 Hello and welcome to Tiskey Sauer. Tonight we're talking about Canada's liberal darling Justin Trudeau and whether the shine has come off his premiership ahead of next Monday's general election. We'll also talk about the democratic primaries in the US and whether leftists should mind that Elizabeth Warren is currently pulling ahead of Bernie Sanders in the polls. But before all that, we are legally obliged to cover the latest developments in Brexit negotiations and in particular today's news that a concession on the part of Boris Johnson means a Brexit deal could be in sight. We obviously love an excuse to talk about Brexit on this show as everyone does in British politics. Hopefully it will all be over soon but not so soon that Boris Johnson can call it a triumph. I am joined by Luke Savage, who is over from North America. Luke is a staff writer at Jacobin based in Toronto. How's it going? Great. Thank you. How are you finding it here? How's the welcome been? It's lovely, yeah. Although like I was telling you before, I'm having trouble ordering coffee because apparently normal coffee or as I see it, it's not a thing over here or it's just becoming a thing. You sound like Owen Smith. Do you know that story of Owen Smith? Which one? Owen Smith stood against Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership and he was like, everyone talks about cappuccino. I just order a frothy coffee. Is that the correct nomenclature? Is that what I should ask for at Starbucks? You could do it. Well, if you're in his part of North Wales, especially South, wherever he is, whatever part of Wales, you probably know this. I'm also with Ellie Moe Hagen, Wales expert and regular contributor to The Guardian. You're from Wales. I am from Wales and I speak Welsh. And I can also say that- You can speak Welsh. Are you from North? Are you from North? What part of Wales are you from? I'm from North West Wales, which is not where Owen Smith is from. Pontifrid. I think he's from like- Where is Pontifrid? I don't know. It's not North Wales. I will say Wales is like separated by a mountain range, so if you're not, like you kind of know your bit and then like you don't really have much of a relationship. What else is over the mountains that's irrelevant? Owen Smith territory? Well, actually, you have to go out- What do you call a coffee in Wales? We call them cappuccinos. Okay. Like it's obviously- On your side of the mountains? They sell cappuccino in McDonald's, like everybody knows what a cappuccino is. Anyway, I think we can leave Owen Smith behind us. We are going to start with the apparent Brexit breakthrough, or more accurately described probably a Brexit climb down by Boris Johnson. So it is understood that negotiations between the EU and the UK, the British side have conceded there will be a customs border in the Irish Sea. So this fundamentally looks a lot like a reversion from Boris Johnson to what was the original offer from the European Union to Theresa May's government, which was that there would be a Northern Ireland only backstop. So Northern Ireland would have to stay in the customs area so as to avoid any hard border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. And then Britain could, or the rest of the UK could know it is Britain, isn't it? Because that's what the geographical construct is called. The rest of the UK can float away in whatever customs or single market, well, customs or regulatory arrangement it wants. That was blocked by the DUP after which Theresa May came up with a post facto excuse for why it was always a terrible idea. She wanted this Northern Ireland backstop. They vetoed it. No Prime Minister ever could accept a border down the Irish Sea. But Boris Johnson seems to be going back to that position. In a way, if he can pass it, it makes sense. I mean, many people or many of the Brexiteers, I think, are obsessed about moving away from the regulatory orbit of the EU and potentially moving closer to the regulatory orbit of the United States. And I think from their behavior over the past couple of years, they don't seem to give that much of a shit about the Union. We know, in fact, that Tory party members care much more about getting Brexit done than they do about keeping Northern Ireland as part of the UK. So this could be, if he manages to pass it through Parliament, the golden ticket for Boris Johnson. Do you think he has potentially scored a blinder here early? Can you score a blinder? Is it played a blinder? Did he play a blinder? Yeah, good. Did he? Did he do that? I wouldn't go so far as blinder, but... Yeah, you've told me... But when we were, before we came on air, I was told I wasn't allowed to be pessimistic, so... No, you can be pessimistic. Go on, go for it. Basically, I think I feel pessimistic about an election in terms of, from the left's perspective, if Boris Johnson goes into it on a wave of Brexit triumphalism, because I think we need to think about, like, what the impact psychologically on the country will be if he passes a Brexit deal. This is something that we voted on three years ago, and we've been in this state of limbo, like, rather paralysis for the last three years. It seemed like an intractable, intractable problem. And if Boris Johnson manages to ostensibly solve that problem with what I think is a bit of a piece of shit deal, at the time that won't matter, because I think it will, first of all, it will really take the wind out of the sails of the Remain movement. It will be a huge blow to them. I think a lot