to consider. We also might consider these forces, you know, and we have

bit about how these consultations have gone among the Europeans, would they be interested in

getting involved in helping with the security of the straight after hostilities or over, but where is everyone and do I have it right that they seem to be, Europe seems to be a little bit more open to helping? Well, Europe is open to helping on this aspect, because, of course, the, you know, reopening of the straight is vital for European, you know, sort of energy security going forward, not because we buy our oil from that necessarily, but because

of the impact on the global markets for oil, and so as well as other commodities, of course, we know that the other commodities that have been affected by this blockade and by the straight being that being closed as well. So, quite clearly, it's an advantage to Europe to have the straight open, so that supply chains can continue and move on, and there isn't a federal competition

for resources, which obviously ends up in, you know, ultimately prices going up, and therefore

“we are willing, I think, to put skin in the game, when it comes to making sure that those routes”

are kept open, but I think the, you know, the caveat is going to be only once hostilities are over, only once, you know, this is concluded. And, of course, it needs to include in a certain way, I mean, the Europeans are to be fair, reservoirs about the idea that Iran should not be charging tolls here either. I mean, you know, the European position is we want to get back to a status co-ante of the straight. Everyone can ship stuff through, including Iran, no cost, we're just moving

things on in that sort of way. I think any deviant, see from that, is going to, you know, kind of cause problems to the Europeans, whether that isn't, you know, an American imposed deviant, see, or whether it is an Iranian deviant, see, but the point is, it is clearly in Europe's interests to have a free trade, uh, straight to homeless. Great. Before we begin to shift the focus of our, of our conversation, if you could just give us your analysis of the state of transatlantic

“relations, we, I think, effectively, bluntly, got Europe to go to 2.5% military spending”

5% of account infrastructure. I think people were chagrended at first at how blunt the president

was, but then admitted later, they probably needed to be, you know, they needed him to shake them to do that. And then the narrative goes, we got on this, the president got on this kick about Greenland and really angered all of the allies and there have been a series of other things when the trade realm that have also angered our European partners. So the narrative here is that we have horrible relations with Europe, certainly within the continent. And that's because

of the way Donald Trump has been handling things. You know, what comment on that? How do you see it from your post? Well, I do think that the state of relationship is in a very bad place. That's quite clear. Um, it, and then many reasons for that, um, what you've suggested is certainly one of them,

“I think there has been a sort of lack of interest necessarily in what European allies might think”

of various American Dimash's and various, you know, areas and that, you know, is not good. I think the Greenland thing was particularly destructive to that. Mainly because of course Greenland, it's currently part of a NATO member and it seems therefore, you know, very strange to be acting in that sort of way to a fellow NATO member. And that, as obviously made people question, you know, whether that alliance is real and will continue going forwards. But of course, you know,

you start off with the, with the interesting point, which is that the Europeans had for many years been essentially riding on American hotels when it came to the security of their own continent. It's been American money that's funded European security and the Europeans have wasted their money on welfare bills, as opposed to on defense. The world has gotten very scary, very quickly now, the Europeans have realized that, but they still need a lot of, you know, kind of cajoling to

move into a position where they are now prepared to spend more on defense, although they still need, I think, to be more than what has currently been committed. But I think everyone would, would give America a pass on that one. I think everyone would go, yeah, you know what, you are right. You're right on that. And you are right, just, you know, to force us along in that way. But it's the other bits, I think, that it's difficult. The other bits, the mood music,

has not been helpful from the, from the White House. There's just been, you know, a sense of, really, you know, Europe doesn't matter to the US, which I think is, I get it on the one hand, because, you know, people look at Europe's forced disposition capability and go,

But on the secondary approach, look, who realistically is going to stand with the US on the

“international stage when it comes to, you know, kind of facing down some of these malpractices?”

