Tony Smith’s story is a remarkable one. Starting work for the Home Office straight after leaving school, he would remain there for 40+ years. In that time, he worked his way up from being a junior civil servant to one of the most senior officials responsible for Britain’s borders.

After retiring in 2013, Tony worked as an international border management consultant and gave evidence to parliamentary committees on immigration, asylum and border security.

Why did we invite him on?

The UK’s border crisis is the defining story of our time. Elections are won and lost, protests fill our streets every summer, and a life-changing referendum was debated off the back of it.

There are likely few people on Earth more qualified to discuss it than Tony. Boasting a near half-century experience of protecting and policing the border, he has as peripheral a view as one can have: how different governments have tackled the problem (or failed to), which policies worked and didn’t, and who, if anyone, is ultimately to blame.

These are answers we’ve been seeking since Brexit, and we were thrilled when Tony agreed to share his view on our show.

What did we learn?

Tony started working in immigration enforcement in 1972. As he regales us with stories of that time, it’s hard to express what a different environment it once was and how much has changed in his lifetime. When Tony first started, immigration policy was essentially enforced by the whim of the enforcer. If he decided someone was dodgy, he could turn them away without recourse. To modern sensibilities, it’s totally unthinkable, but the circumstances were such that this kind of practice was possible.

”Nobody claimed asylum back then. If you caught them trying to sneak in, they’d say “Fair play” and ask to get some money out of the ATM so they could be on their way, which we would usually accommodate … It was only in the late ‘80s that we started to see a lot of asylum applications.”

And once it started, the wave was exponential. Year on year, more and more refugees were claiming asylum; it quickly went from a rare quirk to the norm. Initially, it didn’t look like it was going to be a problem. It soon became the problem.

”I thought we’d just send them back to France. But then the lawyers and the advisors came in, and they said that if they’re claiming persecution, they have a legitimate reason to be here … It’s become the magic word - if you claim asylum, it trumps the immigration policy.”

Once that trick was discovered, the immigration system was never the same. Subverted by the corruption of an ostensibly good-faith and high-trust process, it became a cruel game. The enforcers naturally became more suspicious. Meanwhile, claimants flout the system more and more brazenly.

Read more

Publishing is one of the most cutthroat, shadowy industries in media. Oliver Malcolm boasts over two decades of experience in it, including long stints at literary giants Random House and Harper Collins. Last month, now independent, he launched High Line Publishing Studio.

Why did we invite him on?

Oliver got into publishing with the noble ambition of sharing ideas. As he ascended the ranks and earned seniority, he came to realise that the opposite was happening; his beloved industry had become a tool of censorship and containment, not intellectual liberation. The breadth of ideas was being narrowed, not expanded.

Now, he’s telling his story.

He joins us to offer an insider look at the perplexing and infuriating world of literature, telling behind-the-scenes stories of how the culture was lost, and what its future might look like.

What did we learn?

Oliver and Francis first met when Oliver bought Francis’ book, (Un)educated. Things started off rosy, but when Oliver left the publishing house that he pushed to option it, things quickly took a turn. All the promises that’d been made in the months prior - serialisation, mass marketing, placement - were ripped from Francis. Why? There’s no way of knowing for sure, but Oliver has a theory.

”It was as much what you represented as much as what was read. And that was very difficult for me. A huge amount of antagonism comes from people before they’ve even read the book. I had to stand in front of committees, explaining to people who clearly hadn’t read the book but already had a prejudice against the writer. I think that’s what happened to you; they thought, ‘Oh, he’s from Triggernometry. I don’t want to do it.’ But you weren’t alone, and you won’t be the last.”

A slim few can get away with heresy. As Oliver explains, if you’re big enough, you might be able to get past the censorious culture of publishing. But “big enough” includes very few people.

”J.K. Rowling does not adhere to the groupthink within publishing, but they let it go because she’s having the best sales of her entire career right now. Only a few years ago, 85 members of staff walked out because they didn’t want to work with her, but now they’re putting up with it. Same for Lee Child: he rejects this whole idea of ‘cultural boycotting’ of Israeli writers, but Jack Reacher books sell so well that he’s still allowed.”

Yet, even then, this principle does not apply to the dead. Even if you sell millions of books a year, you’re not safe from the censor’s red pen. In the last decade, we’ve seen classic works of literature be slapped with a sensitivity warning and, in some cases, partially rewritten.

”It’s like going back to a Picasso and changing the blue face to a green one. It’s unacceptable. It’s changing the historical record. We saw it happen to Roald Dahl, and maybe if it only happened to Roald Dahl we could have taken it on the chin, but it’s happening to everyone. Dr Seuss, Agatha Christie… Classic works are being changed because they don’t adhere to ‘modern sensibilities’. And they’re not even ‘modern sensibilities’; they’re the whims of a small, unpopular group.”

Needless to say, this isn’t why Oliver got into publishing. He entered the field in his twenties, hopeful that he’d be an agent of truth-seeking - allow people to have their say, and allow the public to make their minds up.

”I like the dialectic. The best ideas come out when you have to synthesise different approaches. I want to judge books by what’s on the page, not with some premeditated perspective.”

Instead, he saw top-down authoritarianism: publishers, rather than serving the reader, dictating to the people what to read, believe and feel. It happened slowly, but by now all the houses are united.

”The industry used to be varied. Like newspapers, you had a spectrum of ideas, and a spectrum of people. Through tectonic stealth, the publishing industry today is just, in effect: The Guardian, The Guardian, The Guardian, The Guardian, and The Guardian. And you end up getting the same censorious behaviours across them all, and I found that deeply disturbing.”

So, how did this happen? How did the world of books go from one of imagination, creativity and heterodox thinking to a grey zone of safe, moralising progressivism?

Read more

A former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and a self-described “Marxist libertarian”, Brendan O’Neil is one of our great contrarians. He has written columns for Haaretz, The Australian, Daily Mail, The Big Issue and The Spectator. Between 2007 and 2021, he was the editor of libertarian site Spiked, and remains their chief political writer.

Why did we invite him on?

Brendan’s unflinching willingness to speak out already makes him a natural fit for our show; it’s no surprise we’ve hosted him thrice before, going back to our very first episodes in 2018. Having decided to have him back again, we thought it would be the perfect opportunity to discuss a query we’ve had behind the scenes for some time.

What’s going on with the Irish?

Not just generally, but specifically as it relates to the situation in Gaza. Ireland’s broad support for Palestine is well understood, but in the wake of October 7th and the ensuing violence, it has become increasingly hostile and puritanical. Just recently, Irish radio stations banned Ed Sheeran’s music for his perceived lack of support for Macklemore and, by extension, Palestine.

Why? What’s the motivating force?

As a “thoroughbred mick” and a writer who has explored the subject of his country and Israel in immense depth, we knew Brendan was the ideal person to ask.

What did we talk about?

“I’ve done my 23-And-Me; I am 100% Irish - all my heritage is from the West of Ireland. It pains me to say this: Ireland has lost the plot. It is in a bad way. It has defined itself as ‘the anti-Israel state’, and given that Israel is the only Jewish state, that has become increasingly problematic for them. They’re falling under the spell of antisemitism, and it’s really sad to see.”

Antisemitism and criticism of Israel must not be conflated; disagreements about military tactics or state conduct are a world away from knee-jerk bigotry, and it’s unwise to treat them as one and the same.

”All the things people used to say about the Jews, they now say about the Jewish state. Killing babies, controlling the world, being the secret puppet masters of politics - these are all used to be said about Jews. Now they’re said about Israel.”

Comparing Ireland and Gaza, it’s not difficult for an outsider to make certain connections. Each has been subject to the control of a larger, more powerful neighbour that has committed horrific atrocities against them. Given that, one can understand why a nation may be sensitive to cases of victimisation.

Is it that simple? Is this all due to a shared history of oppression?