of Labour's base will feel, like, pretty devastated. And I think the sort of leave side will feel like, will be given a big boost by it. So to go into an election with, like, the leave side and with the Tories feeling like triumphalist and the left and the Remainers feeling deflated is not a good psychological standpoint from which to begin. And I do think that really matters. So I think that doesn't mean that all is lost. But I think that those of us on the left and people in the Labour party at all levels should be thinking about what do we do about that? What is our answer to that? How do we burst their bubble and how do we sort of create a response to this kind of triumphalism? That was, in fact, obviously I make every guest pre-agree their opinions before they come on the show in case they say something that, you know, could go could go wrong or was not strategic. So so what we agreed there was there was a there was a compromise, which is Ellie was allowed to be pessimistic. So long as she put on an addendum, which is all is not lost. So you fulfilled your obligations very well done. It was the Navarra backstop. We still don't know if the Boris Johnson did a blinder or whatever. We still don't. I mean, we probably won't do it for a while. Played a blind. You do. Oh, right. Played a. You think it's James to do it? No, the phrase is play a blinder. I was wrong. But the phrase is, did he play a blinder? But you're not saying he did play a blinder. You're just saying that would be what he would have done if he had done a good thing. Yeah. Yeah, I'm saying that is the phrase. I'm saying I'm not sure that he's I'm not sure that he's played a blinder. I think that might be overregging the puddings and what. But I think I have any metaphors. Yeah, I like that one. So a friend of friend of Navarra and friend of me, Owen Jones sent me the Red Box podcast this afternoon when I was making this case to him. And the Red Box podcast sort of argues for a variety of reasons that it isn't necessarily good for Boris Johnson to have. Got a deal through because perhaps the issue of social class, one of the reasons they argue is the issue of social class might still play a part. However, yeah, I just I just can't see how this would be bad for him. He's like achieved what a lot of people were starting to think was the impossible if he passes this deal. It still needs to go through Parliament. I mean, who knows? Yeah, I think probably odds are it still won't pass Parliament. It didn't pass Parliament under Theresa May. And if it's as similar to her deal or her first suggestion, I think you'll have a lot of you, Tory rebels this time. Yeah, potentially they're getting to the point where they're like, if we don't vote it through now, then we'll like just never have Brexit. So I think they will want to vote it through. And then they will they're probably banking on the idea that they can like renegotiate it once it's passed. I'm going to give the enthusiasm, which is ultimately, I think it will be a short term success for Boris Johnson. If he can say he's got Brexit done by the 31st, I think this will be better for him than Theresa May's original deal because the rest of the UK, other than Northern Ireland, can float freely away from the regulatory orbit of the European Union. For me, that shit, because all it means is that we can undercut the European Union on workers' rights and on regulations, health and safety regulations, for example. And also that we are in a weaker position when we're negotiating a trade deal with Donald Trump in the United States. I think it's completely shit. But considering where considering we're all focused on this process of getting Brexit done, he will have done that. And I think he'll have, you know, a little poll boost. But ultimately, there will be a general election. And if potential Labour leavers or leavers in Labour seats have no reason whatsoever now to vote for Boris Johnson's Conservative Party. And if, I think, presumably at that point, people will be thinking a little bit less about Brexit and they'll see that one party has a transformative manifesto, one party. Once Brexit is done, they just have these weird, as we talked about, or as Me and Aaron talked about yesterday on Tiskisar, these weird policies that they've picked out of a hat because some focus groups said they'd be popular. So Labour are going to be standing on a platform which is we can implement an industrial policy which is going to radically make you basically all richer. And we can attack the one percent to do it. The Tories policy is if you have buried a dead body and you haven't told the judge where you've buried it, you don't get parole early, which to me, reasonable policy, it's in the Queen's speech. But I don't think it is going to be. Did she read it out like that? Yeah, she did. If you bury your body. Exactly. I declare. I don't think that's the kind of thing that's going to massively, massively swing it in their favor. But anyway, this is going to get all a bit looking into a crystal ball, isn't it? I'm sure we'll come back to this on a Tiskisar later in the week about, you know, this precise deal and how it's going to play. But Brexit on a broader question. It's always nice to have a foreigner. Can I call you a foreigner? Sure, you can. Yeah. Well, it's nice to have a foreigner in here to talk about what Brexit looks like from afar. Johnny Foreigner. Johnny Foreigner. What do you think about it all? How does it look to you? I mean, yeah, I don't have anything, I