Advertise on podcast: David Starkey Talks

This week I conducted an interview with the brilliant journalist Steven Edginton about the events in France; which have seen the flower of French public architecture desecrated and destroyed by mobs of left-wing hooligans. Steven's inquiry was primarily whether something similar could happen in our own country. For various reasons, I believe it's unlikely, and this led us into a fruitful exploration of the differences between French and British political culture, and what makes Britain so unique. Along the way we touched on the increasing prominence in both societies of Islam, and how that should be responded to, this led to possibly the most explosive part of our interaction. I welcome your observations on this and the other parts of the interview in the comments section. Enjoy!

To complete my trilogy of episodes with Mark Littlewood, we decided to delve into his past as a Liberal Democrat, to find out what it could tell us about this unique party in our politics, which has exercised so much more control over the country in the last three decades than anyone realises, and which is poised to enter into a coalition with Andy Burnham's Labour if he calls an election next year. It might be hard to discern, when one looks at Ed Davey's clownish and pathetic antics as well as his recent struggles to hold onto the party leadership, just how dominant Lib Dem ideas have been since the 1990s. But when Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell set about reforming the Labour Party back then, it was the ideas of the Social Democratic Party, which had merged with the Liberals to form the Lib Dems, to which they turned. In shedding the old Labour economic consensus, and famously repudiating Clause 4 and its call for nationalised industry, they instead championed an alternative, trendier vision that had been gestating since the 1960s and which aligned perfectly with New Labour's "Cool Britannia" PR campaign. Equality legislation, ever closer integration with the European Union and electoral reform are just some of the ingredients and they date back to the work of Anthony Crosland and Roy Jenkins in the post-war period. By the 1990s they had become the principal offering of the Liberal Democrats, and Tony Blair even viewed Paddy Ashdown's Lib Dems as a potential coalition partner if he failed to win enough seats in the 1997 general election. We now know of course that Labour won a landslide in that election, which they promptly used to implement many of these ideas and which have wrought havoc on British politics ever since. But some of the agenda, one thinks particularly of electoral reform, remain unimplemented; while the Establishment received the shock of its life in the vote for and achievement of Brexit. Now, it looks increasingly likely, despite what he says, that Andy Burnham could call an election in Spring next year. Ed Davey's Lib Dems could be a vital lifeline for him if he fails to win a majority, and the party leaderships are entirely aligned on the questions of rejoining the EU and permanently changing Britain's electoral system in such a way that a conservative majority would become impossible forever. So my assertion in the title of this video is not far-fetched. The Green Party might be a nest of anti-Semites, but they remain small and Polanski has now been rendered both literally and figuratively toothless. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, are well-placed to entrench the constitutional wreckage that New Labour imposed on us all nearly 30 years ago.

If I sounded a little pessimistic last week, I'm afraid there'll be little comfort this time around. I've spent the week at the Conservative Party conference, where an atmosphere of unreality prevailed. Kemi's speech, which received a worrying amount of praise from liberal commentators, seemed to me to strike precisely the wrong note for the times we are in. Not only were there the garbled and confused statements about what it truly means to be English, and the totally unfair accusations that Reform are an ethnonationalist party; there was also the pointless burning of bridges with Reform, which will make any future unification on the political Right much more difficult. This seems to have been motivated by some of the praise Kemi has received for her performance as leader this year. However she mustn't let her ego get the better of her. While her performances at PMQs are cheering, they have not shifted the dial on the Conservative performance in the polls one iota. In fact they're still polling worse than they were before the election in 2024. Furthermore, to the extent that Kemi has been able to consolidate Conservative support, it has been by shifting the party to the Right on questions of immigration and law and order, i.e. closer to the Reform position. This seemed to place her ideally for some kind of potential link-up, and yet now she has trashed that possibility. What did emerge strongly from Kemi's speech and the rest of the conference was that the Conservatives want to be the party of sound finances and a strong economy; and yet even on this there was little that would entice voters who are not high-earners. So while Kemi carried all the confidence of a leader of a national party, their actual offering was that purely of the middle-class, Home Counties interest. In this episode I am rejoined by Mark Littlewood, of Popular Conservatism, with whom I attended the conference, to go over "the night before" like two hungover party animals. Like many a regretful reveller, we feel a little unsure what just happened. Enjoy! Thumbnail picture: “Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Hosts Political Cabinet” by The Conservative Party, CC BY 2.0

