So today we're diving into signal gate and the White House's crisis comms. Our heads about to roll or is it being overblown? We'll discuss. We'll also unpack Bernie Sanders, an AOC's fighting oligarchy tour, pulling massive crowds twenty months before the midterms. Should this worry us? I mean, they claim to be populous, but are they Today's guest Steve Hilton knows a thing or two about that, having been a key voice in Brexit's leaf campaign, even clashing with his old boss David Cameron. We'll get his take on all of that. We've seen the UK have a lot of issues with free speech, censorship as well as immigration. How much of those issues are intertwined and what's the future of the UK. And lastly, we'll dig into Steve Hilton's new book, Cali Failure, Reversing the Ruin of America's worst run State. Can a Republican save the Golden State? And is that Republican? Steve Hilton? Well, Steve Hilton, it's such an honor to have you on the show. You're one of my favorite people at Fox News and I've just enjoyed previously going on your show and just kind of getting to know you throughout the years. You're just You're a great guy, You're so smart, your friend, and so it's it's exciting to have you on, and I'm excited about your book that we'll get dig into.

So today we're diving into signal gate and the White House's crisis comms. Our heads about to roll or is it being overblown? We'll discuss. We'll also unpack Bernie Sanders, an AOC's fighting oligarchy tour, pulling massive crowds twenty months before the midterms. Should this worry us? I mean, they claim to be populous, but are they Today's guest Steve Hilton knows a thing or two about that, having been a key voice in Brexit's leaf campaign, even clashing with his old boss David Cameron. We'll get his take on all of that. We've seen the UK have a lot of issues with free speech, censorship as well as immigration. How much of those issues are intertwined and what's the future of the UK. And lastly, we'll dig into Steve Hilton's new book, Cali Failure, Reversing the Ruin of America's worst run State. Can a Republican save the Golden State? And is that Republican? Steve Hilton? Well, Steve Hilton, it's such an honor to have you on the show. You're one of my favorite people at Fox News and I've just enjoyed previously going on your show and just kind of getting to know you throughout the years. You're just You're a great guy, You're so smart, your friend, and so it's it's exciting to have you on, and I'm excited about your book that we'll get dig into.

Thank well, it's wonderful to be with you. I'm so happy. I totally agree that. I feel like we kind of came up together at Fox, and it's just great to be with you today.

Thank well, it's wonderful to be with you. I'm so happy. I totally agree that. I feel like we kind of came up together at Fox, and it's just great to be with you today.

Well, we've also i mean, you know, the past few years have just been so interesting in history, right, I mean we kind of you know, I remember going on your show during COVID, and you know, you were one of the few people out in the media really questioning things and allowing a space on your show to question things, which I think was so important at the time because people just weren't doing it. I mean, you were having people on who you know, weren't for lockdowns and who didn't think that everyone should go out and get vaccinated, and you really allowed for a space for actual in different opinions, and so I think you really played a really critical role during COVID.

Well, we've also i mean, you know, the past few years have just been so interesting in history, right, I mean we kind of you know, I remember going on your show during COVID, and you know, you were one of the few people out in the media really questioning things and allowing a space on your show to question things, which I think was so important at the time because people just weren't doing it. I mean, you were having people on who you know, weren't for lockdowns and who didn't think that everyone should go out and get vaccinated, and you really allowed for a space for actual in different opinions, and so I think you really played a really critical role during COVID.

Well, thank you. Actually, my favorite thing, especially this week, is to note that I was the first person that put Jay Battachariot on TV. And of course he's just being confirmed as the new head of NIH, which is such a beautiful kind of revenge against all the lockdown lunatics.

Well, thank you. Actually, my favorite thing, especially this week, is to note that I was the first person that put Jay Battachariot on TV. And of course he's just being confirmed as the new head of NIH, which is such a beautiful kind of revenge against all the lockdown lunatics.

Well, you know, it seems like a lot of these people like Jay, and really I didn't realize you were the first person. I mean, I knew that you had him on. I knew that you were very brave and sort of having these people on earlier than you know, other people were willing to have them on. But that's very cool. But it is nice to see a lot of these people who got really beat up and really battered and bruised and bloodied for telling the truth during COVID. I mean, the amount that he went through at Stanford and just through his viewers and you know, and then to now to be in a position of authority in the country on public health is poetic justice. If you could ever write any you know, it's just it's a beautiful thing to see and we'll all be better as a result, all right. So I wanted to ask you just out the gate, and we don't have to spend a lot of time on this because obviously it's being discussed enough, all right, so signal gait, what do you make of it? And how is the White House doing in its crisis communication response.

Well, you know, it seems like a lot of these people like Jay, and really I didn't realize you were the first person. I mean, I knew that you had him on. I knew that you were very brave and sort of having these people on earlier than you know, other people were willing to have them on. But that's very cool. But it is nice to see a lot of these people who got really beat up and really battered and bruised and bloodied for telling the truth during COVID. I mean, the amount that he went through at Stanford and just through his viewers and you know, and then to now to be in a position of authority in the country on public health is poetic justice. If you could ever write any you know, it's just it's a beautiful thing to see and we'll all be better as a result, all right. So I wanted to ask you just out the gate, and we don't have to spend a lot of time on this because obviously it's being discussed enough, all right, so signal gait, what do you make of it? And how is the White House doing in its crisis communication response.

I honestly don't know what to make of it other than clearly everyone agrees that it was a mistake, So no one's defending it as yeah, this was a good thing that happened. I think it is important, and they are making the point, which I think is in a way the main point that the actual substance here was very positive. In other words, they were discussing something that then happened and was very successful, and it was a great example of American leadership, so that you know, we cannot lose sight of that and all the conversation around the process. And it's the kind of story that the press absolutely loves because it's it is about process and the kind of internal workings of things rather than you know, real policy in the real world. Having said that, the thing that I just keep coming back to is that when we think about this, quite obviously the addition of the journalist was just a mistake, and these things happen, and I think they'll probably learn from it and make sure that I think we're already hearing that in the future, you know there will be much you know, there'll be someone checking exactly who's on chains like this or whatever. But the broader point, I think is security of communications and how can you run that properly in the modern world where people are running around and everything's on phones and all the rest of it. And it takes me back to my first days in working in the government back in the UK, in the Camera and administration, and I remember very clearly having the security briefing and they were going up from the British Security Services and they were on and on about how vulnerable smartphones were, and they said, look, don't assume anything hostile. Foreign powers and security services can get into any phone anyway they want that. I remember that very clearly. They said, they can even take over a phone that is not even turned on. They can take it over and turn it remotely into a listening device for any room that you're in. So just be incredibly cautious about your phone. And the other thing they said was this only applies to smartphones. And at the time I had never I've never had a smartphone, and I had an old fashioned Nokia phone and I just held it up and said and the guy said, yeah, that's it. That's secure. They can't get into that. So I think for all the conversation and it's now become known as signal GIT or whatever, I think actually the real story here is about phones and the device, because that's the real vulnerability.