”Yes and no. That is, admittedly, how the Irish would explain it. ‘We’re sensitive to the situation in Gaza because of our own history of colonisation, of famine, oppression, all the terrible things that happened to us under British rule’. That’s all true; there’s no denying it. However, there’s a real strain of ignorance in all of this: if people knew the first thing about history, they’d know Ireland has far more in common with Israel than Hamas-ruled Gaza.”

Such as?

Read more

In the last 15 years, there are few figures on the British left more influential than Owen Jones.

His first book, Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, was an instant name-maker, winning plaudits and acclaim across the literary world. Since then, he has contributed to the New Statesmen, The National, Tribune, and the Independent, and published several similarly acclaimed works along the way.

Today, he is a columnist for The Guardian. His latest book - The Fall Of The West - was published on the 1st October 2026.

Why did we invite him on?

It’s no secret that Owen Jones has been top of our wishlist for some time. As much as we criticise the excesses of the modern left, we’re fascinated by it and its leading individuals. Owen Jones is one such person, and we’ve publicly and privately chased him to guest on our show for years.

Though we would have had him much sooner, it’s a blessing that the stars have only aligned now.

What did we talk about?

Owen, unlucky many on his side of the aisle, is willing to face the issues that matter to ordinary Brits. While others naval-gaze about tedious culture war issues, he squares up to the defining crisis of our time: the cost of living.

It’s at the heart of everything; the widespread unaffordability of a dignified life, and the diminished upward mobility experienced by huge swathes of the country, are arguably the primary motivation behind all political action we’re seeing today. While the right points the finger at mass immigration, high taxes and nationalisation, Owen turns his aim at something different. Something larger: the system itself - neoliberalism.

It’s a peculiar term; it describes the status quo of our country, and yet most people in it can’t define or point to its key features. Before we go further, we ask Owen: what is neoliberalism?

”It’s privatisation of state assets. It’s slashing taxes on those with assets and wealth. It’s curtailing organised labour. It’s promoting marketisation. It’s financialisation; promoting finance and assets over the productive economy; 80% of finance is circulated through finance rather than returning to the productive economy. Companies no longer invest in themselves or their workers.”

So, what’s the problem?

”In practice, it’s led to less growth, and the growth there has been has been less fairly distributed.”

Though its philosophical roots dig further, ‘neoliberalism’ was a revolution of the late ‘70s into the early ‘80s. Institutionalised in America by Reagan and in Britain by Thatcher, the baton was taken up by subsequent leaders (Bush and Clinton, Blair) who, while making minor adjustments at the margins, never disrupted the fundamental structure of government, economy and society.

If it’s so terrible, why has it stuck around? Why have Western democracies kept voting it in?

Read more

Few figures are more respected in their respective fields than Andrew Roberts is in his; he is a historian’s historian.

Since publishing his first book in 1991, he has written dozens of acclaimed texts, written even more columns for the national broadsheets, and spoken to hundreds of academic and institutional organisations, including for presidents and royalty.

After years as something of a cult figure, Andrew came to wider prominence in 2009 with the release of his modern classic The Storm Of War, a best-selling tome that charted the rise of Hitler and the administration behind Nazi Germany.

Since then, he has continued to establish his reputation as one of the great living historians through his work on royalty, aristocracy, and Sir Winston Churchill, of whom he is thought to be the world’s leading expert.

Why did we invite him on?

In March 2024, we welcomed Andrew onto our show to explore the legacy of Churchill, in a two-hour interview that, at the time of writing, has just shy of a million views. It was a sublime conversation. We instantly knew that, when the right opportunity arose again, we’d be having him back.

Another of Andrew’s figures of expertise is a man who, in many ways, is similar to Churchill. A globe-changing European statesman for whom the archetype of ‘leader’ is made in their image.

Napoleon.

His 2014 book Napoleon: A Life, stretching across nearly a thousand pages, is frequently cited as the finest book ever penned on its subject. When deciding what to explore in our next interview, he seemed a natural choice.

The standard was set last time. It’s no exaggeration to say this conversation may have been even more revelatory.

What did we learn?

Some topics are so vast, it’s difficult to know where to start, and unravelling the “great men of history” is a universally knotty task. The centuries that follow them are made, directly or not, in their image. Is that even the right way to comprehend them? How does one even begin trying to understand Napoleon?

”Napoleon famously said that if you observe a man at 20 and how the world is at that age, you’ll understand the rest of the man’s life. When he was 20, the French Revolution was in full swing, and he saw an opportunity. Soon, many of the senior positions in the army would be vacated, as the men who held them were guillotined. He knew he could rise to a very high position very quickly, and he did; he was a general before he was 24.”

As Andrew explains, Napoleon found himself at the heart of some unusual circumstances, ones inseparable from his story. Born to nobility but impoverished later in life, he had a peculiar skill set paired with unusual conditions - he was underestimated and overlooked, but highly capable. And he knew it.

”He had a great sense of his own abilities. He had a high opinion of himself, but he was also immensely talented and extremely hard-working.”

Still, greatness isn’t just a matter of time or place - the man must meet the moment. And Napoleon certainly did; if it weren’t the genius of his strategy, his renegade approach to tactics, we wouldn’t be here having this conversation now. In the 21st century, his name is shorthand for “conflict mastermind.”

So, how did he get that reputation? What were his revolutions in the domain of war?

”He ripped up the rulebook completely.

Read more

Andrew Neil is one of Britain’s most recognisable conservative pundits, and has been for close to half a century.

Entering journalism in 1973 as a correspondent for The Economist, Andrew has since worked at many of Britain’s most prestigious and widely circulated news organisations. His credits include the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail, Sky TV, the BBC, Channel 4 and GB News.

Today, he hosts a daily broadcast for Times Radio.

Why did we invite him on?

In his 50+ year career, Andrew has seen and reported on more news than most people currently alive. With that, he has garnered a level of experience that is exceedingly rare in this business. Naturally, we’ve wanted to pick his brains for some time.

What does he make of the current state of Britain? How does he assess Burnham’s promises? What does he think our future holds?

What did we talk about?

”There’s a lot happening in the country. Unfortunately, very little of it is good.”

This, we don’t need to tell you, is hardly an original view. Bad news typically leads because it’s the news worth knowing, and consuming that 24/7 is going to colour one’s view of the country and indeed the world. But is that a fair-minded approach? To invite the obvious, we ask: what has him so pessimistic?

”We head into winter with rising interest rates, rising inflation, rising mortgage rates, no end in sight for Trump’s war in Iran, a new cost-of-living crisis coming down the pike with rising energy bills, and a political system that doesn’t know how to handle it.”

So, no easy fixes. As depressing as it sounds, it’s equally refreshing; in a time when endless politicians, pundits and talking heads parrot the same “solutions” to multi-dimensional problems, Andrew recognises that things are more complex and demanding than is often made out.

However, that shouldn’t excuse those who put their head in the sand. On the long list of figures doing exactly that, he points squarely at our new Prime Minister: Andy Burnham.

To some on the left, Burnham is the great white hope they’ve been waiting for. A more likeable, principled successor to Starmer who can inherit his powerful majority and use it to actually instigate the left-wing vision once promised. This, Andrew suggests, is a misreading.

”Mr Burnham has nothing to say about the winter we have coming. It was all about the next manifesto, and how he has a miner’s lamp on his shelf… This curious mixture of nostalgia and folklore that dominates the Labour Party. No plan for dealing with all the things we’re discussing… None of that has been done.”

Starmer was often accused of being a technocrat - a leader who over-indexed the ‘practical’ aspect of politicking rather than the principled or ethical. Andrew paints Burnham as the opposite: a PM too swept up in nostalgia for a fictitious past to realise the very real problems his nation faces.

”When we already have the highest tax burden ever in peacetime, yet he wants to increase the tax burden. Rather than looking at the state, deciding what it can actually do and making sure it does it well, he wants the state to do everything.”

It’s hard to blame Burnham for that specifically; this is the British political status quo, and has been for some time. Whoever is in power, spending goes up, the debt increases, and the state somehow becomes more sluggish. And we’re not the only ones.