It might seem unfathomable to the smart, straight-talking fans of this channel, but the sentimental gibberish spouted by Andy Burnham at the Labour Party conference has been rapturously received by sections of the British media and voting public. His folksy delivery and determination to spend money Britain hasn't got is clearly a popular brew; this morning's Opinium poll in The Observer newspaper has put Labour back on 30% for the first time since late 2024, with Reform on 25% and the Conservatives 17%. All of this indicates that the "Burnham bounce" is real and the political Right has a major challenge on its hands. Events, of course, will determine whether this continues. Andy Burnham has had a shockingly easy ride so far as Prime Minister, swanning into office during the summer break and only facing two weeks of Parliamentary scrutiny before party conference season. When Parliament returns next week attention will immediately turn to a very difficult Budget. Nonetheless, we cannot rely on those events to do our job for us. The Right must set about Burnham with the tactics of a skilled pugilist in the early rounds of a boxing match; constant testing jabs, well-timed swings for the head, and body shots aimed at his exposed flanks - of which his record of dealing with the owners of Manchester City is surely the most dangerous at the moment. Whatever Burnham says about holding off on an election until 2029, I do not believe (and nor does Kemi Badenoch) that time is on our side. The ongoing split between the Conservatives and Reform has the potential to be catastrophic; though on that my correspondent this week, the always brilliant Mark Littlewood, has some surprisingly optimistic analysis. I hope you enjoy the episode! Thumbnail image: “Prime Minister Andy Burnham hosts first weekly Cabinet Meeting” by Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Polling chart from OpiniumUK via X

In the week that brought us the news conclusively that Cambridge University will not, in fact, investigate how the serial fantasist Jason Arday came to be appointed a Professor in its education department, but will instead focus on the soapy question of whether he was offered sufficient “support” after being exposed, I’ve been speaking to a man who has seen up close the degradation of our higher education system. Norman Fenton spent decades in the university sector as a professor and witnessed at first hand its transformation by left-wing ideologues intent on weaponising the expertise of the institutions they’d hijacked and crushing free speech within and without. His new book: ‘The Capture of Academia: How Universities Shape Power, Silence Dissent, and Influence Society’, documents that transformation in calm but devastating prose. Given my own period of history, I was drawn to a striking parallel. In the 1530s, Henry VIII seized upon allegations of malpractice and corruption to dissolve England’s monasteries and capture their wealth. The legitimacy of the claims made against the monasteries has been a matter of historical dispute ever since. But the claims against our university sector cannot possibly be challenged, indeed universities themselves openly advertise their commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion above all else. Is it time for a proper Executive to take control of these institutions and root out the excesses that are corroding not just them, but the rest of our society too?

I'm sure the headline of this week's episode will provoke strong reactions. Feelings towards the illegal migration crisis in this country are so strong among much of the population that to jest that anyone deserves to have a camp of illegals dumped beside them is skirting controversy. But there is a serious point to be made. For just as keenly as so many of you feel the injustice and stupidity of the government's handling of illegal migration, so the policy itself is sustained by the insouciance and, frankly, snobbery of the more comfortably off; for whom adherence to fashionable opinion is more important than the welfare of their countrymen and women. Anyone who has seen the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire interviewing "Rachel from Piddington" on Newsnight will know exactly what I'm talking about. The woman who celebrates Britain's diversity by moving to an anywhere that is over 90% white British, only to turn on her neighbours and denounce them as racist for raising objections to having over one thousand foreign lawbreakers housed at taxpayer expense a few hundred yards from their homes. The broader point is that any sea-change in British politics requires a coalition of voters to get behind it, and so far the kinds of voters who live in affluent, leafy Britain have been conspicuously absent in this fight. One can only hope that Andy Burnham's decision to ferry more illegal migrants into such areas will mobilise them. The policy changes that will end this scourge are clear: Britain must leave the ECHR, scrap the Human Rights Act, and amend the law so that illegal migrants can be immediately detained and deported. When the topic of such changes are raised in fashionable circles, we must hope that an awareness of what's going on in Piddington prompts some reflection before the bien-pensants immediately rush to denunciation.