think, particularly useful or informed to say on the specific question you asked, but it does seem to me that Labour's strategy for the past few years has been to try to change the channel somewhat from Brexit, because Brexit, it seems to me that the hard remain and the hard, you know, the hard leave positions are kind of cultural. They're catchalls in a culture war, in a bigger culture war, you know, and, you know, Labour, as you were saying, is trying to change the channel with a transformative manifesto. So if the election is fought, you know, as a Brexit election, that would seem to be very disadvantageous from Labour's point of view and advantageous from Johnson's point of view. But yeah, in North America, I would say the conversation around Brexit is very skewed on, you know, in kind of liberal circles. And even on a lot of the left, I think people sort of assume the default left position is a really hard remain position, which, you know, as we were as we were talking about before, Michael, it sounds like the Lexid option is not really a serious one anymore. But I think people are not really aware that it is still not a left-right issue. Yeah, even though Lexid is practically dead. I think it's a bad analysis of Brexit to say what's going on here is a battle between the left and the right. That's not what's going on. Yeah, I mean, the remain campaign has like been colonized by the centre. So that's where the left, I think, not necessarily actively hostile towards it, but isn't really like enthused by remain because for a lot of hardcore remainers, the remain project has been about turning back the clock to like 2012 when a particular set of people were in charge and where politics to this group of people felt understandable and comfortable. And for people on the left, that was when Britain was going through very extreme and a very extreme austerity programme and lots of other terrible things. And so the prospect of turning back the clock to that time is not appealing at all. And I think it's one that should be actively resisted. So that is really the schism, I would say. And it's very similar to North America, isn't it? Where liberals want to turn back the clock to the Obama years. Hillary Clinton is a lot like the remain campaign. Donald Trump, that's that's where I think the analogy breaks down because Donald Trump is very clear what he was. He was, you know, a racist creep. Whereas Brexit, obviously, can have a much more fluid meaning than I mean, it was racist, though. I mean, the breaking point post. Oh, yeah, but that was a particular element of the campaign. Whereas Donald Trump, if if your political debate is if your political struggle is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Donald Trump is disanalogist to Brexit, whereas Hillary Clinton is remained through and through. Although I suppose the the the leave position during the during the campaign had a certain kind of as well as all the right wing native stuff, there was a certain kind of small P populism, a generic anti establishment vote. And I do think Donald Trump had a little bit of that energy as well. And he did it quite well. Yeah. But I mean, in America, certainly, I mean, I think Brexit has discussed a little less in Canada. In America, certainly, it's seen almost exclusively through the lens of of Trump and in kind of the wider kind of confused conversation around the term populism, which which annoys me quite a lot. We are going to go properly to the United States, because next year there will be a presidential election where a Democrat will be facing Donald Trump and hopefully beating him. That's an uncontroversial thing to say in the Navarro media studio. And we are going to talk today, especially about two candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The latest U Gov poll shows that Warren is basically flying ahead in the polls. She's on well, flying ahead is maybe an overstatement, but the momentum is with her. So this is the latest U Gov poll. Warren is on 28 percent. Biden is on 25 percent. And Bernie Sanders is on 14 percent. Is this a surprise to you? Because I mean, I remember at the beginning of the year, everyone was commenting on why Warren isn't being taken seriously. She was, I think, in the single digits. And it was all about Bernie versus Biden. What explains, I suppose, Warren's phenomenal rise in the polls? I mean, I think the simplest answer is that she's proven to be a good campaigner. And I think she's, you know, and she's she's running out. She's running a good campaign. I think I have a somewhat more partisan answer, which is, I think, the basic arc of the campaign up until the fall is being that, you know, the the anti-Bernie forces broadly defined have kind of cycled through a number of different formulas they've tried. And, you know, so there was the attempt to make Beto or Rourke into a national figure. I think we can say at this point, the very unsuccessful attempt. Didn't he come back a bit when he started swearing a bit more? I mean, he came back and he sort of tweeted like he's a fucking racist. And then everyone's like, yeah, but maybe he's got character. Yeah, he's he's tried to pivot to making gun control is thing. And I mean, I think he's come back in terms of his visibility on Twitter, but but not in the polls, I think. And then after him, you had you had Mayor Pete, yeah, who, you know, was another figure who really, I mean, I think even more than a rock, no one had ever heard of him. And all of a sudden he was all