I honestly don't know what to make of it other than clearly everyone agrees that it was a mistake, So no one's defending it as yeah, this was a good thing that happened. I think it is important, and they are making the point, which I think is in a way the main point that the actual substance here was very positive. In other words, they were discussing something that then happened and was very successful, and it was a great example of American leadership, so that you know, we cannot lose sight of that and all the conversation around the process. And it's the kind of story that the press absolutely loves because it's it is about process and the kind of internal workings of things rather than you know, real policy in the real world. Having said that, the thing that I just keep coming back to is that when we think about this, quite obviously the addition of the journalist was just a mistake, and these things happen, and I think they'll probably learn from it and make sure that I think we're already hearing that in the future, you know there will be much you know, there'll be someone checking exactly who's on chains like this or whatever. But the broader point, I think is security of communications and how can you run that properly in the modern world where people are running around and everything's on phones and all the rest of it. And it takes me back to my first days in working in the government back in the UK, in the Camera and administration, and I remember very clearly having the security briefing and they were going up from the British Security Services and they were on and on about how vulnerable smartphones were, and they said, look, don't assume anything hostile. Foreign powers and security services can get into any phone anyway they want that. I remember that very clearly. They said, they can even take over a phone that is not even turned on. They can take it over and turn it remotely into a listening device for any room that you're in. So just be incredibly cautious about your phone. And the other thing they said was this only applies to smartphones. And at the time I had never I've never had a smartphone, and I had an old fashioned Nokia phone and I just held it up and said and the guy said, yeah, that's it. That's secure. They can't get into that. So I think for all the conversation and it's now become known as signal GIT or whatever, I think actually the real story here is about phones and the device, because that's the real vulnerability.

And you've not if I can remember, you're not a cell phone guy, right, I remember.

And you've not if I can remember, you're not a cell phone guy, right, I remember.

I have now got a flip phone, but it's still it's an old fashioned flip phone. It's not a smartphone. I'm on the road now a lot in California, so I do need to, you know, just be a more available and call people in text and whatever. So that's what I have a flip phone, which enables me to do that. I can make phone calls, I can text, but that's it.

I have now got a flip phone, but it's still it's an old fashioned flip phone. It's not a smartphone. I'm on the road now a lot in California, so I do need to, you know, just be a more available and call people in text and whatever. So that's what I have a flip phone, which enables me to do that. I can make phone calls, I can text, but that's it.

Although I kind of love that you've lived in tech world, but you're like, you don't know, that's kind of cool. I kind of like that, you know. I also just think that the Democrats are overplaying their hand here, right, because like it is a loss for the White House. It's it's a win for Democrats to you know, try to put some points on the board. It's not a good news cycle for the White House. We can we can all admit that, but then it's like they take it so far to the point and like so hyperbolic that it's like, Okay, like you know what I mean, you're right about it being embarrassing. You know, you're right to you know, knock the White House on this, but then like you take it so far and try to make these things it's not and then you sort of lose the plot. And then also just after all the incompetence we had to go through with the previous administration, getting thirteen service members killed, you know, droning an AID worker, the list goes on, it's like you don't really have much of a leg to stand on here either, exactly.

Although I kind of love that you've lived in tech world, but you're like, you don't know, that's kind of cool. I kind of like that, you know. I also just think that the Democrats are overplaying their hand here, right, because like it is a loss for the White House. It's it's a win for Democrats to you know, try to put some points on the board. It's not a good news cycle for the White House. We can we can all admit that, but then it's like they take it so far to the point and like so hyperbolic that it's like, Okay, like you know what I mean, you're right about it being embarrassing. You know, you're right to you know, knock the White House on this, but then like you take it so far and try to make these things it's not and then you sort of lose the plot. And then also just after all the incompetence we had to go through with the previous administration, getting thirteen service members killed, you know, droning an AID worker, the list goes on, it's like you don't really have much of a leg to stand on here either, exactly.

I totally agree. I was just watching some of the I was on Fox and Friends this morning and I was just going watching They had a sort of compilation of some of the comments from Democrats and media pundits on you know, the Chris Hayes I think on MSNBC was particularly gregious, just the insanity. They're so over the top. This is the most appalling security breach in the history of the country. I think it was literally as extreme as that, and you just think that what are you talking about?

I totally agree. I was just watching some of the I was on Fox and Friends this morning and I was just going watching They had a sort of compilation of some of the comments from Democrats and media pundits on you know, the Chris Hayes I think on MSNBC was particularly gregious, just the insanity. They're so over the top. This is the most appalling security breach in the history of the country. I think it was literally as extreme as that, and you just think that what are you talking about?

You just sound like a fool, you know exactly. It's like they just take it so far. They're too dumb to even take a win.

You just sound like a fool, you know exactly. It's like they just take it so far. They're too dumb to even take a win.

You know.

You know.

It's like, but so in this conversation, one thing that came to mind that I wanted to ask you about. So, we have an administration that's moving so quickly, right, Like, it's like I feel like we're living through dog years. Like it's just like it's going you know, it's it's you know, it feels like we've already been through a year of an administration. Right it's just going so quickly. He's moving so quickly. How does that play out in the midterms? Like it seems that it's been able to throw Democrats off their games, sort of like the inability to figure out how to outside of this, you know, one incident with the signal gate sort of more self inflicted. They've not really been able to land knocks against him because it's like so much is happening. But how do you make sure the American people are aware, you know, that they're not just caught up in like the chaos and go into the midterms feeling chaotic? You know, So how do you you know, I guess how do you sell that to the American people where you know, they know that wins are happening, that things are good, without just feeling like chaotic.

It's like, but so in this conversation, one thing that came to mind that I wanted to ask you about. So, we have an administration that's moving so quickly, right, Like, it's like I feel like we're living through dog years. Like it's just like it's going you know, it's it's you know, it feels like we've already been through a year of an administration. Right it's just going so quickly. He's moving so quickly. How does that play out in the midterms? Like it seems that it's been able to throw Democrats off their games, sort of like the inability to figure out how to outside of this, you know, one incident with the signal gate sort of more self inflicted. They've not really been able to land knocks against him because it's like so much is happening. But how do you make sure the American people are aware, you know, that they're not just caught up in like the chaos and go into the midterms feeling chaotic? You know, So how do you you know, I guess how do you sell that to the American people where you know, they know that wins are happening, that things are good, without just feeling like chaotic.

It's really interesting. I think that the driving factor will be substantive, like what is actually happening in the real world, particularly on economic matters. By the time people start thinking about their votes are really I think opinions about how things are going are going to be set, you know, sort of summer next year. I think that's typically how it works with elections, that, however people are feeling in June July next year, is will be you know, determinative of how the vote goes, honestly, and so I think it's all about the the not just the process. Wins in terms of initiating actions, whether that's tariffs or the DOGE stuff, whatever it may be, that's great, and I think that right now there's a positive sense of energy. I think people overwhelmingly like that. You can see in the approval numbers, which are the highest we've seen for Donald Trump, and there you know, in comparison to other presidents. It's all good news in that sense. But I think by next year it's going to be, well, what's the real news, what's actually happening, and so I think that we just have to wait and see. I don't think anything the Democrats are doing right now is likely to be shaping perceptions. Then I do think that if they continue down the path that they seem to be on, which is moving, I would say even further left, or at least, you know, doubling down on a kind of left positioning, particularly if I mean, I will talk about Bernie and AOC, you know, if that's where this is heading, I don't think that's going to serve them well at all. But I think the real driver will be what actually happens in the real world, and it'll be a combination of domestic and foreign posts. You know. For example, if if if the if the administration does manage to pull off, you know, an end to the war in Europe, like a real end to it, that's a huge success that they can point to. And the same same with you know, jobs in the economy. I think that it's very possible that actually you will see by the end by this, you know, by early summer next year, really great stories in terms of investment in the US and and jobs being created in the sense that the America First Economic Agenda really is delivering what it was supposed to do, which is better jobs and higher earnings for Americans. But that has to happen in order for people to feel good about it.