”Britain’s not alone in this. In America, fiscal conservatism is dead. Nobody talks about it, not on either side! Their debt has just passed 40 trillion. I don’t even know what that means. I was speaking with Reagan once, and he said to me: ‘Andrew, a billion here, a billion there, it soon adds up to real money!’ Now it’s a ‘trillion here, a trillion there’ [laughs].”

Konstantin is a self-described accelerationist: let things get as bad as they need to for people to make the changes they should have made long ago. Whether that be illegal immigration, the debt, energy costs, housing prices… Eventually, the situation will become so untenable, the public will no longer stand for it. One only hopes they will react peacefully.

Is that a credible position? According to Andrew, yes, but ultimately, no.

Read more

Under Boris Johnson, she was appointed Attorney General, in a role that took on special significance a month later when the UK government was forced to respond to the COVID crisis.

In September 2022, she was selected by Liz Truss to serve as Home Secretary, a position she held (with the exception of 6 days the following month) until November 2023, also managing the role under Truss’ successor, Rishi Sunak.

In January of this year, after 23 years serving the Conservatives, she defected to Reform. In October, she is due to release her memoir: Patriot.

Why did we invite her on?

Suella joined us in February 2024 to raise the alarm over illegal border crossings in the Channel. Then, the Conservatives were in power, and she was a member. Today, Labour are two years into their tenure; the Conservatives are scrambling for relevance, as Reform are readying themselves to challenge that status quo. Much has changed.

Much has not.

While some of the issues we discussed in our last conversation have shown signs of recovery, others have gotten markedly worse, with no sign of things being turned around soon.

With her new book on the horizon and a new party to serve, we wanted to catch up and see where she stands now. How does she feel about Britain’s future? What does she make of the British right’s skirmish for power? Whoever takes the reins, how will they reconcile these warring factions?

What did we learn?

Something which seemingly hasn’t changed in the time between now and Suella’s last appearance is the ongoing small boats crisis. It’s a subject Suella has been sounding the alarm on for a decade. Labour has talked big about fixing it, but have they?

”The dinghies are getting bigger, the numbers are still high, and the threat is coming closer to home. People are scared and angry, and I am too.”

If thousands were illegally crossing the border at any other time in history, we would expect the state to intervene. One could argue it’s their most central and legitimate role. This would be uncontroversial. What’s the holdup?

”There is no will. I was pushing it, but I kept coming up against Prime Ministers who didn’t want to do it. It was all a performance; all talking tough, but actually behind the scenes, behind closed doors, wholly lacking the requisite will to do the right thing legally, politically and diplomatically.”

A couple of weeks ago, we had Dan Hodges, a longtime Labour-supporting columnist on the show. While sharing a number of Suella’s beliefs regarding the state of illegal immigration, he dismissed the idea that it was so easily solvable. It’s not a matter of will. It’s a matter of ability. And an easy fix is not possible.

Suella disagrees.

”He’s wrong. It can be stopped. It has been stopped in other countries. This was what I was banging my head against under Johnson, Truss and Sunak.”

What can we learn from other countries? What steps do we need to take to fix this issue?

As Suella explains, it won’t happen passively. Nothing changes without decisive political moves that might be unpopular or may have troubling optics. It doesn’t mean they’re not necessary. Until one thing changes, nothing will.

”We need to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. I saw it before I was Home Secretary, and even before I was Attorney General; the ECHR’s laws have been weaponised against the British people. Whenever an enforcer wants to deport an illegal immigrant, they are met with an infinity of legal claims, many of which are illegitimate. The claimants assert that because they’ll be tortured in the country they’ll be sent to, we are violating their human right against torture. And the claimant could easily be lying; if they have ill intentions in Britain, they certainly will. And if you try to split up a family, we’re ‘violating their right to a family life’.”

’Leaving the ECHR’ is often framed by left-wing media as a self-evident evil. Without it, how can we guarantee our human rights are protected? What will the government be capable of?

This, Suella asserts, is a fallacy. The ECHR is deployed in ways which nobody would defend, but when criticised, it retreats to its much more agreeable position of ‘human rights protection’. Reading the charter, it’s hard to find anything to argue with. As it’s applied, it quickly becomes a problem.

”I don’t disagree with those laws. I agree with those rights. But they have been distorted and stretched; the ECHR is now a charter for illegal migrants, not a protection of human dignity, fairness or common sense.”

So, why is it so controversial?

”It’s the same arguments against Brexit. ‘It’d be bad for our reputation’, ‘We’d be in the same group as Russia.’ These are red herring arguments - all eminently rebuttable, but parroted by the “remainer wets” and “establishment liberals” who make up the bulk of the Conservative Party. Which is why I left.”

Suddenly, we find ourselves behind the scenes. Suella only formerly defected this year, but her conflicts with the Conservative Party can be traced by to 2023, when she publicly fell out with Rishi Sunak, then Britain’s Prime Minister. Konstantin had his own ding-dong with the former PM last week, in his case, on the subject of ‘Englishness’. Where does Suella stand on her former boss now?

Read more

In a time when “national treasure” is a title seemingly thrown upon anyone nice and British, Sir Robert Winston has done more than perhaps anyone else to earn his label.

As a scientist, he is considered a key figure in the popularisation of IVF treatment, and a pioneer in the technology that has allowed millions of couples to have children. For his work, he has earned honorary doctorates from a staggering twenty-three universities.

For decades, Robert has also been a familiar face to Britain’s television viewers, having presented dozens of hugely popular science programmes, as well as becoming a mainstay panellist on the likes of Have I Got News For You and Question Time.

In 1995, he was made a life peer, and to this day he sits on the Labour Party benches in the House of Lords, discussing the likes of education, medicine, and the arts.

Why did we invite him on?

Throughout his career, Robert has managed to do what so often seems impossible: remain beloved while also being unafraid to speak his mind. Whether it’s the commercialisation of IVF, gender-affirming surgery, or the nature of truth itself, Robert has expressed views counter to the orthodoxy without ever straying into quackery.

For that alone, he’s an ideal Triggernometry guest.

What did we learn?

We’re all used to it now, but one mustn’t forget what a divisive practice IVF was in its early days. Working in America at the time, Robert laments the difficulties he and his team had in their efforts to secure funding, with many institutions deeming it “disgraceful”, a barbaric act of playing God.

”We’re [allegedly] creating human life. We’re not; a sperm and an egg are already alive. Most embryos don’t even implant properly, and many of which do also miscarry, sometimes without the mother noticing. Nature itself does not respect the human embryo as sacrosanct. My view depends on ‘When can you see life really developing?’ To me, that’s consciousness, or the beginning of the nervous system - the 14-day limit. Thomas Aquinas had something similar in the 15th century, and many Christians didn’t like my pointing that out.”

To many, science and religion are natural adversaries. One disproves the other at every turn, and the two cannot coexist in the mind of any rational thinker. Robert dismisses this notion. In fact, the two are more alike than they are different.

”Science and religion are very similar. We do both because we’re uncertain, and uncertainty is part of a basic human need. We need to find certainty, but certainty is dangerous, and it’s just as dangerous in religion as it is science.”

This initial controversy could percolate because, at the time Robert was helping to advance the field of IVF, the practice still was a rare one - one only used in specific, unorthodox cases. Decades later, IVF has become an increasingly large part of the public conscience. As more and more couples delay childbirth into their 30s, more are also resorting to the procedure. As Francis points out, it’s become a “very mainstream industry”.

As a pioneer, he must be thrilled.

He isn’t.

”I’m very disappointed. I don’t want to sound like a saint, because I’m not… But in my group, we all agreed to take very modest incomes, and that we wouldn’t charge private fees. Any fees we received from, say, international patients, were pooled and added to the research pot - The Genesis Research Fund, which has raised over £100 million to date … Now, of course, it’s become very difficult to persuade young people to not take the private income. And now it’s a massive industry. A £23 billion industry. And the fees are huge in all countries, and there’s a lot of overcharging.”