The protests in Dover and Portsmouth last weekend, and the ongoing events in Portsmouth since then, have taken on a new character from the usual anti-illegal immigration protests we've seen in recent years. These events were highly organised and clearly sent a chill down the spine of the Establishment, who have responded with stringent measures that they never usually bother with when it comes to other kinds of protests. The phrase "two-tier" will once again be on the lips of the British public. But what's most concerning is that, for seemingly the first team, a mega-dinghy of 120 illegal migrants managed to launch themselves off the coast of Normandy in France, sailing for 10 hours before being dutifully picked up and shepherded to the British coast by the RNLI, who took them to the city of Portsmouth. Is this a sign of things to come? With the increasing use of vastly larger, more resilient, dinghies, I don't see why not. It's a strange reversal, and indeed desecration, of the crossing made by tens of thousands of British troops who, with their American and Canadian allies, sailed to liberate Europe on D-Day. I wanted to get an "on the ground" perspective of what happened, so turned to citizen journalist Wesley Winter who attended both last weekend's and this weekend's protests in Portsmouth. Wesley has been following these kinds of events for years, including the protest that sprang up following the conviction of Henry Nowak's killer. He has seen the character of the protests change over time and met some remarkable people along the way, as you will discover when you watch this episode. I hope you enjoy it! Because of a technical issue we lost our visual connection with Wesley at around 24 minutes into the interview. Wesley generously agreed to allow us to use some of the footage he has gathered, and we have run those images over the interview for you to see. Thumbnail image: "Southampton Patriots, Stand up to Racism Protest and Counter-Protest, 26th October" by Indigo Nolan, CC BY 4.0.

For the second year in a row, my colleague at Popular Conservatism, Mark Littlewood, and I delivered an event at the Reform Party conference. The conference was titled, "The First 100 Days", and my message to the party was simple: on DAY ONE you must begin the process of leaving the ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act, abolishing the Supreme Court, and scrapping the Equality Act. Any hesitation, any failure to do so will immediately cede an advantage to your enemies in the civil service, the judiciary and the media. I have been preaching this message, what I call the Starkey Thesis, for almost three years now. We are closer than we have ever been to another general election at which the advantage will lie with a Labour Party under new leadership who have not yet been fully exposed as the inadequates they are. The window for undoing the damage to this country's constitution is shrinking. Reform, despite all their recent difficulties, remain in the best position to implement the changes we need. My challenge to them is not to bungle the opportunity they have, nor to row back from the radicalism that will be necessary to see it done.

It was my pleasure to speak to the International Reagan Thatcher Society Summer School in Oxford recently, at which I recounted some of the perhaps familiar Starkey Thesis about the corruption of the British constitution by Tony Blair. What made this event so special however were the uniquely perceptive questions from the audience, and the opportunity it gave me to delve into some of the lesser known history behind the Starkey Thesis, much of which I'm currently exploring as I begin writing for my Substack, which is set to debut this Autumn. I was able to articulate for the first time in public the true weight of Benjamin Disraeli's contribution to the formation of conservatism, and why he has been so mischaracterised as a wet One Nation Tory. I was also able to highlight the significant contributions of certain Labour Party figures to defeating the hard-Left that characterised the party in the interwar period, an exercise that could bear repeating in the present day. For those of you who are interested, the speech and question and answer session will give a greater glimpse into the detail of ideas I've been developing since early 2024. I hope you enjoy it!