It's going to be Europe. It's not going to be Africa. It's not going to be Asia. It's realistically going to be Europe. It's still even despite the people say to the European. So, isn't it better to, by all means, berate the Europeans for the poor state of their military capabilities and preparedness, but get them to change it, get them to turn into useful allies again. And certainly, I believe that, you know, we can, we are used for allies and can't still be used for

allies. And that actually, it's always been American leadership that has helped bring Europe to the

right place where it needed to be, whether that was in the Cold War or beyond, in that, or even before, you could argue, in that way. And so, we do remain in my view better together than a part. And that, you know, a sort of plague on all your houses approach, does neither Europe nor America a good turn, given the challenges we are going to be facing for the rest of the century are going to ultimately effect both of us and both of us will lose out from, you know, from not standing together. So,

“yeah, I think those were to be done on repairing that relation on both sides. And, you know,”

reminding ourselves, this is the indisputable partnership that we need to, to ensure prosperity. Well, I think that's a terrific thing that you've just advanced, more Americans need to hear that, probably more Republicans like me need to hear that, that despite worries about what's going on with China, that we still do have a lot of interests in Europe and coordination on everything from trade to security issues, is I think preferable to us going on alone. One area where Britain

has been a leader, I think, is they've leaned forward on Ukraine. And so, we don't briefly touch on that in talk about our common security threat being Russia. Well, it is. I mean, here's the truth. Russia, Russia, remains a big problem. It's an aggressive, aggressive state. It's has shown it's, you know, kind of willingness to cross international borders, trying to seize land, it has hexavillions, you know, it would not be satisfied with, you know, anything it wins in the

Ukraine war. It will want more than that. And so, you know, it is essentially both against our values, but also against our strategic interests, because it makes no sense to allow Russia to carve off bits of Europe. Because again, you know, that is a challenge to the US, frankly, into the American order and to the American, you know, sort of place in the world. You know, you talk about, you know, make America great again. Yes, great. I'm, I'm one in favor of that, but America's

pretty great already in the sense of what it's managed to achieve internationally. And, you know, the sort of successes it's seen over the last eight years in, you know, in its diplomacy and beyond. So, it seems, why would America want to throw that away? Yeah, and I hope Europeans are on a good service to show America. Look, you can take a bit of a back seat here. We've got it. We're putting forcing. We're doing things. We recognize we're on the front line. You're a bit further back.

But don't just abandon us here, because we're actually fighting the same fight, right? And ultimately, when you're looking at the bigger picture, and I do think it's fair to say the Americans look at much broader horizons of Europeans. We have lost our ability to strategically think globally

because of our diminished circumstances and no doubt about that. American sea, I'm always struck

when I go to Washington, I'm in rooms with Americans, the horizons are much broader and quite rightly so, because you retain that global power status on the highest level that means you can and will, think about the global picture and where Europeans do in a very peaceful fashion instead. Great. But if you think about that, our working in Ukraine on the front line gives you more capacity in China and beyond or the Middle East to do the things that you want to do there. So, again,

that's a partnership approach. And the answer is not to leave and abandon Europeans and say, no, no, we're out of here. But go, yeah, we're going to give you the lead on this. We're going to

“back you up, but we need you to back us up in other places in response as well. And I think that”

ultimately, why do you relationship to work, Mike? They work because of utility. You can have

lots of shared values and shared beliefs, but they work because on a practical level, they work. Otherwise, you know, you're just friends who see each other every now and again and go, I was lovely seeing X, I'll wait another two years, why do you see them again? Right, what makes you want to see X more is, again, you like their company, you share views with them, but they also probably bring something to the table with them as well. So, if we're bringing

something more to the table on a place like you and you're bringing more to the table on the places, that seems to me the kind of recipe that's going to renew the alliance going forward. Well said, we need to make sure that message gets around. We're going to take a quick break and

Okay, so the original reason I invited you to the podcast before all these exciting events

“began to happen and Great Britain was your own personal history here. You, of course, co-founder”

of the Henry Jackson Society and leading foreign policy mind in London, but tell us about the state of the conservative party of which you were an active member and that you've now gone to the reform party and talked to us a little bit about your own evolution and how does that match how weak the conservative party has become? I don't know, you know, I used to watch Prime Minister's question, so I used to see and study what was going on over there. I don't feel the

conservative party at all over here in the United States. I used to always feel like they were active

and visiting, but what is going on with politics, at least between the conservatives and reform, over there in the UK? Well, it's another long story, but the short form of it for our podcast audience is that the conservatives were in power for an awful long time, 14 years,

“between 2010 and 2024, and particularly in the last period of that long stint. I think, you know,”

most people recognise including the conservative leadership today, that the party failed to deliver on its principles and not only failed to deliver its principles, actively acted against its principles,

seemingly. To give you some examples, the conservative party was always supposedly a low tax party.