It's really interesting. I think that the driving factor will be substantive, like what is actually happening in the real world, particularly on economic matters. By the time people start thinking about their votes are really I think opinions about how things are going are going to be set, you know, sort of summer next year. I think that's typically how it works with elections, that, however people are feeling in June July next year, is will be you know, determinative of how the vote goes, honestly, and so I think it's all about the the not just the process. Wins in terms of initiating actions, whether that's tariffs or the DOGE stuff, whatever it may be, that's great, and I think that right now there's a positive sense of energy. I think people overwhelmingly like that. You can see in the approval numbers, which are the highest we've seen for Donald Trump, and there you know, in comparison to other presidents. It's all good news in that sense. But I think by next year it's going to be, well, what's the real news, what's actually happening, and so I think that we just have to wait and see. I don't think anything the Democrats are doing right now is likely to be shaping perceptions. Then I do think that if they continue down the path that they seem to be on, which is moving, I would say even further left, or at least, you know, doubling down on a kind of left positioning, particularly if I mean, I will talk about Bernie and AOC, you know, if that's where this is heading, I don't think that's going to serve them well at all. But I think the real driver will be what actually happens in the real world, and it'll be a combination of domestic and foreign posts. You know. For example, if if if the if the administration does manage to pull off, you know, an end to the war in Europe, like a real end to it, that's a huge success that they can point to. And the same same with you know, jobs in the economy. I think that it's very possible that actually you will see by the end by this, you know, by early summer next year, really great stories in terms of investment in the US and and jobs being created in the sense that the America First Economic Agenda really is delivering what it was supposed to do, which is better jobs and higher earnings for Americans. But that has to happen in order for people to feel good about it.

We've got to take a quick commercial break. But first, when a woman experiences an unplanned pregnancy, she often feels alone and afraid. So many times her first response is to seek out an abortion. But because of the generosity of listeners like you that search, my leader to a Preborn Network clinic where she will choose life, not just for her baby, but also for herself. Preborn offers God's love and compassion to hurting women and then provides a free ultrasound to introduce them to the life growing inside of them. This combination brings the ultimate miracle of life to life, which is why Preborn sees an average of two hundred babies saved every day meets some courageous women who chose life. When Paige found out she was pregnant, she didn't feel she could afford a child. The father threatened to make her have an abortion, but when her mother found out, she introduced her to a Preborn Network clinic. At the clinic, page was given the support and resources she needed to help her choose life, and the father even started attending parenting classes with her. Now they're raising a beautiful son together. Your tax deductible donation of twenty eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound. But how many babies can you save? Please donate your best gift today. Just stay a pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty baby. Or go to preborn dot com slash booth that's preborn dot com slash booth boo thg sponsored by Preborn. You know, we've had a lot of these conversations on TV and everyone's like, oh, you know, Democrats are lost, and they are obviously, but that doesn't necessarily matter for the midterms. It matters for twenty twenty eight when they have to pick a candidate, they have to pick a direction for the party, and you know, whoever the individual is that wins, you know, take on that mantle and probably reshape the party. But for a midterm it's really dependent on how President Trump is doing, how this White House is doing, how the economy is doing, how Americans feel about the direction of the country. And so far we've seen pulling where. You know, I think Americans, more Americans believe we're on the right track than two thousand and four. So if that is how it looks heading in the midterms, were good. But you know, I think you kind of nailed it in the sense of, like it really just comes down to what's the public perception of President Trump and this White House heading into the midterms.

We've got to take a quick commercial break. But first, when a woman experiences an unplanned pregnancy, she often feels alone and afraid. So many times her first response is to seek out an abortion. But because of the generosity of listeners like you that search, my leader to a Preborn Network clinic where she will choose life, not just for her baby, but also for herself. Preborn offers God's love and compassion to hurting women and then provides a free ultrasound to introduce them to the life growing inside of them. This combination brings the ultimate miracle of life to life, which is why Preborn sees an average of two hundred babies saved every day meets some courageous women who chose life. When Paige found out she was pregnant, she didn't feel she could afford a child. The father threatened to make her have an abortion, but when her mother found out, she introduced her to a Preborn Network clinic. At the clinic, page was given the support and resources she needed to help her choose life, and the father even started attending parenting classes with her. Now they're raising a beautiful son together. Your tax deductible donation of twenty eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound. But how many babies can you save? Please donate your best gift today. Just stay a pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty baby. Or go to preborn dot com slash booth that's preborn dot com slash booth boo thg sponsored by Preborn. You know, we've had a lot of these conversations on TV and everyone's like, oh, you know, Democrats are lost, and they are obviously, but that doesn't necessarily matter for the midterms. It matters for twenty twenty eight when they have to pick a candidate, they have to pick a direction for the party, and you know, whoever the individual is that wins, you know, take on that mantle and probably reshape the party. But for a midterm it's really dependent on how President Trump is doing, how this White House is doing, how the economy is doing, how Americans feel about the direction of the country. And so far we've seen pulling where. You know, I think Americans, more Americans believe we're on the right track than two thousand and four. So if that is how it looks heading in the midterms, were good. But you know, I think you kind of nailed it in the sense of, like it really just comes down to what's the public perception of President Trump and this White House heading into the midterms.

Yes, And I think one thing I'd add to that is if you compare it to the last I mean, I think the Democrats are very excited about the comparison with twenty eighteen, which is obviously a good mid term for them. And you had the whole resistance movement and all of that stuff going on, and you had the controversy over super you know, just a ton of stuff, you know, Brett Cavanaught. You know, there was a lot going on, and the rage against Trump was which was totally amplified, of course by the media. It was really strong and actually already by then you were having good results on the economy in the first Trump administration, but it was drowned out by the just the sheer kind of level of the rage and hostility and the media amplifying every single thing that went wrong and so on. It's very different this time because you have just just a much more experienced team and unified team, and apart from this this thing we've just been talking about, it's basically been really professional and the chaos argument just doesn't really stick. And I think that and also that just doesn't seem to be the appetite for the kind of universal anti Trump rage. It's just not like that. It's not new anymore, you know, and people can see that this is very different feel to the administration. So I don't think if like last time. What I'm really saying is that last time, there were already good results happening in the real world for President Trump in twenty eighteen, but it was drowned out by this chorus of rage. I don't think that'll happen this time. If he does have good results, if things are going well, I think that will translate into good outcomes in the midtimes.

Yes, And I think one thing I'd add to that is if you compare it to the last I mean, I think the Democrats are very excited about the comparison with twenty eighteen, which is obviously a good mid term for them. And you had the whole resistance movement and all of that stuff going on, and you had the controversy over super you know, just a ton of stuff, you know, Brett Cavanaught. You know, there was a lot going on, and the rage against Trump was which was totally amplified, of course by the media. It was really strong and actually already by then you were having good results on the economy in the first Trump administration, but it was drowned out by the just the sheer kind of level of the rage and hostility and the media amplifying every single thing that went wrong and so on. It's very different this time because you have just just a much more experienced team and unified team, and apart from this this thing we've just been talking about, it's basically been really professional and the chaos argument just doesn't really stick. And I think that and also that just doesn't seem to be the appetite for the kind of universal anti Trump rage. It's just not like that. It's not new anymore, you know, and people can see that this is very different feel to the administration. So I don't think if like last time. What I'm really saying is that last time, there were already good results happening in the real world for President Trump in twenty eighteen, but it was drowned out by this chorus of rage. I don't think that'll happen this time. If he does have good results, if things are going well, I think that will translate into good outcomes in the midtimes.

That's a really good point. You know, we're sort of I think America, especially just since the past four years have been so bad. I think American's eyes have kind of an open to like they sort of get the game now, you know, with how the media works in the left. That's a really good point. So I wanted to ask you about the whole Bernie Standers and AOC thing because you've worked in you know, the highest highest places in politics, and you're also a proponent of well positive populism. This is not positive, but you know, maybe populism nonetheless, but or some form of it. But so, okay, So they've been on their fighting lagarchy tour according to organizers, which you know, take it for a grain of assault, because take it with a grain of saul because it's according to organizers. But they say nearly eighty seven thousand people have attended five events last week. You know, that's a lot of people, particularly so far out from a midterm election. I mean, should we be worried about that? Is that is there something brewing there that we should be paying attention to?