What’s more, many couples are resorting to it when they don’t need it at all. Because it’s such a moneymaker for clinics, they don’t do their due diligence as medical professionals, instead guiding hopeful mothers down a costly and exhausting path they need not explore at all.

The women are victims here, and entrust professionals who should be more forthcoming with the information. How can they know whether they need it?

”If you’re a young woman, you’re not really infertile unless you’ve been trying for a year. For the average couple, it takes 4.5 months of trying to become pregnant. But some women, if they can afford it, end up going for 18 cycles of IVF, and they become professional patients. And they don’t know why it isn’t working, because nobody does. But if they go for an assessment, they might find the issue is very minor and very inexpensive to fix.”

This effect is hardly surprising. Countless industries are build on knowledge gaps. By making the problem seem worse than it is, worried customers will pay more to assuage their concerns.

This is true of pregnancy. There are few things a person values more in their life than their children, or their ability to one day have them. Cast doubt on that, and they’ll do anything to have it undone. The impression women get about their fertility is that it’s a black-and-white issue - you are either fertile, or you are not. If you’re struggling to conceive, it’s something that can’t be fixed simply.

”Infertility is misunderstood; they see it as a disease, not a symptom. Therefore, a great deal of IVF is unnecessary; the procedure fails, and a few months later they become pregnant spontaneously … The timing of it is not nearly as important as they would have you believe.”

And it’s not only a financial concern. The stress of IVF compounds the key issue. If couples are struggling to conceive anyway, the anxieties, arguments, and distance created by an expensive and risky procedure are only going to make things worse.
In reality, things are much more simple than is often made out…

Read more

Robert Tombs is professor emeritus of French history at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of St John’s College; for his work, the French government awarded him the Ordres des Palmes academiques in 2007.

Together, in 2021, Nigel and Robert created History Reclaimed - a website and online resource dedicated to countering censorship of historical texts in modern universities. Combining their talents, the two are due to release their first collaborative book - Our Island’s Story: A Better Story About Britain - this October.

Why did we invite him on?

Robert joined us recently, alongside fellow historian and recurring guest Nigel Biggar, to discuss the harm done by ‘woke’ historic education at all levels of Western schooling. It was a hugely popular conversation, and one of our favourites of the year.

Unfortunately, the subject did not give us the opportunity to appropriately explore his area of expertise - France.

It’s a subject we’ve explored on the show before, but only in passing. We’ve long wanted to host a more general discussion about Britain’s complex relationship/rivalry with the European power, and Robert seemed the ideal candidate to join us.

In just 80 minutes, we chart a thousand years of European history. From Napoleon to Brexit, Robert weaves an incredible narrative that connects seemingly disparate moments, answering long-held questions of identity, nation, and alliance.

What did we learn?

”Both England and France, and to some extent Ireland, Scotland and Wales, forged their identities through conflict. As a great 19th-century French historian once said: ‘The French came to understand they were French through fighting the English.’”

On some level, the inverse is also true. A key part of how the British see themselves is woven with a mostly friendly rivalry with the French. But why is that? Is it purely a result of geography, or is there something more at play?

”England and France have been major players on the world stage for a thousand years. Often as rivals, often as enemies. They became obsessed with each other, despite being rather similar. They consider themselves nations in decline, or even in crisis, and each is rather keen that the other should be doing worse. You look at the British press, and it talks about fires in France, riots in France, etc. Meanwhile, the French press is always reporting on British unemployment and our inability to maintain a PM. The implication is always: ‘Aren’t we better off here?’”

One of the best case studies of the differences between England and France can be seen in the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, and how it contrasts with Britain’s establishment of the Commonwealth in the century prior.

In Britain, Charles I is executed and Oliver Cromwell (something of an English equivalent to Napoleon) is installed as de facto leader in 1649 . Quickly, things are reversed, and the nation returns to having a royal family. Meanwhile, France radically reinvented everything, from the election process to the measurement system, and stick with it.

This, Robert proves, is something of a myth.

”The French revolution was not the end of the French monarchy; they had two more goes at restoring it, and these efforts went on until 1870. And there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t have carried on if they hadn’t been invaded by Germany. War is often what makes revolutions possible - the state proves it is defeated and no longer capable of defeated the country. Sometimes it just goes, other times it’s overthrown, and that’s the revolution.”

That’s not to say the Revolution wasn’t influential on Britain. Without it, you don’t get Napoleon, and without Napoleon, Britain is a very different nation indeed.

“Napoleon was the last Frenchman to transform Britain. The last to have a truly major effect. He forced Britain to mobilise itself in ways it never had before, to quite an extraordinary extent … Something like 40% of all British men were doing some sort of British service - that’s World War-levels of mobilisation. You could never put that cork back in the bottle. People see themselves as citiziens, and therefore they should have some sort of say in politics.”

Another milestone in European history to have a similar effect on the national psyche came in the 20th century. Twice, in the form of two World Wars. Regarding the latter, France’s participation (or perceived lack thereof) is a seismic sticking point in its relationship to Britain, which prides itself on being the bulwark against a fascist takeover of the developed world. Or so the story goes. Is that fair?

Read more

”On the surface, I’ve had a regular life. I go to school in North London, I play football, and I go out with my friends on the weekend. But there’s always been something hovering over my life that makes me different.”

Financial prodigies come along once in a generation. Alexander Browder might just be his.

At just 17, he founded the Global Cryptocurrency Laundering Database; a project tracking the movement of illicit funds through digital-asset markets - the first and largest of its kind.

Earlier this year, he authored a report published by the Henry Jackson Society, which alleged the use of cryptonetworks by Western-sanctioned states to circumnavigate the imposed blocks. Including Russia.

In June, he was placed on an entry-ban list by the Russian Foreign Ministry. By that measure, he is allegedly the youngest person to ever be sanctioned by the state.

Why did we invite him on?

Earlier this year, we had Alexander’s father, Sir Bill Browder, on to tell his incredible story of persecution by the Russians. Through that, we heard about Alex, and instantly knew the story wouldn’t be complete unless we spoke to him too.

The similarities are striking - two financial minds, separated by time yet joined by relation - who have made themselves enemies of the Russian state for discrete events. What’s that like? What does that do to someone, particularly of Alex’s modest age?

What did we learn?

Having seen what happened to his father and those in his orbit, nobody has had more of a front-row view of the stresses and anxieties of Russian persecution than Alex. Perhaps he might have had to face it whatever he dedicated his life to. Spending it exposing Kremlin corruption made it an absolute certainty. Why did he do it?

”My father made a career out of exposing corruption in the Kremlin, which made him some enemies there. In 2009, his lawyer - a brave man called Sergei Magnitsky, who was helping him expose the corruption - was tortured for 350 days in a Russian prison and ultimately killed there. That murder has cast a shadow over my life. So I’ve always been inspired to help stop Russian aggression.”

There are few people who have ever lived who can boast an experience like Alex’s. What is it like? How does one navigate international scrutiny at such a young age?

”There’s no guide for it. It means I can’t go there, but I never planned tdo that anyway. Really, it’s used to intimidate me. It’s a tool used by the Russians to make MPs, critics, investigators, journalists become fearful for their lives … It’s not had the intended effect. [What it says is] My work has had an effect, and they don’t want it to.”

But without the right infrastructure and motivation, Alex’s work can only go so far. With all the data ready and waiting for action, the British government still seems slow to act. Why?

”It’s a case of asymmetric information. Even the senior politicians I talk to about this have no idea what’s going on. Meanwhile, the North Koreans have whole departments dedicated to [crypto].”

Unlike a great deal of North Korea’s government, those departments are not just for show. They’re being put to use, and their efficacy is alarming. Last year, a story broke that exposed the full extent of the dictatorship’s new capabilities, and in turn inspired Alex to pull back the curtain.

Read more

Dan is unafraid to speak out against his ‘tribe.’ As a pundit, he has published work in the New Statesmen, the Daily Telegraph, and for the last ten years, has written a weekly coumn for The Mail on Sunday.