When it left office British taxation, you know, was at the highest level since the Second World War. It was supposedly a party of low state spending. Well, spending had ballooned through the COVID and Ukraine war period, and, you know, again, there was no sign of it coming down. It was a party of national defense, but we've seen how military means have been, you know, kind of emaciated over time, and, you know, we have seen the decline of British military capabilities.

And that occurred, of course, during that 14-year period, only the, it's a longer story, but it was not revived during that period, and continue this downward spiral.

“And I think probably the most important issue that's driven people has been the migration one.”

This party that was supposedly about, you know, sort of British values and, you know, Britishness, decided over not simply a crisis of illegal migration with boats arriving on a daily basis conveying, you know, sort of illegal migrants onto our shores, but also a massive legal migration change, which has worked its way through society. There was a two-year period when

a net 1.5 million people entered the UK. Okay, that's a net 1.5 million more entered, but more departed.

So that's a huge population churn for a country of 68 million to have that level of change over. And people felt that the, you know, demography was changing the country was changing around them, and the Conservatives supposedly a party of conservation, conserving, were instead the agents of radical change. And that is not why people voted for them, and that's not why people were conservatives. And so, you know, I felt that the party had lost its way, horribly.

And so therefore, that I, I didn't have confidence in it anymore. I didn't think it was going to be able to recover, say simply either. But then, of course, there was a question of mark about what you do about that you just, you know, slink off into the sunset, or do you do something else. And it's a transpired that the rise of the reform party coincided with this period of change. And, you know, in conversations with the leading figures in reform, it struck me,

that they, you know, had the right set of beliefs for how to, you know, recover the country, and to take it out of this sense of absolute crisis. I should, of course, add part of the crisis, was also this absolute rise of extremism that we've seen in the UK, weekly hate marches, you know, the incredible upsurge of anti-semitism as well, all those things that, you know, again, very unbuttitioned in their ways. So, I felt that we needed a total transformation of the way

we were acting and that a minor shift was not going to do it anymore. Britain has gone so far down a certain, you know, sort of plug hole that we need a totally radical movement in the model

into a sense of who we are as a country, what we want to achieve as a nation, and where the optimism lies in politics. And I felt, speaking to Nigel Fraud and particular that he had that mix, he had the right ideas for the country, he wanted to affect that dramatic change and will crucially prepare to take some of the measures necessary that would actually act against these problems the conservatives imparted left us with. So, for me, it was that choice, it was look, I'm this

party has failed, there was a new set of people on the horizon who can do things, I believe they can achieve those things, and you could go, well, I'll sit back and let happen and, you know, genre, you can say, I'm going to put my shoulder to the grindstone, and I'm going to help

“create a, you know, a new reality for that party, and so that's what I thought I would do.”

And that, and so far, I have to say, I feel very vindicated in my decision, because I think the British people have given have shown their interest in the project reform has started, and I will hasten to add his a project, this is not a fully formed final entity right now,

it is still developing policy, it is still building out its team, but how incredible to be part of

a movement that is genuinely energizing people across the country, not simply to come out and vote, but to also be part of it, it's thought it's a massively, it's a very swiftly, you know, swift grain political party, it went from, you know, two members to 270,000 in a very short period of time, it's a largest political party in Britain's day we believe, and it is growing all the time, and it of course it had this remarkable success in the local elections last week, so of course

the challenge is on reform to keep on showing that it can deliver a policy platform that people

“want and that people will vote for, but you know we're in a good place I think to start doing”

that and delivering further. Excellent, okay, so let's go through two of these elements that you outlined.