Earlier this month it was my privilege to speak at the Institute of Economic Affairs about how, and whether, the British people can fight back against the takeover of the British state by the hostile lanyard class. The events of this year, including some of the dubious behaviour of certain organisations, not least Cambridge University, have convinced me we are reaching a crisis point at which the incompetence and defensiveness of the establishment will only make them more aggressive in countering the challenge posed by reformers, both of the Reform Party and within the Conservatives. In such circumstances it's very important that we remain clear-eyed about what it is we need to achieve, and not be distracted by the brickbats that will be thrown our way. I hope you enjoy the lecture. P.S. due to some technical issues the recording's audio is imperfect, and we had to use an alternative source between roughly 13 minutes and 16 minutes of the recording. I hope you'll forgive this.

One would imagine the number of column inches devoted to Nigel Farage and Reform in the last week stretches to the moon and back. Many focus on whether Farage has erred in calling a by-election which his rival parties immediately announced they wouldn't stand in, leaving him facing a summer of campaigning against the satirical character Count Binface in a contest that nobody asked for, and which he only called in an attempt to blunt the potency of accusations against him that he deliberately shrouded his finances in secrecy as he entered Parliament. There has been a good deal of gloating from establishment parties, firstly about the newspaper revelations on Farage's money, and secondly that his attempt to circumvent scrutiny would appear to have descended into a circus. But if we think longer term, are we perhaps missing the point? My guest this week is journalist and commentator David Shipley. He argues that Farage has made a broader political calculation on top of the specific and self-interested one about how to fight back against lurid newspaper headlines. What we're seeing is a re-engagement of a previous iteration of Nigel Farage; a more radical, more anti-Establishment figure than we've seen in the last year as he tried to appeal to mainstream voters. This is a move, Shipley says, partly in response to the serious attempts by the Establishment to destroy him, but also one motivated by the electoral threat posed by Restore; whose decision not to stand in Clacton appeared curiously correspondent with the thinking of senior Conservatives with whom Rupert Lowe so often mixes in London's private members' clubs. Whether or not this gambit by Farage works is another question, one of the many I put to David in my interrogation. I hope you enjoy the episode!

The decision by King Charles III to change the nature of his role has rightly been greeted with consternation by many Christians. For the simple and powerful title of "Defender of the Faith", the monarchy's flourishing HR department has substituted the cumbersome title of "Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.” Notice the language, the King's role is circumscribed and hemmed in by layers of cultural sensitivity. This is not the specific and expansive responsibility articulated for a powerful monarch but the qualified job description of a bureaucrat. Indeed the language is that of the professional office manager, laced as every workplace must now be with multi-cultural enforcement. That The King has opted to redefine his role in this way is interpreted as turning away from this country's Christian roots in order to accommodate separatist and often outrightly hostile minority religions. It is, indeed, all of those things. But it is also a massive diminishment of the institution of monarchy, a taking away of its grandeur to be replaced with woke and vague platitudes which cannot possibly capture the hearts of a people. Combined with his selfish decision no longer to reside in the heart of London's ceremonial architecture, i.e. at Buckingham Palace, this week has seen The King reduce the stature of the institution he is sworn to uphold and protect. To discuss this I'm joined by the author Bijan Omrani, who wrote the brilliant book 'Good Is An Englishman', that examines the central role of Christianity in creating and sustaining England. I hope you enjoy the episode.