In 2012, while a long-standing member of the Labour Party (whom he has joined and left twice), he voted for Boris Johnson (a Conservative) in the London Mayoral elections, decrying Labour candidate Ken Livingstone as “a disgrace.” The next year, he published a piece in the Daily Telegraph arguing in favour of the censorship of government whistleblowers. Last year, he welcomed immense scrutiny from his peers on the left when he asserted British taxes should not be used for reconstructing Gaza “until every Hamas terrorist is either dead or in jail.”

Say what you will about his positions, we welcome anyone with the temerity to speak out, and have thus been hoping to host Dan for some time.

Now seems like the opportune moment. His former party are enjoying a swell in popularity, its closest rivals are suffering a string of scandals, and British politics looks set to only become more snipey and surprising. Where does he stand on it all?

What did we talk about?

Dan, as we’ve mentioned, has a somewhat tested relationship with Labour. Joining in 1987 at just 18, he left in 2013, only to rejoin (and leave again) two years later. It’s clear he’s no unthinking loyalist. Given that, what does he make of the party in 2026? After Keir Starmer resigned in a sorry state, the least popular PM in living memory, Andy Burnham’s assumption of the role has buoyed support for the once-lambasted party. How does Dan assess the new leader?

”He’s broadly what you see; there’s no hidden side to Andy. People talk about the ‘Northern shtick’, but it’s not a shtick - that’s just who he is. He’s from the North, and it definitely shapes his political outlook … One of the great misconceptions about him is that he wouldn’t be able to control Westminster, and he’d realise it was very different from being Mayor of Greater Manchester. But he’s been in politics all his life; he’s a political creature.”

Some on the left have accused Andy of being a ‘people pleaser’ - trying to curry favour with the left, right, and centre without regard for whether his world view is a coherent one. In the wake of Keir Starmer’s notorious flip-flopping, that’s not what the nation has an appetite for. Is there any truth to the accusation?

”I think he’s preparing for a snap General Election, probably due for some time next year. He’s maximising his appeal between now and then … His job now is to shore up his popularity among the left, see off the Greens, and endure the in-fighting on the right. The real problem is that the fundamentals of the job are no different to what they were under Keir Starmer.”

For as much as we’ve criticised Starmer, anyone can concede he was dealt a rough hand. His technocratic approach, in the new age of populism, was never going to fly. It’s a shift we’re seeing on both sides of the political spectrum, and neither Labour nor Conservative seem to be adjusting appropriately.

This is not a criticism Dan has - evident in his answers is a dislike for the ideology. To him, it’s what makes it so difficult for anyone - not just Andy Burnham - to make the changes that really matter.

”The growth of populism has made it impossible for a politician to make a hard choice without the support of the population. You talk to any MP and they’ll tell you that triple-lock pensions are unsustainable; they’re a hangover from the past. Those MPs know they’re not sound, but if they stand up and say that, they won’t be elected. So, what are they supposed to do? It’s not a question of identifying the problem, or knowing what to do, it’s whether they have a political mandate.”

It puts politicians in a tricky situation. Quite often, the necessary thing is unpopular. For example, Konstantin asserts, cuts in public spending.

Ours is a national in denial. Despite our shrinking piggy bank, we ask more and more of the state, throwing good money after bad in a vain attempt to stimulate - or simulate - real growth. Burnham, so far, promises to be no break in this sad norm.

Dan recognises the problem, but disagrees that tax cuts and spending cuts are the solution. Even if they were, they won’t happen in this political climate.

”You’re never going to win popular support by cutting public spending. We hear it all the time: ‘Things don’t work’. You call an ambulance, and it doesn’t come. You go to a hospital, and you don’t get seen. You get on a train, and it breaks down. I keep hearing from people on the right that the state’s too big. But the people don’t want it shrunk! They don’t want fewer teachers, or nurses, or doctors. ‘We need to stimulate the market’… ask the public if they want the war companies in public or private ownership, and see what they say.”

What people say they want and what they actually want, as we all know, are often two different things. Billionaires may disgust a certain swathe of the votership, but do they really want to live in a country without them? Is it wise for a country in debt to scare off its benefactors?

”I think it’s absolutely imperative that wealthy people are asked to pay a little bit more, in the same way that, in the period of austerity, the working people were asked to pay a little bit more. Wealthy people were broadly insulated from that, and working people were not. I see a lot of right-wingers say ‘but the wealthy pay more’, and I get the point. But the reality is you have to look at what people are paying in proportionate terms. Not just to their income, but the actual experience of their lives. Imagine someone in a working-class community who, for various reasons, can’t afford a house of their own. So they move in with their parents, and their parents have to support them. That has a negative impact on all their lives. If a wealthy person has to sell one of their private jets… It’s just not the same.”

It’s a compelling argument, but in a globalist world where the wealthy can move and work from anywhere in the world, what are we offering them? If we chase them out with high taxes and needless regulation, don’t we ask an absence of growth all together? Perhaps being a billionaire is unfair, but how fair is total financial decline.

It’s a line of thinking that Dan has little time for. In his words, “we tried that, and it didn’t work.”

”If you turn around to the electorate and say: ‘We’re gonna make some hard choices.”We’re gonna cut back on public spending, and you’re going to have to tighten your belts. But we can’t tell the billionaire to do that because, if we do, he’s going to live in Montenegro,’ the British people won’t accept that.”

So what will the British people accept? What do they actually want?
If polls are anything to go by, it might not be Labour - it might be Reform.

Read more

For over 30 years, Richard Miniter has been one of the most respected names in investigative journalism.

His career spans several prestigious publications, having contributed to the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, The New Republic, National Review, and Reader’s Digest, his investigative work earning him accolades from the likes of the National Press Club and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Today, Richard continues to provide insights on global security issues and write best-selling books on geopolitics from a conservative perspective.

Why did we invite him on?

Richard may have only joined us as a guest for the first time last year, but even in just that short window, he has become one of our favourite regulars. His first appearance gifted us the most incredible explanation of America we’ve ever had, while his second explored the rich tapestry of journalism’s history, and was arguably even more fascinating.

This time, we’re having him on for a very specific reason: tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of 9/11. It’s one of the most dissected and debated events in world history, yet even a quarter-century on, new developments in the story continue to come to light, and the stranger-than-fiction reality only becomes more difficult to believe.

As time goes by, an increasing percentage of our audience - and indeed the world - will only know about the worst terror attack in global history through anecdotes, data, and legend. Given that, it’s easy to go numb to the enormity and horror of the occasion. For this anniversary, we wanted to rectify that.

Richard’s unorthodox knack for explanation makes him an ideal guest to tackle this most complex of subjects. The pressure was on, our expectations were high. Even we were blown away by the conversation that unfurled.

What did we talk about?

When one takes more than a second to consider what actually happened on that day, it’s difficult to wrap the mind around it. Commercial airliners, hijacked by weaponed insurgents, commandeered and turned into missiles, ploughed into the two tallest buildings in the Western world, killing thousands. Another crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth, until it is intercepted from within, is headed for Washington D.C.

The level of horror, destruction, and mayhem this crack team of fanatics brought upon America that day, and for years to come, is, frankly, astonishing. What brings a person to do it?

”People become terrorists because it solves an important problem in their life. Either a lack of meaning, or isolation. They need people, or they need purpose - terrorism gives you a purpose.”

Meaning and companionship are innate human needs. Countless people go without them, but very few resort to violence of any kind, let alone something of this scale. As Richard explains, the hijackers were not typical by any stretch of the imagination. They were in a shared revery; wholly dedicated to brutality. In fact, they often used one another to rehearse.

”The FBI put together a complete timeline for all of the hijackers. From the moment they landed in the United States to the moment they died. To do that, they put together a wealth of data: ATM receipts, restaurant bills, witness accounts, security cameras - it’s an incredible document. And in that, it reveals they did scenario role-playing. They practised the attack on each other.”