First, can we do a little deeper on migration? I want to understand and I've read this

in every journal or newspaper article, but it's especially pronounced on the right here in the United States that Britain might feel like strangers in their own country now, and you mentioned the hate marches, you mentioned some of the anti-Semitism that has a risen, we've had these issues here, elsewhere in Europe, and I think it feeds a sense of populism, but people are quick to say, well let's people being nativeists or racist or anything, talk a little bit about how this is

affected British society, is it just the conservative types who've been worried about it? I mean, how is it materially affected the country? Well, so this is, of course, the question, and how, firstly people notice things again wrong now, you go to swathes of Britain and you'll notice nothing that's changed for the last, you know, 100, 200, 300 years, rural places, you know, will be the same as they were, essentially yeah, with broadband, you know,

techy stuff, but apart from that, it's not going to be a transformation, but if you go to the big cities, that's what you're seeing as a change, basically, go to part of London, lots of Birmingham, bits of Manchester, you're going to see a lot of other small towns, you know, in the middle of the north, and you'll see the effect of mass migration and how it's transformed those places. Now, you know, migration itself, you know, is potentially neutral, there's no, no, you know,

sort of negativity necessarily around that point, but what we're talking about is migration

“with integration, that's the key. The truth is, Michael, if you go to a good number of”

places in Britain today and some of the cities, and you get off a train and walk around, you may discover that you're, you know, you're actually in the trappings of modern day Britain, but with the dress and the moraes of Pakistan and Bangladesh, because integration is clearly failed in some of these places, and the dominant culture, as Ed Hussein rose in his very good book, which I'd recommend among the mosques, which is the dominant culture, as not only among the mosques,

it's called the dominant culture is not the British culture, it is a culture that's been imported from the old country. Now, the interesting thing is, of course, America is a country of migration,

but the, but historically, how it's always worked in America, as you come in and you shed your

old skin and you become an American, you become an X American, this American, that American, but you're an American, that's a whole point. Yeah, you, it used to be the case that of course, migrant communities came in, and they did that, they became part of Britain, we've seen many successful, you know, migrant communities from the Huguenos onwards, who they became part of the Walkenworth of British life, but something went wrong in the last 30 years, and that's

something that went wrong was probably the collapse in belief in ourselves, the belief that our

of course, Taney Blair for this, because his doctrine of multiculturalism essentially said,

"No, cultures seem to be equal, and as a result, it is not our place to enforce the culture of Britain upon new arrivals." Well, if you don't do that, and you can't necessarily blame the new arrivals for going, well, okay, thank you very much, I'll keep my old customs. I won't integrate into Britain, I will not, you know, in fact, I kind of start to argue that maybe the people around me should conform to me, maybe it's my value system that others should conform to, and many people are saying,

“"Well, you absolutely right, you know, your view is as important as ours in this regard,”

and there is no national perspective. You know, you start to understand, perhaps, why this change has occurred and why there has been a massive problem." Then of course, you have a separate issue here, which is the religious element. And of course, a rise of radical Islam is something you have an act to condemn with in quite the same way in America, but it is very right across Europe. It is, of course, a version of Islam that is, you know, it will argue is scripturally authentic,

because it can point to, you know, uh, Quranic verses or hadiths to back it up to back up its sayings, and, you know, it has become quite an aggressive and muscular movement within British Muslim communities. And I should stress the Muslim communities of very diverse here, as you would expect, their divide between share and Sony, their divide between schools of jurisprudence, their divide between people who, you know, arm Muslim because they have an reborn Muslim and don't keep anything

to very religious conservative types. But at that extreme end of the market, and it's much bigger than people think, you have a huge problem, because those versions of radical Islam, very much believe that Britain should conform to radical Islam and Sharia law on that actually, um, enclaves and beyond should become essentially self-governing. And once they start with politically transforming neighborhoods and areas, it becomes very difficult to put them back. And, you know,

that is, that's the challenge that's going on. People have noticed, of course, it is happening. They're trying to, you know, there's a backlash to it. But when you also have politicians playing to it, because the rising numbers of people who might be affected, you can see why it's a perfect storm for a, you know, for a social-ehesion crisis, because you're not getting a united view on things. Great. That's very helpful. So, let's go squarely to Nigel Farad.