over magazines and things like that. And he did have a brief surge. There was one point where I think he was pretty safely established as kind of the fourth, you know, fourth candidate. But that didn't last long either. Kamala Harris hasn't been doing well. And, you know, Biden has loomed over the whole thing. But I think his his his lead has kind of been slowly diminishing. There's not a lot of dynamism to his campaign and they're having to sort of keep him out of events and stuff. And actually in this last quarter, his fundraising numbers were really bad. So it does look like the debate is shaping up to be or the contest is shaping up to be one between Sanders and Warren. And I think what Warren's been able to do, and again, I'll qualify this by saying it is a somewhat partisan reading because I have pretty strong views about this. I think what warrants. OK, good. I mean, I think I think what Warren's been able to do is, you know, she's been able to embrace parts of Sanders agenda and kind of campaign on them in a way which is more politically palatable to the and more rhetorically palatable palatable to, you know, the professional managerial class constituency that I think has been, you know, dominant in the Democratic Party since the early 90s and to all of the kind of the newspapers and the sort of big outlets of liberal liberal opinion. And I think I think. So I think she's I think her success is in some ways an expression of a contradiction. There's clearly a demand for transformative change, but there's also there are a lot of people who are very hesitant about embracing, you know, a version of it that I think many people in the US left would find sufficiently radical. And so Warren has actually emerged as a kind of compromise candidate that all these other people sort of tried and failed to be. Does it show? I'll posit this to you, actually, does it does it show a victory for the left that Elizabeth Warren is the compromise candidate? I mean, because there's a sort of negative way of looking at it, which is sort of like, you know, Bernie got outflanked by someone who is much less anti-establishment than him, someone who is much less willing to take on the vested interest in the United States. But the fact that she's a compromise candidate, that's pretty. They've done all right, right? I think like I think if if Warren had been the candidate in 2016, that would have felt like a massive victory for the left. I mean, I would have been over the moon if she'd been the candidate in 2016. So, yes, I think definitely. But I mean, you know, we've just talked a bit earlier about the Brexit Trump thing, how you think, you know, these sort of you can't the things that happen in the U.S. are not necessarily analogous to here, but it does kind of remind me of Ed Miliband becoming leader in the sense that like when when Gordon Brown stepped down, there was a sense that there needed to be some sort of compromise with the left. And but the left also recognized that that they needed to be a candidate that was electable. And so you ended up with Ed Miliband, who was like a kind of neither left nor right were happy with him because he was either to left wing for some or to right wing for others. And so I think like she sort of reminds me, Warren reminds me of Ed Miliband in that respect, in the sense that it's like a candidate that neither the sort of socialist left or the center are happy with, but both will accept for the other one and both are kind of resentful about because they feel like the candidate has been imposed on them by the other faction. And I think like she's also reminiscent of Ed Miliband's leadership in the sense that like she wants to introduce progressive policies through the traditional structures of Washington, which I think have shown themselves to be, you know, through the kind of tinkering of people like Mitch McConnell have shown themselves to be insufficient for a truly like transformative politics. And I think that will be difficult for her. I think if she wins, if she wins the candidacy, that's like great for the left. And I think, thank God, it won't be Biden, who I think would be absolutely destroyed by Trump. I think she has a shot. I'm also very partisan on this and I don't think that she has as good a shot as Bernie winning the states that she needs to win. And I think, you know, her support is very college educated, sort of urban support. And I just don't I think. Those are not the people who are needed to win for the next election. She needs to present something that will actually make democratic voters get off their sofas and go to a polling station and vote. And that was what Hillary Clinton failed to do. Let's go to a clip. So obviously, you've said the debate. Well, I mean, Biden's still not out of the race, but I mean, he does look like a fucking idiot every time he speaks on television. So I can't really see him getting the nomination. So it does seem to be like an ideological battle between Warren and Bernie. Bernie, obviously, now has to try a little bit harder to distinguish himself from the rest of the race. It was easy to say how he was different to Hillary Clinton. Now he's got to make a slightly more nuanced argument about why people should choose him over Elizabeth Warren. He was asked that question, I think earlier in the week, so we're going to go to that clip now. So let me ask you. You and Elizabeth Warren have pretty close to identical positions on the big issues. What do you say to those who say they would