That's a really good point. You know, we're sort of I think America, especially just since the past four years have been so bad. I think American's eyes have kind of an open to like they sort of get the game now, you know, with how the media works in the left. That's a really good point. So I wanted to ask you about the whole Bernie Standers and AOC thing because you've worked in you know, the highest highest places in politics, and you're also a proponent of well positive populism. This is not positive, but you know, maybe populism nonetheless, but or some form of it. But so, okay, So they've been on their fighting lagarchy tour according to organizers, which you know, take it for a grain of assault, because take it with a grain of saul because it's according to organizers. But they say nearly eighty seven thousand people have attended five events last week. You know, that's a lot of people, particularly so far out from a midterm election. I mean, should we be worried about that? Is that is there something brewing there that we should be paying attention to?

I don't think so. I think, if anything, it could be mildly encouraging depth for Republicans because what you've actually got going on that look, I think it reflects the you know, these are real partisans, these are people going to be vote voting Democrat. It's the activist base. It seems to me that's showing up and they are really, you know, obviously hugely, hugely demoralized by the defeat of Karmala Harris and President Trump's election, which they just couldn't believe, you know how they used to talk about him and still do, and they just were assuming that Karmla Harris would win and so and then ever since then, they've seen this really astonishing press coverage really of President Trump, both in the in the transition period. In the first you know, a few months of the of the administration, they're just looking and thinking, oh, my goodness, what is this. Trump's the monster, He's a devil. What's going on? And then they see somebody in their party just making a stand and showing up and being angry and kind of channeling their emotions, and they respond to it. So I think that's natural. I don't think it's anything to be sort of particularly concerned about. And I think the really interesting thing is if the lesson that Democrats take from it is, yeah, okay, well there's support for this AOC. Maybe we should have had Bernie all along. You know, maybe he's right, Maybe AOC, that's the direction that we want to set. And of course you're right that the real direction setting will happen once they choose their presidential nominee. But if in the interim it feels like this is where the action is and it's all about the left. I think that's really helpful for Republicans because it seems to me that the defining feature of the Democrats post election, you know, whatever you want to call it, collapse of morale, is they really haven't come to terms with why they lost. And it seems to me it's very simple. They lost because they went too far left on all these issues and you know whatever, you know, you pick an issue around the climate, staff or immigration. Obviously in the Board of Crime and gender and all this stuff, they went too far left everyone, every normal person. It's obvious that that's what happened. But they're not learning that lesson, it seems. And if they go, if they if they get excited about the energy or being on the AOC burning side and they think, okay, fine, maybe left is the way to go, that's helpful for Republicans.

I don't think so. I think, if anything, it could be mildly encouraging depth for Republicans because what you've actually got going on that look, I think it reflects the you know, these are real partisans, these are people going to be vote voting Democrat. It's the activist base. It seems to me that's showing up and they are really, you know, obviously hugely, hugely demoralized by the defeat of Karmala Harris and President Trump's election, which they just couldn't believe, you know how they used to talk about him and still do, and they just were assuming that Karmla Harris would win and so and then ever since then, they've seen this really astonishing press coverage really of President Trump, both in the in the transition period. In the first you know, a few months of the of the administration, they're just looking and thinking, oh, my goodness, what is this. Trump's the monster, He's a devil. What's going on? And then they see somebody in their party just making a stand and showing up and being angry and kind of channeling their emotions, and they respond to it. So I think that's natural. I don't think it's anything to be sort of particularly concerned about. And I think the really interesting thing is if the lesson that Democrats take from it is, yeah, okay, well there's support for this AOC. Maybe we should have had Bernie all along. You know, maybe he's right, Maybe AOC, that's the direction that we want to set. And of course you're right that the real direction setting will happen once they choose their presidential nominee. But if in the interim it feels like this is where the action is and it's all about the left. I think that's really helpful for Republicans because it seems to me that the defining feature of the Democrats post election, you know, whatever you want to call it, collapse of morale, is they really haven't come to terms with why they lost. And it seems to me it's very simple. They lost because they went too far left on all these issues and you know whatever, you know, you pick an issue around the climate, staff or immigration. Obviously in the Board of Crime and gender and all this stuff, they went too far left everyone, every normal person. It's obvious that that's what happened. But they're not learning that lesson, it seems. And if they go, if they if they get excited about the energy or being on the AOC burning side and they think, okay, fine, maybe left is the way to go, that's helpful for Republicans.

That's a good point. You know, It's like they're like a little children and instead of just like, you know, you lose a game, instead of just hitting the pieces over like whatever, they're like firebombing, tatles. You know, it's amazing, a little a little more excruis. They're like psychotic children. It's like a little more extreme. You know. It seems to me, you know, because I think looking at their defeat this past election cycle, like it's not just a political defeat. Like President Trump took down a system, right, you know, he has a media with the most biased coverage ever in like the history of campaigns against him. He had you know, Hollywood working against him, big tech, which are now you know, with him. But he had like every you know, the deep state, like right, every system, the court, like weaponize everything working against him, and he defeated it. And so he sort of depleted their power structure. And so I think that's why they're so angry and so gammering, and you know, like right, I mean, do you agree with that or what do you think exactly?

That's a good point. You know, It's like they're like a little children and instead of just like, you know, you lose a game, instead of just hitting the pieces over like whatever, they're like firebombing, tatles. You know, it's amazing, a little a little more excruis. They're like psychotic children. It's like a little more extreme. You know. It seems to me, you know, because I think looking at their defeat this past election cycle, like it's not just a political defeat. Like President Trump took down a system, right, you know, he has a media with the most biased coverage ever in like the history of campaigns against him. He had you know, Hollywood working against him, big tech, which are now you know, with him. But he had like every you know, the deep state, like right, every system, the court, like weaponize everything working against him, and he defeated it. And so he sort of depleted their power structure. And so I think that's why they're so angry and so gammering, and you know, like right, I mean, do you agree with that or what do you think exactly?

They don't. They can't believe it. It's like what how did this happen? You know? How how did I mean even the first time around, it was like, how are you kidding me? Hillary was supposed to be crowned, you know, and now it's happened again and to a female candidate and and it's just unthinkable to them, and they and they completely you know, gobsmacked buy it, and and that's why it's coming out in these weird ways. And there hasn't been any kind of serious, you know, thoughtful, you know, reassessment of where they went wrong. I suppose you could say, I don't know Gavin Newsom's doing it a little bit. I mean, I don't want to give him much credit for it, because I think it's all about personal positioning for him with his podcast and these new positions that he's trying to stake out, but totally insincerely because he's not actually doing anything about it because he happens to still be the governor of California and so could be acting to implement all these new things that he's discovering, like how unfair it is to have biological men and girls sports. He could actually be doing something about it. So I don't want to give him too much credit. It's not actually sincere about it. However, the fact that he is, you know, trying to move in that direction shows that I think at least he gets it. But I don't think any of the others do.

They don't. They can't believe it. It's like what how did this happen? You know? How how did I mean even the first time around, it was like, how are you kidding me? Hillary was supposed to be crowned, you know, and now it's happened again and to a female candidate and and it's just unthinkable to them, and they and they completely you know, gobsmacked buy it, and and that's why it's coming out in these weird ways. And there hasn't been any kind of serious, you know, thoughtful, you know, reassessment of where they went wrong. I suppose you could say, I don't know Gavin Newsom's doing it a little bit. I mean, I don't want to give him much credit for it, because I think it's all about personal positioning for him with his podcast and these new positions that he's trying to stake out, but totally insincerely because he's not actually doing anything about it because he happens to still be the governor of California and so could be acting to implement all these new things that he's discovering, like how unfair it is to have biological men and girls sports. He could actually be doing something about it. So I don't want to give him too much credit. It's not actually sincere about it. However, the fact that he is, you know, trying to move in that direction shows that I think at least he gets it. But I don't think any of the others do.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think the only reason he's having conservatives on his podcast is you know, he's at least a student enough to realize that, like, that's the direction he's going to have to go in if he wants to run for president, right, and so he's sort of like using Republicans as ponds in his game.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think the only reason he's having conservatives on his podcast is you know, he's at least a student enough to realize that, like, that's the direction he's going to have to go in if he wants to run for president, right, and so he's sort of like using Republicans as ponds in his game.