As I often do after a significant electoral contest in this country, I turned to my trusted correspondent and political analyst Mark Littlewood to digest what has happened. The Makerfield by-election represents a huge setback for the political Right in this country in a number of ways. We have grown used to seeing Reform on the march since the election of 2024. Labour's collapsing polling and credibility has appeared for the last two years to play straight into the hands of Nigel Farage. But a confluence of factors has stalled that progress. First things first, Andy Burnham was always by far the most likely winner of this by-election. Many analysts with an axe to grind against Reform presented the Makerfield constituency as theirs to lose because of the friendly demographics, totally ignoring that it is slap bang in the middle of Burnham's home ground, where his popularity is (deservedly or not) stratospheric. Reform didn't help themselves by talking up their chances at the beginning of campaigning, like Gawain Towler did on this channel. It was only towards the end of campaigning that they began to recognise what they were up against in Burnham. Secondly, Reform's methods have been tested by this contest and found wanting. They relied once again on the unpopularity of Sir Keir Starmer, not considering that Andy Burnham was running on exactly the same message and providing a much quicker means of dispatching the Prime Minister. And they failed to articulate clearly and confidently what it was they stood for and how it is applicable to this constituency. Thirdly, though Restore performed very poorly and demonstrated that their online predictions were completely illusory, even the small fraction of votes they did pick up in this most favourable of regions is enough to deny any party of the Right many seats during a full general election. Supporters of the political Right in Britain are in danger of falling into the same trap of all disenfranchised peoples; that is voting for parties who are big on performative antics and emotionally satisfying bold statements, while totally ignoring the tactical reality they're facing. Let me be clear, Andy Burnham will fail as Prime Minister once he inevitably takes over from Starmer. He has no better answers to the problems facing this country than his soon-to-be predecessor. But that will not stop him doing enormous damage to this country, and potentially rigging the electoral system in his favour to further disenfranchise the political Right, who really do have the answers. We're entering dangerous times, and must choose our path with great care.

Having worked closely with both the Reform and Restore parties over the last few months, I find myself in a quandary over the goings on in Makerfield, where Reform have a good chance of winning the seat, but are seeing support slip away to the Restore candidate. I think it's time to examine this issue, motivated (as all subscribers to this channel should be) by the overriding concern of what's best for this country and the danger that Andy Burnham presents to its future. Let me make it clear to the complacent: if Andy Burnham wins in Makerfield, then he WILL become the next Prime Minister and he WILL drag this country further to the Left. For those who think doing so will automatically make Labour's chances of re-election even slimmer, I have grave news for you. Mr Burnham's personal popularity is real, if totally unmerited. There is every chance he might enjoy an unearned honeymoon period and bounce the country into an early election, clawing up enough of the vote to form some kind of monstrous coalition involving the Greens, Lib Dems and possibly the SNP. Burnham is also on the record as a keen advocate for proportional representation. If he is able to push through such a change to our electoral law then the chances of a right-wing government ever taking office again are slim to non-existent. The hard-Left will have a permanent whip hand over our politics, just as they do in Germany where attempts by Friedrich Merz to tackle the immigration issue are consistently thwarted by the socialist party. So when I say there's a lot riding on Makerfield, I'm not exaggerating. It is the worst possible occasion in which to indulge in petty factionalism. My guest this week makes no bones about his allegiances, he is backing Reform, and believes Restore supporters are deluded to imagine they can win the seat, rather than simply splitting the vote.

This week I was rejoined by Reform board member Gawain Towler, who had spent the day before campaigning in Makerfield ahead of next month's by-election. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Makerfield by-election. In Andy Burnham, Labour believes it has found their last hope of remaining in office beyond 2029. They're desperate to prove that voters have merely been hoodwinked by Reform and Nigel Farage, and that an "authentic" Labour voice can win them over again. It's funny really, because Burnham is in fact the most inauthentic candidate Labour could have chosen. Although he zealously cultivates the image of a working-class hero, Burnham is thoroughly middle-class, and went to the same Cambridge college that I did. Now, allow me to say that I firmly believe class should be irrelevant, but if one is going to play that card, please don't be dishonest about it. The Reform candidate, on the other hand, is as true to his Makerfield roots as it's possible to be. Robert Kenyon is a self-employed plumber who served as a reserve soldier and fiercely supports Wigan Warriors. His occasionally ribald contributions on social media only prove that he is, in fact, a real person, and not a shape-shifter like his Labour rival. I wish him all the best in this David versus Goliath fight.