You outline some of the, maybe the conservative aspects that he was going to pick up. But tell us, well, let's start with foreign policy, national security. Where is Nigel Farad's

“on all of these important issues? Well, he is very much in the British mainstream.”

He's someone who's a British patriot. He wants to put forward, um, British viewpoints on the key issues and things that are in the national interest of this country. He is, but, you know, people at various times have tried to portray him as either some kind of Putin's laptop, or, you know, sort of slavery following Trump. And neither is true. On the, you know, Russia, Ukraine conflict, he's very firmly in the mainstream, and it comes to understanding that's Russian

aggression, of course, the conflict that Russia or the bad guys, that the war has to end in not an unfair way for Ukraine. And he's not been afraid in recent months to, you know, dispute, some of the things even the Americans have been trying to do. For example, the, you know, the various, the peace plan that was put forward. He did not think that was a good plan for Ukraine. And therefore, you know, thought should not happen. He was, he thinks that NATO jets should shoot

down Russian planes if they entertain NATO territory. This doesn't sound to me like a laptop for Putin. And nuclear long-term thing, a lot to made of the personal relationship, the course of a personal relationship. But the idea that any British political leader or future Prime Minister is going to do the bidding of the American president, just like that, is for the birds. That's not how British political leaders operate. You know, he came out against the Greenland idea,

said it. That was not a good idea. He was critical when the president, I think mistakenly,

claimed that nobody had helped the U.S. true in the Afghanistan war, exactly in that sort of way for getting, of course, the sacrifice that British troops had made in that. So you have someone who I think understands international picture, who said quite clearly as well, he would have given

“the bases over on day one to the U.S. and said you can use them. And I think that's what you want.”

You want to candid ally, basically, somebody who is not a pushover, who isn't going to, who's not going to not stand up for what their country believes in. But when push comes to shove, you'll know they'll be on the right side of the debate in line. And that's the kind of Prime Minister who would make, I think, on the foreign stage as well. So let's go to here, talk a little bit also about just rebuilding British defenses and munitions and the defense and

industrial base. We have all these problems here as well. Is he seized of this issue or it's not

really his thing? - One, of course, he sees to the issue, because the first priority of any government

subject, but part of it involves making sure you have the military force and capability to defend your country, whether that is at home or broad. And so there's a great realization, of course, that we have under-equipped, we have uninvested, our procurement is terrible in terms of the approach, the industrial military base has been driven and down and out. And so there's a sense we have to get back some capabilities that we've lost. As a sense, obviously, that industrially we have to

“read about it. And I think everyone gets that defense investment is a really good form of investment.”

There's not only does it drive growth and jobs, but it also, of course, provides a security elements as well. Plus, there's also an export angle, you know, you get it right. You'll kick gets ball by the people. So there's a tremendous value in getting defense investment and industrial

capacity up to speed on that. And again, the next question people always ask is, well, okay,

you recognise that? Where's the money going to come from? Well, there's anyone placed on any can come from? It's by slashing welfare. There is no alternative but to doing that. And the way you slash welfare, he's been quite clear, is not, you know, to sort of take aside the cross-the-board and go, we're just, you know, going to turn this into the, you know, the early 20th century again. That doesn't work. But it is about making sure that people who should not be getting benefits,

you know, legal immigrants. And even, frankly, people who've legally migrated here, but are not contributing, do not get benefits anymore. Because why are we paying for other people, essentially, to, to live here and makes no sense at all? That money is much better spent on retooling our national defense and getting to that purpose of actually defending ourselves. So,