One Pert, I just want to say who I you know, and I should you know, be transparent about this. It's someone I know and I like personally. Who I think is just staking out kind of an interesting path here is Rocanna. I think that what if you look at what he's been saying and doing. He's a congressman from California near I live, and he's a populist of the you know in one sense, you know, I mean he was I think co chair of Bernie's presidential campaign. So he's definitely and the I think CoA chair of the Progressive Caucus. I can't remember exactly what his title is, but definitely you could say on the left. However, he's the only one that I've noticed, I think, I really is the only one in terms of a leading Democrat who's very clearly and strongly condemned what's going on with Tesla. So that has no place in this just really stood up for that and also just speaks about things in a much more reasonable way. And he goes on Fox and he doesn't talk in an aggressive manner about you know, he's just he's different to the others, and I think it's interesting. But equally, he doesn't pander and he's been consistent in his views. So I think he's one to watch. Actually, I think he's got an interesting he's you know, taking an interesting approach to all this, and.

One Pert, I just want to say who I you know, and I should you know, be transparent about this. It's someone I know and I like personally. Who I think is just staking out kind of an interesting path here is Rocanna. I think that what if you look at what he's been saying and doing. He's a congressman from California near I live, and he's a populist of the you know in one sense, you know, I mean he was I think co chair of Bernie's presidential campaign. So he's definitely and the I think CoA chair of the Progressive Caucus. I can't remember exactly what his title is, but definitely you could say on the left. However, he's the only one that I've noticed, I think, I really is the only one in terms of a leading Democrat who's very clearly and strongly condemned what's going on with Tesla. So that has no place in this just really stood up for that and also just speaks about things in a much more reasonable way. And he goes on Fox and he doesn't talk in an aggressive manner about you know, he's just he's different to the others, and I think it's interesting. But equally, he doesn't pander and he's been consistent in his views. So I think he's one to watch. Actually, I think he's got an interesting he's you know, taking an interesting approach to all this, and.

He seems authentic and you know, in having watched him, he seems pretty consistent, you know, so I'll give him credit for that. We've got to take a quick break more with Steve Hilton on the other side, I want to shift your book in just a second before we do, I just want to what was it like you're publicly involved in the Brexit campaign. You're even on the opposite sides of your former boss, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron. You know, what was it like to be a part of Brexit and also what was it like to sort of be on the opposite sides of your former boss on it?

He seems authentic and you know, in having watched him, he seems pretty consistent, you know, so I'll give him credit for that. We've got to take a quick break more with Steve Hilton on the other side, I want to shift your book in just a second before we do, I just want to what was it like you're publicly involved in the Brexit campaign. You're even on the opposite sides of your former boss, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron. You know, what was it like to be a part of Brexit and also what was it like to sort of be on the opposite sides of your former boss on it?

It was interesting. So I'd always felt like you talk about consistency. I mean, I'd always, you know, as long as I can remember, thought that the EU was just outrageous the way it took power away from a national sovereignty, away from elected governments and put it in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy. And so I actually that was very much the Conservative Party position. And in fact I remember back before in meetings before David, before the election, before David Cameron became Prime Minister, I as a senior advisor, we would have meetings about for example, we were discussing the possibility of leaving the EU as a policy matter, and whether we would even put it in our platform for the general election instead, and we were debating whether that would be the right way to do it, or whether we should have a referendum, and so, you know, so it's not like this was some outlandish position that they're leaving the EU. Position. It's pretty mainstream in the Conservative Party. But then by the time it actually came around in a classic manner, you know, people who've been in power, they get you know, they the phrase in England of it's a familiar phrase. They you know, they go native kind of get attached to the way that things work. I felt very strongly that this was a really big decision for the UK. By that time, I was living in America. We moved here in twenty twelve, but I had just written a book. It came out for in twenty fifteen called More Human, Designing a World where People Come First, And then the paperback came out in the UK the nexty in twenty sixteen, and I did a forward for it. I kind of updated it, as you do, and one of the themes of the book was that everything's become too big and bureaucratic and centralized and removed from the human scale. And I applied that argument right across a whole bunch of policy errors, from schools and healthcare and you know, the economy, everything, and of course to government itself. It's just become too big and bureaucratic and centralized. And there's no better example of that than the EU. So I updated it in the context of the referendum which had already been called, and it got a lot of attention in the UK, and I went back to campaign for it, and I don't know, I felt good about it. I felt like I was just saying what I thought, and actually it was interesting. I didn't myself think of it as any kind of personal disagreement, but I'm afraid David Cameron did see it as that, because he very much saw it as a referendum not just on Brexit, but basically on his prime ministership, and indeed, as soon as he lost, like literally the next morning, he resigned, And so I think he felt it as a kind of personal betrayal because his job was on the line, whereas I was looking at it as as a question of political philosophy.

It was interesting. So I'd always felt like you talk about consistency. I mean, I'd always, you know, as long as I can remember, thought that the EU was just outrageous the way it took power away from a national sovereignty, away from elected governments and put it in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy. And so I actually that was very much the Conservative Party position. And in fact I remember back before in meetings before David, before the election, before David Cameron became Prime Minister, I as a senior advisor, we would have meetings about for example, we were discussing the possibility of leaving the EU as a policy matter, and whether we would even put it in our platform for the general election instead, and we were debating whether that would be the right way to do it, or whether we should have a referendum, and so, you know, so it's not like this was some outlandish position that they're leaving the EU. Position. It's pretty mainstream in the Conservative Party. But then by the time it actually came around in a classic manner, you know, people who've been in power, they get you know, they the phrase in England of it's a familiar phrase. They you know, they go native kind of get attached to the way that things work. I felt very strongly that this was a really big decision for the UK. By that time, I was living in America. We moved here in twenty twelve, but I had just written a book. It came out for in twenty fifteen called More Human, Designing a World where People Come First, And then the paperback came out in the UK the nexty in twenty sixteen, and I did a forward for it. I kind of updated it, as you do, and one of the themes of the book was that everything's become too big and bureaucratic and centralized and removed from the human scale. And I applied that argument right across a whole bunch of policy errors, from schools and healthcare and you know, the economy, everything, and of course to government itself. It's just become too big and bureaucratic and centralized. And there's no better example of that than the EU. So I updated it in the context of the referendum which had already been called, and it got a lot of attention in the UK, and I went back to campaign for it, and I don't know, I felt good about it. I felt like I was just saying what I thought, and actually it was interesting. I didn't myself think of it as any kind of personal disagreement, but I'm afraid David Cameron did see it as that, because he very much saw it as a referendum not just on Brexit, but basically on his prime ministership, and indeed, as soon as he lost, like literally the next morning, he resigned, And so I think he felt it as a kind of personal betrayal because his job was on the line, whereas I was looking at it as as a question of political philosophy.

The UK has got a lot of problems right now, mass immigration issues as well as free speech issues. Are those two intertwined and where is that all going?

The UK has got a lot of problems right now, mass immigration issues as well as free speech issues. Are those two intertwined and where is that all going?