It took months to piece together the months leading up to September 11th. Hundreds of federal employees working on nothing else, tracing the movements of every relevant character, until eventually a picture started to emerge. Once it did, they realised something horrifying: these ‘martyrs’ were barely hiding their intent.

”At flight school, quite chillingly, they said they didn’t need to take off or land; they just needed to be able to control the plane in the air.”

So, how did they manage to go undetected? Why weren’t they stopped long before?

”They took advantage of existing American weaknesses. The woman who gave [one of the hijackers] his ticket later testified that she thought he was a terrorist, but didn’t want to discriminate or be unwelcoming. The hijackers knew this, and they exploited it.”

There are still elements of the story we don’t know, and likely never will. In those gaps, myths proliferate. The average person probably thinks they know the whole narrative of 9/11, from those responsible, to how they got there, to the very weapons they used to assume control of the jet.

This, Richard warns us, is tricky. A frantic call for answers in the days following the day induced a desperate attempt to respond to all questions, even if the story wasn’t entirely true. Just to use one example - we still don’t quite know how the hijackers were able to hijack the flight.

Read more

This is an interview unlike any other we’ve done. Then again, Tony Lapidus isn’t your typical guest.

At a time crying out for good satire, Tony has earned cult following for his hilarious impersonations of political figures, journalists, commentators, and other media personalities. His repertoire includes Douglas Murray, Lex Fridman, Tucker Carlson, Piers Morgan, James O’Brien and, well, TRIGGERnometry.

Today, his YouTube channel boasts just shy of 40,000 subscribers.

Why did we invite him on?

We’ve been fans of Tony’s for a while, but as soon as we saw that we’d been deployed as characters in his cinematic universe, we started working behind the scenes to get him on our show.

Tony agreed, but unfortunately, couldn’t stay long. Thankfully, he’d taken it upon himself to invite some of celebrity friends to take his place. What resulted is one of the most unorthodox interviews we’ve ever conducted, and undoubtedly one of the most hilarious.

Subscribe now

What did we talk about?

First to join us was old Trig favourite Douglas Murray. It’s been too long since we spoke, and it was fantastic to take the opportunity to catch up, get his updated thoughts of best pal Dave Smith, and find out once and for all: has he ever beeeeeen?

Tragically, Douglas also had to leave. Thankfully, Piers Morgan himself showed up. We asked him about the cutting-edge journalism present on Uncensored, before he dropped a bombshell about Meghan Markle’s previous attempts to seduce him.

Read more

China’s history is one of immense depth and complexity, and Frank Dikötter is one of its leading experts. For over three decades, he has published tome upon tome exploring the nation and culture, including the wildly acclaimed ‘People’s Trilogy”. His latest - Red Dawn Over China: How Communism Conquered a Quarter of Humanity - was published in February of this year.

Why did we invite him on?

In the next decade, China’s position on the world stage is set to change drastically. For centuries, it was destitute; soon, it may be the central superpower in geopolitics.

Understanding how we got here is a challenge, but crucial. Our knowledge - ours, as well as the West’s - is, instead, poor. We’ve been meaning to have a conversation on the subject for some time - Frank is a natural first-draft pick.

What is it that makes China distinct from other countries? Why has it persisted for millennia? How is its current trajectory being shaped by its past?

What did we learn?

China, to the layman, is defined by three key features: conquest, culture, and brutality. Most of its past, at least as far as what’s known by anyone outside of the expert class, is most defined by the last of them. Is that fair?

”I don’t think it’s any more brutal than anywhere else. You have to be fair. During the Great Leap Forward, millions were starved to death, but proportionally, it’s about the same. China is so much large and more densely populated; there’s more to ‘play’ with. The answer: human beings kill. And if you’re very lucky, you’ll have an emperor or king who is likely to contemplate an alliance with their neighbours, rather than massacring them. But, until the advent of the division of power, that’s just not the human way.”

Common understanding of Chinese history is, as Frank will go on to prove, a flawed one. Even our comprehension of modern China is muddled. Is it a communist country, or a capitalist one? Is it an empire, or an isolationist nation-state? A paper tiger, or the one true rival to Western hegemony?

What we see today, Frank stresses, is nothing new. Knowing that, we may be able to predict what comes next.

”The China we see today is roughly based on the empire we saw from the middle of the 17th century up to 1911, when it collapsed … They were overstretched, and had to control a huge amount of territory. They also conquered so much through pure violence that as soon as there was a moment of weakness, the subjects rebelled. Then, from 1911 - ‘49, you see the rise of this extraordinary time in Chinese history: the Republic of China.”

Today, China is understood to be a monocultural, top-down-enforced monolith. One of tight restrictions, rigid laws and customs, and an overarching adherence to tradition. In many ways, the antithesis of the West.

But that wasn’t always so; for a few decades in the 20th century, China could credibly claim to be the most modern, progressive nation on the face of the Earth.

“At every level of society, from scholars to artists to writers to ordinary workers, they take the freedoms they have acquired - of speech, of assembly, of travel - and go to discover the world. This is a new age of openness. They can read, publish, almost anything they want - though, within limits. Compared to some of the regimes in Europe in the ‘20s and ‘30s - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco… the Republic Of China is very liberal, very free. Keen to be at the vanguard of modernity.”

It sounds like nirvana. Knowing what was to come in 1949, one can’t help being puzzled at how the Chinese gave it up.

Communism typically arises in times of discontent. When the populus is beholden to the iron fist of the state, they come to fantasise about being the fist themselves. Mastering their destiny, extolling their own, seizing the means of production.

This bears little elation to the image of the Republic that Frank paints for us. What’s the story?

”You can read any book about it, you can read Wikipedia, any text book, the story is always the same. The collapse of the Xing, nasty social forces appear, fascists and imperialists and feudal landlords rise, the communists rise up in response… But that’s not true. Throughout the age of the Republic, China’s communist population is consistently dwarfed, relative to other countries. By 1940, 1 in every 1,700 people were Communists; the same, in relative size, to the United States. And the USA is hardly considered the vanguard of the worker’s revolution. Moscow is sending immense resources, yet China remains one of the least communist countries you can find.”

In many parts of the large country, communists were hugely unpopular. The party were seen, contrary to their message, to be enemies of the typical worker, not without just cause.

”The “rich peasants” [farmers] have their land seized, until soon there is no land left. Then “middle peasants” are deemed rich, and “poor peasants” are deemed “middle.” Soon, there is nothing left - peasants quickly realise that the Communist Party will take any surplus. They need grain and cannon fodder, and they’ll take everything. They were bandits - they squeeze until it’s dry.”

So, why were communists able to secure power in ‘49?

Here, we arrive at Mao.

Read more

You won’t know Dimitar by name, but you’ll want to know his story.

A former MET officer, Dimitar is joining us to speak publicly for the first time about his experience on the force, their DEI practices, and the recruitment procedures that are weakening our institutions of law.

What is the state of our police? What does it entail for society? What does Britain’s future look like if things don’t change?

What did we learn?

Talk to any Londoner who doesn’t live in a sequestered, guarded alcove, and they’ll tell you the same thing: the city has become noticeably more dangerous. Everyone has either seen or been, or knows, the victim of a mugging. Petty theft is normalised, knife crime is a fact of life.

Then again, rose-tinted glasses are a powerful lens; perhaps London, as many capital cities are, was always a more threatening part of the country. Are they right to think things are getting worse?

“Yes. That’s more definitely the case. I actually think people don’t speak enough about how dangerous London has become; they have reached a level of detachment from reality. They’re bringing it up, and nothing really happens. A lot of people know, but they don’t talk about it anymore.”

But isn’t crime going down? The government love to brag about how the trend for crime, especially violent crime, is on a downward trend. The statistics certainly seem to bear that out.

”The statistics are saying that because people aren’t bothering to report it. Let me give you an example. I don’t have many hobbies, but I love mountain biking, so I bought an expensive one. After a couple of months, it was stolen. I, a police officer, didn’t report it, because I knew nothing was going to happen.”

So, what else are they doing? By the sounds of it, not a great deal of policing.