pick her because she's eight years younger than you? She didn't just come through this. You didn't just have a heart attack. And look, in the positions, you're pretty much the same. Well, look, everybody, every American is going to make his or her own choice about the candidate that they want. And Elizabeth Warren has been a friend of mine for some 25 years. And I think she is a very, very good senator. But there are differences between Elizabeth and myself. Well, Elizabeth, I think, as you know, has said that she is a capitalist through her bones, I'm not. I am, I believe, the only candidate who's going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite, enough and up with your greed and with your corruption, we need real change in this country. What did you think about that answer? Do you think he's pitched it correctly? He's saying, you know, what's different? About me, Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist to her bones. I'm not. So I saw, I saw, I think Baskar, who's your publisher, saying on Twitter that this is theoretically quite a good answer. But to be honest, it's a little bit abstract. I don't think there are that many voters in the United States who say, well, I want to vote for someone who's not a capitalist. It's kind of abstract, right? So he has to explain this is what Baskar's saying. He has to explain why it's only Bernie Sanders who can give you proper Medicare and who can give you proper, I don't know, a wage increase. Is housing a big issue there, I don't know. I interviewed Joshua Green for my book, who is Steve Bannon's biographer. Oh, well, he said that Americans like I think he was quoting from another article, or he was either talking about his own reporting, but he said that Americans have gone from being angry at Wall Street to being angry at the government, to being angry at elites in general. And I think like that's something that Steve Bannon understood and felt, actually, and so was able to sort of project that. And I think that he he sort of helped Trump over the line with that. So I think you're right. I would agree with you that it's not necessarily true to say that American voters are like, I want someone who isn't a capitalist. That doesn't seem plausible to me, but they might want someone who's like, I'm going to take on the elites, you know, because a lot of bad shit has gone down in America in the last 10 years and no one has really been held to account for it. So I can, you know, I think that's plausible. I mean, Warren also does a version of small people populism. Right. Just how much does she talk about taking one of these? I mean, I think she definitely rhetorically embraces that language. But I think she I mean, I think she does it a bit less. And I also think that in practice, she she does it a bit less. I've actually got a Twitter thread of hers here that I think is pretty illustrative of the differences between her and Sanders. And, you know, for a lot of people, you know, who are who don't who don't agree with what I think is basically the Jacobin pro Bernie consensus around this, they look at Sanders program and then they look at Warren's program and they see that there's a lot of overlap. And I think for a lot of people, the discussion kind of stops there. They think that I mean, I don't want to put words in people's mouth, but it's my sense that a lot of people think that the distinction between someone who says I'm a capitalist and someone who says I'm a socialist when they have some policy overlap is basically a semantic one, particularly for the reasons you said, right? How many how many voters think idiomatically in those in those terms? But I do think that I do think Sanders and Warren have very different conceptions of power and they have very different political strategies. And that comes out in the versions of populism that both of them both of them embrace. So Elizabeth Warren has a piece of legislation, a plan, I should say, called the Accountable Capitalism Act, and it's got lots of good stuff in it, requires workers to elect 40 percent of the board, requires boards and executives to sell stocks, requires 75 percent of execs and shareholders approval for political expenditures. So there's a lot of good stuff in there. 40 percent one is quite big. Uh-huh. I think that's I don't think the Labour Party have even put a number on that high. Yeah. And I think I think Bernie's just put out a proposal where it's where it's a little bit higher. But but I love this arms race. It's like, we'll give them 40 percent. I'll give them 50 percent. Right. You've got to be careful with the workers on boards because I don't know about in the US where union density is very low. But in this country, like workers on boards can sometimes be used by companies to sort of elbow out the union. And so I think that's one thing I prefer to with Sanders over Warren is that he has been using his support base to gather support for like, yeah. And he also wants to repeal the I can't remember what the legislation is called. Don't want to say Taft legislation, but I might be wrong about that. I can't remember what it's called. But basically, it's like the the American anti-union legislation that doesn't allow things like solidarity strikes. So for me, that is where he's more socialistic. Sorry, I interrupted you. That's OK. Well, I mean, so they but again, they both have they both have they're both pitching plans to make it easier to join a union and things like that. But you know, Bernie is actually using his