Well? I think it's all one thing actually, if you look back over the last few years in the UK's again, I wasn't involved in it. We've been here since twenty twelve and I'm an American now. But the performance of the I mean, you don't even want to use the word conservative, you know, the Conservative government since Brexit has just been totally lamentable and unconservative. I mean the whole point for example of Brexit, not the whole point, but like a really important central argument as prominent in the Brexit argument as it was in President Trump's campaigns both in twenty sixteen and just now, was the immigration argument. Controlling our borders. That was really central to the Brexit argument because in the EU you have zero control. It's literally open borders within the EU. That's how it works. They call it free movement of people. And so that was like at the heart of the Brexit argument and they haven't done anything about it. So you get Brexit, but you don't get immigration control. In fact, the numbers have gone up since Brexit in the UK, So like, what were they doing? And I think on all of these measures, you know, the clamping down on free speech and all of this stuff, it just felt like you had a conservative government that wasn't conservative at all, and that's why they suffer this absolutely massive defeat. Now you've got a labor government that's even worse, and it just feels like the UK is really lost. Actually, it's very sad to see.

Well? I think it's all one thing actually, if you look back over the last few years in the UK's again, I wasn't involved in it. We've been here since twenty twelve and I'm an American now. But the performance of the I mean, you don't even want to use the word conservative, you know, the Conservative government since Brexit has just been totally lamentable and unconservative. I mean the whole point for example of Brexit, not the whole point, but like a really important central argument as prominent in the Brexit argument as it was in President Trump's campaigns both in twenty sixteen and just now, was the immigration argument. Controlling our borders. That was really central to the Brexit argument because in the EU you have zero control. It's literally open borders within the EU. That's how it works. They call it free movement of people. And so that was like at the heart of the Brexit argument and they haven't done anything about it. So you get Brexit, but you don't get immigration control. In fact, the numbers have gone up since Brexit in the UK, So like, what were they doing? And I think on all of these measures, you know, the clamping down on free speech and all of this stuff, it just felt like you had a conservative government that wasn't conservative at all, and that's why they suffer this absolutely massive defeat. Now you've got a labor government that's even worse, and it just feels like the UK is really lost. Actually, it's very sad to see.

Well, let's talk about your home stay, which is also last Rate wrote the book about it call of Failure, Reversing the Ruin of America's worst run State. You sure know how to pick them? Stea kidding? Okay, So you name California obviously is America's worst run state. I guess what gives it that distinction from your point of view and the argument you make in the book.

Well, let's talk about your home stay, which is also last Rate wrote the book about it call of Failure, Reversing the Ruin of America's worst run State. You sure know how to pick them? Stea kidding? Okay, So you name California obviously is America's worst run state. I guess what gives it that distinction from your point of view and the argument you make in the book.

Yeah, I mean the first thing I say is I love California. It's my home. You know, I raised my family there, started a business that you know, I still think it's there's nowhere better than California. But it's just so disastrously run and it breaks my heart. And that's one of the reasons I wanted to write the book because I'm more and more engaged in the fight to save California. And you've got to make the argument about what's gone wrong, how it's gone wrong, and how to put it right. And I'd also say it's a warning to the rest of the country because I mean, just going back to what we were discussing AOC and Bernie Well, that agenda, that policy agenda that Bernie and AOC are pushing. We don't need to guess what it would look like. That's basically what has been implemented in California for years now, in these nearly two decades of one party rule by the Democrats, and they've gone further and further left and they've basically implemented all the things they want, the Green New Deal, massive increases in the minimum wage, taxes, regulations, everything that they want. That's California today. And so you ask, like, how do you define it as the worst trund and say, well, just look at the numbers. It's unbelievable how badly California is doing on every single measure pretty much that matters. California is the worst in America. Like not even like in the middle or forty first out of fifty or whatever. It's the work. We have the highest rate of poverty, the highest taxes, the highest costs for pretty much everything that matters, housing, gas, electricity, water, all of that, the most expensive in America. We had the lowest income growth last year in America, the highest unemployment. Right now it's this month it's the second highest unemployment, but you know, for a lot of last year it was the highest unemployment. The worst business climate, which is amazing when you think of California as the home of innovation and all these things. Chief Executive magazine does a survey every year chief executives around the country which states have the best and worst business climate, and they rank them California has been last for ten years, bottom and a not there are more measures. I mean, it's just unbelievable everything. It's not just what i've a homelessness. We have eleven percent of the US population, five percent of the US homeless. It's just a terrible, terrible record, a complete failure on every single front. And they say, when you put all this to Democrats, they say, well, we're still you know, we're the fifth biggest economy in the world. And that's true. If you took California out of the US on our own, wouldn't be the fifth biggest. Commany great, but when you look at what that is driven by, it's basically these giant tech monopolies with huge revenue that boy up California's GDP, but they hardly employ anyone in relatively speaking. And that's why you can have this kind of thing at the same time, the fifth biggest economy but the highest unemployment in America. And so something is going really badly wrong. And this is what you get when Democrats get everything they want. That's why this is a real message for the rest of the country. This is the Democrat plan in action. Look at it. It's in California right now today, and it's completely failed, you.

Yeah, I mean the first thing I say is I love California. It's my home. You know, I raised my family there, started a business that you know, I still think it's there's nowhere better than California. But it's just so disastrously run and it breaks my heart. And that's one of the reasons I wanted to write the book because I'm more and more engaged in the fight to save California. And you've got to make the argument about what's gone wrong, how it's gone wrong, and how to put it right. And I'd also say it's a warning to the rest of the country because I mean, just going back to what we were discussing AOC and Bernie Well, that agenda, that policy agenda that Bernie and AOC are pushing. We don't need to guess what it would look like. That's basically what has been implemented in California for years now, in these nearly two decades of one party rule by the Democrats, and they've gone further and further left and they've basically implemented all the things they want, the Green New Deal, massive increases in the minimum wage, taxes, regulations, everything that they want. That's California today. And so you ask, like, how do you define it as the worst trund and say, well, just look at the numbers. It's unbelievable how badly California is doing on every single measure pretty much that matters. California is the worst in America. Like not even like in the middle or forty first out of fifty or whatever. It's the work. We have the highest rate of poverty, the highest taxes, the highest costs for pretty much everything that matters, housing, gas, electricity, water, all of that, the most expensive in America. We had the lowest income growth last year in America, the highest unemployment. Right now it's this month it's the second highest unemployment, but you know, for a lot of last year it was the highest unemployment. The worst business climate, which is amazing when you think of California as the home of innovation and all these things. Chief Executive magazine does a survey every year chief executives around the country which states have the best and worst business climate, and they rank them California has been last for ten years, bottom and a not there are more measures. I mean, it's just unbelievable everything. It's not just what i've a homelessness. We have eleven percent of the US population, five percent of the US homeless. It's just a terrible, terrible record, a complete failure on every single front. And they say, when you put all this to Democrats, they say, well, we're still you know, we're the fifth biggest economy in the world. And that's true. If you took California out of the US on our own, wouldn't be the fifth biggest. Commany great, but when you look at what that is driven by, it's basically these giant tech monopolies with huge revenue that boy up California's GDP, but they hardly employ anyone in relatively speaking. And that's why you can have this kind of thing at the same time, the fifth biggest economy but the highest unemployment in America. And so something is going really badly wrong. And this is what you get when Democrats get everything they want. That's why this is a real message for the rest of the country. This is the Democrat plan in action. Look at it. It's in California right now today, and it's completely failed, you.

Know, and we know that the decline's been ongoing, but at what point did it excel?

Know, and we know that the decline's been ongoing, but at what point did it excel?