“I think that, you know, there are, there are obvious ways that you can get to that level that you need”

of defense expenditure without, you know, very tricky questions being asked. How should Americans see him? I mean, here we would say, does he have nice neo-isolationist tendencies? I mean, he sure believes in a stronger Britain. But does he see Britain in its traditional role as an expeditionary force, a leader, someone who is getting in the mix of issues across the globe? Or is he more or less, and we have our own problems at home? I want to rebuild the military

because it's in a pathetic state. But, you know, we're not getting involved in all these adventures. I'm going to say he believes in both things. That's tell you why. And it sounds like a cop-up, but it isn't. Why was Britain able to involve itself globally? Because it had the capacity to do so. There, at no point, did Britain overextend itself in the sense of going, right, we will contribute to this conflict or that conflict. And, you know, we didn't have the force

to back it up. We did the things we needed to do with the forces we had at our disposal. And it was interesting that as Britain's own strategic horizons increased over the centuries, it, of course, had a commensurate increase, particularly, of course, in the Navy, which was the fundamental way that you police and spread your interest in that time period. So, we matched capacity to those things. Right now, he's rightly been pointing out.

The Britain does not have the capacity to do much of that at the moment. So, his answer to that is not, oh no, we're little Englanders, we're not going to do anything. It's like, no, we have to be, you know, the cloth must be cut to match what we have. But, get more cloth. Let's get, you know, let's build a designer of a brand new suit that's going to transform what we do. So, it seems to me that he's very much in the mainstream of British tradition,

when it comes to, you know, being outward looking to not an inward, it is not a British tradition

to be inward looking. That's never been the case. But crucially, Britain has always been able to match

its interests with its ability to actually project its own capital, who's globally.

“That, I'm afraid, is lacking right now. So, the worst thing you can do is turn up”

and, you know, shout loudly and carry a small stick. That's by far the worst thing you can do. It's better that we should build up our forces and then get back into position where we can effectively be part of that global conversation in a way that inspires confidence rather than suspicion from allies. Okay, well, fortunately, we're beginning to run out of time. Let me ask you two more here and then I want to close with your political handicapping or at least

explanation to us of which leader it's going to emerge for labor and win elections or, et cetera, et cetera. But real quick, is he, I hear you, he's not a laptop to Putin on Ukraine, but to see if it were up to him and you had the capacity, does he want to keep arming Ukraine, does he fundamentally believe that Russia's a threat to NATO and that Ukraine is the best thing that those of us in the West have going for us because they're the ones that are holding

the Russians at bay? Well, I think everyone understands from this perspective that if you allow

Putin to win the war in Ukraine, you have first you can see the very important principle which is

that aggression should not be rewarded. Well, it will be rewarded and that, that he will set

is that we are able to fight Russia from a distance rather than allowing Russia to come closer

“to our front line and we only able to do that, of course, because of the bravery and immense”

tenacity of the Ukrainian people who have done the impossible, basically, they've stopped this

jargon award in its tracks and inflicted huge pain on it and will continue to be able to do so. It seems, for as long as we are able to help them in return. So it seems to me, a very cheap price to pay for the goal of ensuring that Putin is as far away from our borders as possible. And I say, I detect no, you know, change in any sort of positioning from reform high command, you know, on that basis. It seems an obvious point. Are we all in favor of peace, of course,

who, who wouldn't want that war to end? But it has to end in a way that is going to reward Ukraine rather than Russia. There has to be a path that clearly shows Ukraine has emerged in a better position. I think that's the key element here. Nobody wants a war to end, you know, to go on and on and on. It serves no purpose, and that particularly for the Ukrainians who have

been bled every year on this basis and are putting off essential life changes because of it.

Yeah. But we can't, of course, walk away and allow Putin to win. So I think there's a very, you know, obvious place to be looking at and how we should be, you know, going forward there. Okay. So let's wind up with this. So we've care starmer appears to be on the ropes. I'd love to hear your prediction of how this is going to end. You mentioned that they want something of a landslide two years ago. What does that mean for the next elections?

What in the world are the conservatives doing? And what are the polls? Show is Nigel, I mean, I mean, you know, what is, you want to, I know you can't commit Nigel for Raj to anything.