One of the things we wanted to discuss with Dimitar was the nature of police training. Neither of us - it’ll surprise you to hear - has a moment of experience in it, but much has been made about how ‘wokified’ it has been in recent years. Is that true?

”In the training, we had a lecture called ‘How Treating Everyone Equally Leads to Inequality’. It’s a little Orwellian … We didn’t want to learn like that. We wanted to be on the street learning practical skills, and my class was outspoken. But we were told if we didn’t do it, we could lose our jobs.”

Dimitar and his peers were given an option - absorb the nonsense (that even the teachers realised was nonsense), or leave policing entirely. What they learned was not just benign; it had serious consequences on the psyche of officers. Dimitar felt it first-hand.

”You start to doubt yourself. ‘Am I right to say All Lives Matter?’ It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but am I right? ‘Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I need to find within myself that I have a bias.’ It makes young officers question themselves.”

Read more

There are few things we value more on our show than heterodox thinkers. Today, we’re joined by two of them.

Nigel Biggar is an Anglican priest, writer, and life peer. From 2007 to 2022, he was Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford. Elsewhere, he is an acclaimed social critic and author, having published over a dozen books since 1993. His latest - The New Dark Age: Why Liberals Must Win the Culture Wars - was published in February of this year.

Robert Tombs is professor emeritus of French history at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of St John’s College; for his work, the French government awarded him the Ordres des Palmes academiques in 2007.

Together, in 2021, Nigel and Robert created History Reclaimed - a website and online resource dedicated to countering censorship of historical texts in modern universities. Combining their talents, the two are due to release their first collaborative book - Our Island’s Story: A Better Story About Britain - this October.

Why did we invite them on?

Nigel has been on our show twice before. The first time was just shy of six years ago, when he joined us to ponder whether Britain’s history was a shameful one, before returning again in 2023 to weigh up the merits and demerits of the nation’s colonial past. He’s always a tremendous guest, and we felt it was high time we had him back.

This is Robert’s first time here, but he’s been someone we’ve been hoping to host for years. When we received word that the two were working together on a new book, we felt the stars had aligned in such a way that we couldn’t ignore.

Our Island’s Story seeks to remedy what these two historians perceive to be a gap in historical education - a complete picture. In schools, history is taught piecemeal; children learn how to write fine essays, but never gain a holistic comprehension of the matter at hand.

We wanted to explore that with them. What are the gaps? What should people know but don’t? What are we missing?

What did we learn?

It’s hard to know where to start. As Robert describes from the outset, the problem is much more profound than is often made out. Our historical education, as laid out in our schools, is not just poor - it hardly exists.

Robert: “We teach very little history in British schools, compared to other countries, especially European ones. In France, it’s compulsory right to the end. In Britain, most students will get half an hour a week, and they’ll stop in Year 9. We never thought it was necessary.”

Over successive generations, the educational bodies and institutions that shape our curriculum have come to value history less and less. Once our professors and lecturers understood that learning history was meaningful for its own sake. Now, it’s been reduced to either a disconnected sequence of morality tales or a mere means to an end.

”To some educators, the only way you could justify teaching history was by saying it taught certain skills. The history doesn’t matter; it’s about deconstructing arguments and citing sources, and only in a very crude way. In a way that real historians would never do. There’s a sense that history is only valuable as stories. That’s why they change it. That’s why they say there were black and African soldiers at Hadrian’s Wall. And when some pedant comes along and says, “Actually, they were Greek or Roman” because that’s what the evidence suggests, they ask, “Why do you want to upset people?” After all, what happened doesn’t really matter; these are just stories. Let’s just tell the stories we like.”

Read more

Rising to fame in 2001 with the release of his breakout success Catherine the Great & Potemkin, Simon Sebag Montefiore has spent the 21st century enjoying a career as one of Britain’s most respected historians.

His catalogue of books, including history-buff mainstays Jerusalem: The Biography and 2016’s The Romanovs, has earned him awards from all of the world, as well as countless nominations. Elsewhere, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, as well as a Visiting Professor of Humanities at the University of Buckingham.

His latest work - The Cauldron: The Making of the Modern Middle East - is out August 25th, 2026.

Why did we invite him on?

Simon’s bibliography speaks for itself, and we’ve been avid readers of his for years. When we received word that his next book would be covering ‘the making of the modern Middle East’ - a subject which dominates headlines week-in-week-out, we knew it was time to finally host him.

It sounds like well-trodden ground. It isn’t. Perhaps naturally, almost every book available on the topic is charged politically one way or the other. Some are effervescent and breathless tributes to Israel, others are vicious condemnations of ancient colonialism. Both have their place, but neither tell the whole story.

Instead, Simon brings a fresh perspective to events, charting a history that, until the release of his book, has gone broadly underdiscussed in the literature. We wanted him to share some of that, with us and with you. This is that conversation.

What did we talk about?

”I didn’t want to write a neo-Marxist book of decolonialisation, but I also didn’t want to write a Zionist book. I wanted to do something that was as balanced as I could make it, without ideology.”

History of the Middle East stretches back as far as civilisation does. Where does one decide to start?

Ultimately, Simon is interested in the first dominoes that shaped what life in the region looks like today. To do that, he traces back to the early part of the 20th century; the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

It’s easy to forget just how imperious the global state in question was. Lasting over 600 years (1299 to 1922), and spanning parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, the Ottomans ruled over huge swathes and had immense influence on international trade and relations. Despite its clear historical significance, the Empire is somewhat misunderstood. Often viewed as a visage of tolerance in an intolerant time. Simon is keen to correct the record.

”The myth of ‘the great tolerance’ is something you read about quite often. People say that the Middle East was once tolerant, until it was destroyed by America, or by nationalism. And that’s true - up to a point. The Ottoman Empire, in the end, was something quite different to the way it had started.”

Whether the Empire became intolerant as a reaction to its ailing health or it crumbled as a result of its intolerance is a topic still hotly contested today. What is not debatable, however, is the staggering and callous brutality they exerted over their citizenry.

”The Ottoman Empire, far from being tolerant, ended up under the control of the Three Pashas [a dictatorial triumvirate that de facto ruled the empire the 1913 coup d'état until the end of World War I in 1918]. They were a fascist, eugenecist, Turkish, Islamic supremacy. They massacred 1.1 million Armenians, but they also committed now-forgotten genocides. The starving of Christians, the massacres of Greeks…”

One can look back now and see that their demise was inevitable. At the time, that wasn’t so clear. If the Ottomans were ever to fall, it would take an outside influence. In World War I, Britain saw an opportunity.

Read more

Even among a competitive field, Colin has one of the most storied careers in modern British journalism.

Since joining Sky News in 1997 - where he would remain for 24 years - he has placed himself on the frontline of many of geopolitics’ most volatile quagmires. He was the first British journalist to enter Iraq during the coalition invasion of ‘03, and later conducted one of the final interviews with Muammar Gaddafi before his execution by rebel fighters. For his coverage of the 2016 migrant crisis, Colin won an International Emmy and was nominated for BAFTA.

In 2023, he left Sky for GB News, before leaving again in April 2023 when he joined the team at LBC to host a late-night programme, before declaring his resignation from broadcasting that August to study farming - something he described as a “long-held dream”.

Why did we invite him on?

We’ve been admirers of Colin’s work for years now. In many ways, he represents the last of the old guard of journalism; pounding the pavement, getting the scoop from its source. It’s given him a hell of a life story, and one we hoped he’d share with us and you.

Having now been out of journalism for three years, we wanted to get his thoughts on the current state of British and Western politics. When he retired in 2023, could he have predicted where we’d be now? What does he think of it? Where does he think we’re going?

What did we talk about?

Colin is a man deeply in touch with his roots. Born and raised in Bradford, he’s been keen to stress his heritage throughout his career. But Bradford in the late ‘60s is a very different place to Bradford today. If you haven’t been, you’d be forgiven for having no idea - it’s not a story the media are interested in covering. Or more likely, one they don’t know is happening.