So I think that the real answer that question is is just over ten years ago when they got a supermajority in the legislature. Because it's not just the government, it's not just Gavin Newsom a lot of this, you know, I mean just the stories. I mean, just to take one step back, I think the sort of defining characteristic of all of this and the reason everything's gone so badly wrong is the massive growth of big, bloated, bossy nanny state government. Just it's this enormous growth of the government. They've doubled the budget of the state of California in the last ten years pretty much, even though the population has been falling. So everything is affected by that. It's impossible to run a business, to build anything, whatever. It's all a nightmare. And the real and when that really started was when they achieved a supermajority in the legislature, and that meant that they had no more you know, need to get Republican votes on anything. Well, there's two things that happened. They put in place a ballot initiative called Proposition twenty five. I believe that was twenty ten when they they changed the requirement for passing a budget in the state legislature. It used to be that you needed two thirds votes to pass a budget, and they reduced that to just a simple majority in order to make it easier for them to get their way without any kind of input from the opposing party. So that itself was the first step, but they didn't even need that for very long, because in twenty twelve they did achieve just through actually through gerrymandering, two thirds majorities in the state Assembly in the state Senate, so total control of the legislature. And it's been like that ever since, which means that they've just there's been no challenge to them. They've got so it's all the pressure is coming from the left, from the activists who basically control them, the unions who fund them. They especially the government unions, the teacher unions and so on. They themselves are controlled by far left activists. So just the insane legislation that's been coming out and the governors have just signed it and gone along with it, and they haven't stood up to the party. So I think that's the origin of it when they when they achieved the super majority of I just want to make a point about that, which is that if you look at and this is I think the note of optimism for California, it's a much more Republican state than people think. So even in a bad year for Republicans, when you have like a you know, a not particularly well known candidate with no money, That's what happened last time in the governor's race, Gavin Newsom was up for reelection. The Republican candidate was a guy called Brian Dally, nice guy. You know, I did my best to support in put upon my shows and all the rest of it. He was a state senator from the north of state. But he didn't have any money, barely had a campaign, but he got forty one percent. He got forty point eight percent. I believe it was like, call it forty one percent of the vote with like no campaign effectively, and in fact, the average share of the vote for Republicans and statewide elections in the last twenty years is nearly forty two So that's there's a very solid, call it forty percent Republican support in California. But if you look at the legislature, you don't have forty percent representation for Republicans. It's not even thirty five or thirty or twenty five is twenty percent, And that's achieved through jerry mandering that the Democrats did. They hijacked a ballot initiative that was the past in two thousand and eight. It was called independent redistricting, but they totally hijacked it to draw the districts in a way that suited them. And now they have this supermajority and they've completely you know, caved to the left on everything, and so you end up this insane legislation going through a plus also insane volumes of legislation. It's incredible how many bills they passed, just the sheer volume of crap that comes out of Sacramento. That's really the sort of defining thing too. The supermajority in the legislature totally unchallenged by the governor.

So I think that the real answer that question is is just over ten years ago when they got a supermajority in the legislature. Because it's not just the government, it's not just Gavin Newsom a lot of this, you know, I mean just the stories. I mean, just to take one step back, I think the sort of defining characteristic of all of this and the reason everything's gone so badly wrong is the massive growth of big, bloated, bossy nanny state government. Just it's this enormous growth of the government. They've doubled the budget of the state of California in the last ten years pretty much, even though the population has been falling. So everything is affected by that. It's impossible to run a business, to build anything, whatever. It's all a nightmare. And the real and when that really started was when they achieved a supermajority in the legislature, and that meant that they had no more you know, need to get Republican votes on anything. Well, there's two things that happened. They put in place a ballot initiative called Proposition twenty five. I believe that was twenty ten when they they changed the requirement for passing a budget in the state legislature. It used to be that you needed two thirds votes to pass a budget, and they reduced that to just a simple majority in order to make it easier for them to get their way without any kind of input from the opposing party. So that itself was the first step, but they didn't even need that for very long, because in twenty twelve they did achieve just through actually through gerrymandering, two thirds majorities in the state Assembly in the state Senate, so total control of the legislature. And it's been like that ever since, which means that they've just there's been no challenge to them. They've got so it's all the pressure is coming from the left, from the activists who basically control them, the unions who fund them. They especially the government unions, the teacher unions and so on. They themselves are controlled by far left activists. So just the insane legislation that's been coming out and the governors have just signed it and gone along with it, and they haven't stood up to the party. So I think that's the origin of it when they when they achieved the super majority of I just want to make a point about that, which is that if you look at and this is I think the note of optimism for California, it's a much more Republican state than people think. So even in a bad year for Republicans, when you have like a you know, a not particularly well known candidate with no money, That's what happened last time in the governor's race, Gavin Newsom was up for reelection. The Republican candidate was a guy called Brian Dally, nice guy. You know, I did my best to support in put upon my shows and all the rest of it. He was a state senator from the north of state. But he didn't have any money, barely had a campaign, but he got forty one percent. He got forty point eight percent. I believe it was like, call it forty one percent of the vote with like no campaign effectively, and in fact, the average share of the vote for Republicans and statewide elections in the last twenty years is nearly forty two So that's there's a very solid, call it forty percent Republican support in California. But if you look at the legislature, you don't have forty percent representation for Republicans. It's not even thirty five or thirty or twenty five is twenty percent, And that's achieved through jerry mandering that the Democrats did. They hijacked a ballot initiative that was the past in two thousand and eight. It was called independent redistricting, but they totally hijacked it to draw the districts in a way that suited them. And now they have this supermajority and they've completely you know, caved to the left on everything, and so you end up this insane legislation going through a plus also insane volumes of legislation. It's incredible how many bills they passed, just the sheer volume of crap that comes out of Sacramento. That's really the sort of defining thing too. The supermajority in the legislature totally unchallenged by the governor.

Well, and I think people were alarmed by just the inability to govern on the basic level with the fires. Yes, we recently saw with both Gavin Newsom's inability Karen Bass as well, And then I was reading that there was a reservoir specifically set up for the Pacific Palisades and it was empty, and so it's like, you know, and then you had the California legislature meeting about how to stop Trump and see you know, so it's like, I think it was alarming, you know. So it walk us through that and sort of what that highlights, you know, also some of the problems in California as well.

Well, and I think people were alarmed by just the inability to govern on the basic level with the fires. Yes, we recently saw with both Gavin Newsom's inability Karen Bass as well, And then I was reading that there was a reservoir specifically set up for the Pacific Palisades and it was empty, and so it's like, you know, and then you had the California legislature meeting about how to stop Trump and see you know, so it's like, I think it was alarming, you know. So it walk us through that and sort of what that highlights, you know, also some of the problems in California as well.