“But of course, what does it mean? I think. I do not speak for him. That's what I mean. That's right. So,”

but, you know, just be a political commentator for a second. He's expected to run. Is he doing well in the polls? So, you know, where are you? Where is everyone over there? If there was an election tomorrow, the polls are showing reform UK leading by about 10 points in the polls. That is obviously a very healthy margin. It is unclear whether it would deliver a victory in terms of absolute number of seats, because our politics have become hugely fragmented now. The refive six,

maybe seven political parties or entities that come win seats now in the general election. It's extraordinary. That's that's very unusual for Britain. It is if you had, you know, seven or eight Ross Peros, you know, a Michael Bloomberg's deciding to throw their hats into the ring, all simultaneously, all capable of winning a few states in the presidential election of the absolute chaos. Of course. But that's how that's what our politics is looking like in that way.

So, that lead may not necessarily translate to a total bit. We'll be happy would, of course. But the real fact is we're not going to have a general election tomorrow. That's the truth of the matter. The government does not have to hold a general election till 29. And it can change as many prime ministers who wants to and still stay in power, as long as it can command and majority in the House of Commons, which it will be able to do. And we saw that because the conservatives

kept on shopping and changing their league as if you remember. And they did not need to call general election until right at the end. Didn't help, ultimately. Those all those leadership changes

“did nothing but to, you know, increase their misery. But that's around us. And that's what's”

going to come to this point here. I'm almost certain that whatever happens in Labour, and honestly, any outcome could emerge here from Staramos staying on for a bit, and there being no challenge, it just fizzles out to Staramos being, you know, resigning tomorrow. And there is a, you know, there is a whole drawn out contest. But in a sense, it doesn't matter because the damage has already been done. The government has lost its authority. If he stays, who's he in charge of? A great

number of his employees don't like him, they made it obvious. And the country has already said in the local elections, you know, you're gone. Who takes over? Well, in a sense, it doesn't matter because again, whoever is taking over a damaged ship, it is, and they're not going to be able to suddenly put it right because it seems to me that none of them have a view necessarily about what you would require to actually, you know, in mid-term as it were, transform this government into

a different place. And so I think Labour's path is, you know, inexorably going to be downward, because that is just the way these things work once you, you know, once you start trying to

put the lifeboats out, you never get them back, coming back again. The ship won't be rescued,

it's going to go down. And that then, of course, does lead to the question, what happens in the next election? And of course, with some way off, as I said, right now reform would seemingly do very, very well, and would probably win those elections. But again, whether they get enough to win a majority, I don't know, the conservators are in a very bad state. All this talk, people are saying, here, you know, the part is reviving. Not in terms of results, it isn't. It lost another,

you know, nearly 600 seats in the local elections this year. All right, that was on top of a massive loss of previous year as well. You know, have a well, the conservative one, it might be doing

question is, do you end up with a majority reform government, or is there a need for a coalition

between the conservators and reform? And a lot of people are talking about, oh, we must unite the right, more the rest of it, to way too early for all that talk. You know, both parties need to get on

“do their own thing, allow the electorate to decide what the electorate wants, and then I think we'll”

get to some possible outcome. The one thing that, of course, most people on the right would be

very averse to would be allowing a left wing coalition to come to power, because the right failed to get their act together or failed to work out, who was a top dog in that sort of way. So there

“was, of course, a chance in the next election, you could end up with a hybrid labor, lib, gem, green”

coalition of sorts, and that could win, you know, unspeculating wildly here, because frankly,

like the situation is totally wild. But, you know, best point, every political party is going to keep on working, you know, to its owner gender, to try and convince a country, it is the right

“party to lead the country, reform has a whip hand right now, in a sense, it's ours to lose,”

and in order not to lose it, we have to obviously show that we have the policies, the personalities, and the understanding of how to deliver everything a government that's going to convince the most number of people in the country to vote for us, because that is the best effective way to deliver that radical change that I mentioned a few minutes ago. Alan, that was tremendous, we just covered a lot of ground, and I know our audience is going to be thrilled, and I just can't help but think we're

going to, that will be part one of a longer conversation. We're going to have to have you back, took, there's so many other things. We'll have you back again. Thank you so much for joining NatSec Matters. Great to be with you. That was Dr. Alan Mendoza. I'm Michael Alan. Please join us next week for another episode of NatSec Matters. NatSec Matters is produced by Steve Dorsey with assistance from Ashley Berry. NatSec Matters is a production of Beacon Global Strategies.