”My sister works on the checkouts at a local Co-op, and she’s my window into life as it really is. She sees ‘white flight’, she sees people in their shrinking enclaves, she’s on the receiving end of racial abuse from angry Pakistani men; this is a world that Sky and BBC don’t even know exists.”

So, what is Bradford like now? If the media are refusing to report or explore what’s happening to our depreciating cities, what can Colin tell us about them?

”I don’t know. And I don’t know because I don’t want to live there. Why would I? I was talking to someone the other day who wanted to move back to Twickenham, and I thought: ‘How lovely.’ How lovely to be able to go back to the place you grew up in. Bradford is a city that’s regressing.”

”Regressing.” It’s not a promising term, and not one you often hear used to describe a city. There are cities in decline, cities that lack adequate support, and cities which are merely mismanaged. But ‘regressing’ implies something different. It implies going backwards.

”It’s not developing, it’s massively segregated; there are no-go areas. When I was a kid, the indigenous population and the immigrants would at least work together. Now, their paths never cross. You can go days without seeing anyone that doesn’t look like you. That’s regression, isn’t it?”

Read more

Dan Snow is one of the most revered popular historians in Britain. In 2002, Dan came onto the scene with his acclaimed BBC documentary El Alamein, charting the events of the Second World War battle for its 60th anniversary. In every year since, he has released several popular history programmes, covering everything from Rome to China, the Vikings to the Nazis, and the history of Britain. He is also an ambassador of the Electoral Reform Society. His latest show - a one-off special: The Odyssey with Dan Snow - premiered on Channel Five last month.

Why did we invite him?

Just shy of a year ago, we had Dan on the show to give an overview of the ‘True History of England’. It remains one of our favourite interviews ever, and it looks like you agreed; at the time of writing, it boasts nearly a million views on YouTube - a number eclipsed when you account for downloads.

Ten minutes from the end, Dan said: “We’re getting to the best bit.” By that, he meant the Industrial Revolution. Having to cut him off before we could explore that was torturous for us, and something we insisted on remedying as quickly as possible.

Ten months later, we have him back to do precisely that.

What did we learn?

”It’s one of the most exciting stories in the whole of human history. A little island off the coast of Eurasia, for thousands of years, it does very little. Then, around 1700-1750, it goes mental. It builds the largest empire the world has ever seen. Roughly a quarter of the world’s area and population is under the control of a tiny island in the North Sea. Why?”

Why indeed. England’s outsized influence over the world remains one of the most puzzling facts of its history. Its music, literature, theatre, films, architecture, practices and norms are present in almost every corner of the planet; even in ones they never outright controlled. What was it about this ‘little island’ that meant it was able to have such a seismic impact?

”At the time, the argument was that ‘God is an Englishman’. But the truth is much more interesting. Why do you get these explosions of creativity? Or naval might? Why does it happen? And how can you replicate it?”

Some things can only happen once. It’s a miracle they ever happened at all. Understanding that about British history, it’s easy to dismiss what happened as a freak event. But that undersells the factors that profoundly contributed to the ‘fate’ of the nation and the ones it controlled, or even just inspired.

There are countless we can explore, but Dan starts with the key cultural difference between Europe and its rivals in the Far East.

”Europe is incredibly competitive. If you have an invention in Nanking [in China] and the emperor doesn’t like it, that’s the end of your invention. If you have an invention and the king doesn’t like it, you can be in another country in two days.”

Going further, our guest explains how innovation, Columbus, the achievements of English explorers, conflict with France, gain and loss of the United States, and even the natural weather patterns around the isle, lay the ground for what would be true catalyst: industry.

”Historians really argue whether empire and industry are distinct or linked. I think they are linked. As Britain pushes ahead with its trade and overseas power projection, things start happening at home. The desire to build better ships means embracing science; you’re constantly thinking about how to improve them, and navigate more effectively. There are so many breakthroughs in this time.”

Subscribe now

Another crucial feature was the advent of capitalism. Quite unlike the myth often told, capitalism was not an enslaving practice - it was a liberating one. Adam Smith, forefather of the model, made the case that a system in which willing workers are compensated by their boss is not only more ethical than slavery, but also more economically sound.

Here, Dan cuts against the established narrative that all of the West’s wealth and prosperity was built on the slave trade; it wasn’t until after it ended that these countries entered the truest phase of affluence.

”[Smith] made the case that capitalism would save everyone money, even the slave owners. The cost of policing this institution was more than it earned back; by paying them a wage, they fostered an economy.”

These days, the story goes that Britain was a uniquely cruel and barbarous coloniser. One with a history to be deeply ashamed of. There are doubtlessly aspects that make one wince, that make patriotism more difficult. Are we right to feel that way?

”The past was a monstrous, unimaginably brutal place. What do we do about that?”

Read more

James Hankins is one of America’s most admired historians.

In 1985, he joined the history faculty at Harvard, where he would remain for 40 years before leaving in December of last year. Today, He is the general editor of the I Tatti Renaissance Library - a book series by Harvard University Press dedicated to republishing classic works of Italian literature. His latest book - the concluding volume of The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition duology - was published earlier this year. Today, he also publishes on a Subsack of the same name.

Why did we invite him on?

James’ story instantly caught our interest. What is it that motivates an acclaimed professor, after four decades at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, to leave his position? How did it feel then? How does he feel about it now?

More broadly, we also wanted to explore James’ area of expertise: Western civilisation, with particular attention paid to Italy’s contribution. Something James felt, towards the end of his tenure at Harvard, he could no longer teach. He left to do precisely that. We were more than happy to host him.

What did we learn?

Learning about civilisation is unique among academic pursuits. As you learn, you become part of it. It’s not merely a detached assessment of what’s come before; in the act of educating oneself, they become an active participant. By learning about the cerebral tools of Western civilisation, we are imbued with them. It demands we rise to the occasion.

This, James asserts, has long been forgotten.

”This strikes me as a mistake of modern, humanist studies: it’s so important to communicate in our world, and at a very high level. It’s how you become a civilised person. Not just good manners, but intuitions, poetic insights, sublimity… These [skills] can only be developed in a civilisation. You’re not just a citizen - you’re a member of the society, and you interact with it in a profound and subtle way.”

These are not inborn abilities. The most elevated forms of art - in theatre, sculpture, music, and literature - are only fully understood when we’re taught how. What to look out for, which parts to admire.

Many of the universities pride themselves on taking a strictly “critical” approach; rigorous scepticism that undresses and assesses the inherited knowledge of past eras. It sounds good, but is it? Perhaps the best way to learn about - and respect - the great works and achievements of a civilisation is from someone who actually does.

”It’s not automatic that people will understand classical music. It’s an acquired taste, and to acquire it you have to be brought up and educated in that. You have to have people who communicate their love of it to you, teachers who are enthusiasts. If you want to understand Western civilisation - Michaelangelo, Beethoven, Dante - you need the skills to do so.”

If this is such an important process, why did James take himself out of it?

Subscribe now

In 2025, after 40 years of teaching, James retired from Harvard University. There were a myriad of reasons, but central to his motivation was the university’s intensifying unwillingness to allow his position to be heard. He only left last year, but the decision had been brewing for some time.

”I decided to retire in 2020; the year of George Floyd, the year of COVID. I just didn’t want to do it anymore. They created such a terrible atmosphere. They wanted us to do lectures with masks on, which I refused to do … I was also banging my head against the wall trying to get the university to continue teaching the history of Western civilisation. That was a mainstay for decades, but my department [wanted to get rid of it]. It was evident to me that someone had made a decision to zero out ‘Western Civ’.”

What remained of James’ freedom to teach was not what he hoped for. As years went by, James increasingly found he was discouraged from exploring the majestic elements of Western civilisation, or even a balanced approach. He could only teach the dark underbelly - the shameful, immoral components of our past.

”You could teach the French empire and all its evils, but you couldn’t teach the Revolution. You could teach about the English monarchy and the colonies, but not the Magna Carta.”

It invites the question: why?

Read more