Well. Exactly. I remember I was in the I spoke at a congressional hearing about the wildfires, and you know, it's the classic sort of pantomiming after Democrats, you know, doing their partisan stunts and whatever. And there was one woman on there, a Democrat member of Congress from I don't know where, I think Vermont, and she was and there were four of us who were witnesses, and I'd been very critical, you know, and I had made all these points out the failures of policy, that the climate extremism, that meant that all these regulatory agencies had literally stopped residents from clearing the brush by their on the hillsides near their homes even though they wanted to. They were fined if they did proper fire maintenance, all on the grounds of you know, cut carbon and air quality. It's just ridiculous stuff. Right. So I was making all these points and plus the reservoir and all the rest of it. But this woman just she came in with these classic congressional pantomime questions. He goes, do you believe the fires were caused? You start made a little speech about DEI. It's all you know, Republicans say, this is all DEI. Do you remember about the fire chief and whatever? Do you think the fires were caused by the fact that the fire chief is a lesbian? Like? No, But the point I made was like, actually, you take the acronym DEI. It is the cause of all this. Just give it a new name democrat, extremism and incompetence. And it's those two things together. They're extremism and their incompetence that made this fire disaster so much worse than it need have been. I mean, that thing with the cover sort with the reservoir, it's just so insane. Exactly as you say, that reservoir was built in order to hold water in the event of a fire in that part of the city, one hundred and seventeen million galons, and it had been empty for a year, and the reason that they it was empty was because there's some regulation about covering it in order to preserve the you know, from preserve the water quality from you know, bird droppings or whatever. Fine, okay, but there was a tear in the cover, that's the reason. But they could have just fixed the cover, but they didn't. They emptied the whole reservoir and they had it and they didn't even realize or didn't think that it would be a problem that it would be empty during fire season. This is a totally predictable event, the Santa Anna winds that kind of whip up these sides of every year. These weren't even the worst ever. They were bad, but there was not unprecedented and it's just unbelievable. But by the way, the person in charge of that that comes out of the La City Department of Water and Power, the person that was hired to run that by Carabas. Her salary is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. Oh my god, it's unbelievable. And you think, well, what's going and you look at these the way these this is what happens when they get completely complacent. There's no accountability because there's no challenge from They don't think that there's any political competition or threat. They get totally complacent. There's total arrogance, and they do these things and there's no kind of accountability for it because they don't feel the pressure from any kind of political challenge. It's all within their own party. And then the real thing is you get all these machine politicians rising up through the ranks, like Karen Bass, who are basically useless. They kind of left wing, bureaucratic minded people. Their skill is managing you know, the unions and the activists and all of that stuff. They have no clue. They've never done a real job. Kamala Harris is exactly the same, and it's just a disaster because they don't know how to run things properly and they have bad ideas that are just left wing ideology instead of common sense practical quick.

Well. Exactly. I remember I was in the I spoke at a congressional hearing about the wildfires, and you know, it's the classic sort of pantomiming after Democrats, you know, doing their partisan stunts and whatever. And there was one woman on there, a Democrat member of Congress from I don't know where, I think Vermont, and she was and there were four of us who were witnesses, and I'd been very critical, you know, and I had made all these points out the failures of policy, that the climate extremism, that meant that all these regulatory agencies had literally stopped residents from clearing the brush by their on the hillsides near their homes even though they wanted to. They were fined if they did proper fire maintenance, all on the grounds of you know, cut carbon and air quality. It's just ridiculous stuff. Right. So I was making all these points and plus the reservoir and all the rest of it. But this woman just she came in with these classic congressional pantomime questions. He goes, do you believe the fires were caused? You start made a little speech about DEI. It's all you know, Republicans say, this is all DEI. Do you remember about the fire chief and whatever? Do you think the fires were caused by the fact that the fire chief is a lesbian? Like? No, But the point I made was like, actually, you take the acronym DEI. It is the cause of all this. Just give it a new name democrat, extremism and incompetence. And it's those two things together. They're extremism and their incompetence that made this fire disaster so much worse than it need have been. I mean, that thing with the cover sort with the reservoir, it's just so insane. Exactly as you say, that reservoir was built in order to hold water in the event of a fire in that part of the city, one hundred and seventeen million galons, and it had been empty for a year, and the reason that they it was empty was because there's some regulation about covering it in order to preserve the you know, from preserve the water quality from you know, bird droppings or whatever. Fine, okay, but there was a tear in the cover, that's the reason. But they could have just fixed the cover, but they didn't. They emptied the whole reservoir and they had it and they didn't even realize or didn't think that it would be a problem that it would be empty during fire season. This is a totally predictable event, the Santa Anna winds that kind of whip up these sides of every year. These weren't even the worst ever. They were bad, but there was not unprecedented and it's just unbelievable. But by the way, the person in charge of that that comes out of the La City Department of Water and Power, the person that was hired to run that by Carabas. Her salary is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. Oh my god, it's unbelievable. And you think, well, what's going and you look at these the way these this is what happens when they get completely complacent. There's no accountability because there's no challenge from They don't think that there's any political competition or threat. They get totally complacent. There's total arrogance, and they do these things and there's no kind of accountability for it because they don't feel the pressure from any kind of political challenge. It's all within their own party. And then the real thing is you get all these machine politicians rising up through the ranks, like Karen Bass, who are basically useless. They kind of left wing, bureaucratic minded people. Their skill is managing you know, the unions and the activists and all of that stuff. They have no clue. They've never done a real job. Kamala Harris is exactly the same, and it's just a disaster because they don't know how to run things properly and they have bad ideas that are just left wing ideology instead of common sense practical quick.

Break more, Steve, you identify nine pathologies that have led to the state's failure. How did you come up with those and sort of what was the thought process and trying to yeah, identify.

Break more, Steve, you identify nine pathologies that have led to the state's failure. How did you come up with those and sort of what was the thought process and trying to yeah, identify.

What is this, you know, like, how did this happen? And you know, I've talked about some of the sort of practical things, you know that the two thirsd majority all that kind of stuff. Also, it's a very important point, which is the whole process was really initiated by Reagan when he gave collective bargaining rights as governor to the government union starting with firefighters and police and so on, and then Jerry Brown extended that. So that's created this incredibly powerful political force which is the government unions in California. They spent about a billion dollars a year on political activity, and of course in exchange for that, they get you know, luxury pensions and health care and so on. It's totally corrupt. So that's a very big factor in it as well. But I was just thinking was going through. I didn't just want to say, well, this is this is how they screwed up homelessness or whatever. I wanted to go a bit deeper than that, Well what's going on here? Why? And so I went through all the failures and was trying to think honestly about, well, why do they do that? What's that about? And as I went through, I just thought, you know, that's why I came to these these different as I call them pathologies, because it is pathological none of this really makes sense. For example, if you look at the homelessness crisis, there's a law that was passed in twenty sixteen called how First, the only one of its kind in the country at any state level, which makes it illegal for anyone offering homelessness services that have any kind of state funding in California to require sobriety or mandated drug treatment or anything. And given that eighty percent plus of people who are living on the streets have a drug problem or alcohol or both mental health problems, it's just insane that it's illegal to deal with those problems and it makes no sense. But what's behind that. It's pathological. It's like if we force people off the streets and into drug treatment somehow, that's not compassionate, and that we have to be compassionate and let people do But that's not actual compassionate. That's why I call it compassionism. Is this ideological, demented kind of view that I want to look compassionate by not you know, forcing people to do things that they don't want to do, and it's just ridiculous, makes no sense, and that informs a lot of their stuff. You know, even in schools, you know where they've basically made it impossible to discipline unruly kids and it all has to be restorative justice whatever. It so, all this this pathology of compassionism rather than true compassion, and you go through all the issues, it's all like that. The climate stuff makes no sense. It's you know, they're literally shutting down our own oil and gas industry, which is used to provide eighty percent of the fault of the oil and gas we're using California. We still use basically the same amount. It's gone down a little bit in the last few years, but it's pretty much. You know, I mean, eighty percent of our total energy use in California is fossil fuels. But now instead of producing eighty percent of that in state and importing twenty percent, it's the other way around. We import most of the oil and gas we use, and they're shipping oil. They're shutting down oil wells and oil fields in Kern County, California, you know, one hundred miles or so from Los Angeles where the refineries are. You could send it there in nice pipelines and clean and safe, instead of which they're literally shipping it in halfway across the world from places like Iraq on giant supertankers, which run on the most filthy fuel it's called bunker fuel, the most polluting form of transportation on the planet. They're shipping it halfway across the world. So in the name of climate, they are literally increasing carbon emissions. It's insane, it makes no sense. But it's this ideological pathology. It's like climatism, that's what I call it. It's like, we want to look like we are fighting fossil fuels, but it's insane, and you go through all the issues, that's what it comes down to. It is this totally extreme ideology above any kind of practicality.