list to direct supporters to pick at lines and things like that. Elizabeth Warren, I don't think has talked as much about the strike wave that's been happening in the United States. So that's that's another distinction. But I just want to talk a bit about here about this this this Twitter thread that Warren did about accountable capitalism, because it starts off pretty good. She says, year after year, corporate profits soar for executives and shareholders, but workers wages barely budge. I'm reintroducing my accountable capitalism act to empower workers and help fix this fundamental problem with our economy. So it's not exactly Eugene Debs, but it's pretty good stuff. Now, a few more tweets down this thread. She says 181 CEOs signed a biz roundtable non-biting pledge to account for workers and consumers and their decisions. I'm urging companies. She she lists them off, you know, to embrace these reforms. And she says, for most of America's history, when our companies did better, our workers did better and America built a thriving middle class. The Accountable Capitalism Act will help realign our skewed market incentives so companies and workers can once do again well together. So this is a lot closer to a kind of language of liberal corporatism and one that one that's aiming for, you know, kind of generously a kind of cross class consensus. Whereas, you know, Sanders, if if he was pitching, I mean, in many, in many respects, he's pitching these same proposals, often a little more radical. But but when he talks about them, he says things like if there's going to be a class war in this country, it's time the working class started winning it. And again, a lot of commentators will look at this and they think that this is a this is a semantic distinction. And functionally, if they're if they're running on similar agendas, there's no difference. And I disagree pretty strongly with that. And I mean, the other thing we might talk about, and I think you alluded to it, Michael, is or maybe it was you, Ellie, that the bases of support that both of them have at the moment are so different. Elizabeth Warren, I think, wins in every poll with people who make over a hundred thousand dollars a year. You know, Bernie Sanders, I think it's in the single digits, the number of people who make that much who have donated to his campaign. And the top three employers by my last count of people donating to his campaign were, I think, Amazon, Walmart and Starbucks. So these are people who are serving coffee, they're working behind counters. This is this is the working class. And I think that a transformative policy agenda has a much better chance of succeeding if it's being carried out with, you know, the agency of those people rather than as part of a something that is, you know, heavily based in the professional managerial class, which I think really needs to be that's a section of the democratic base that really needs to be antagonised if any of this stuff is ever going to have a chance of of of getting of getting through Congress. Is there a chance that the polls are misleading us? So if you think about the fact that Elizabeth Warren's I mean, we know this, that Elizabeth Warren's support base is more educated, more middle class, more, I suppose they're both urban, but different areas. There was that great map, which showed that where each of them were getting their donations from and Bernie Sanders was getting the most donations in nearly every part of America, apart from a particular part of New York, which was Warren and a particular part of Washington, which was booted, and then I think Klobuchar from whatever her state was. Minnesota. Yes, the question was if Bernie Sanders more working class support base means that there might be an electoral shock or an electoral surprise in the same way that I suppose we were talking about Brexit earlier. One reason why there was a big shock when Brexit one is because they're the type of people who are less likely to appear in opinion polls but might turn out on the day. So could we see an upset and Bernie actually wins this one? I mean, I'd like to think so. I mean, I do think that there are, you know, despite his poll numbers not having moved too much and despite Warren undeniably I think surging ahead of both him and Biden. I mean, he has received more individual donations. I mean, he's breaking. He's breaking records. And as you alluded to, there's that map that just showed he's he's strong all over the country. He's getting money from from everywhere. And I think his his strategy is premised on pretty heavily on bringing people into vote who've been really who've been disengaged with the political process. I mean, voter turnout in the United States is terrible. And when you look at the I wrote, I wrote an essay a few weeks ago about non-voters and, you know, non-voters don't really fit the kind of caricature of just apathetic people who were switched off. I mean, they do tilt much lower income. And when you pull them on why they don't vote, they do say it's because I'm not I'm not represented. There's nothing there's nothing for me to vote for. And I think Sanders strategy understands that and is very actively engaged in trying to bring lower income people and non-voters into the process. And when pollsters do these analyses, I mean, my understanding is a lot of their calculations are based on past trends, which demographics have turned up before and things like that. And so I think that Sanders may have support this not being captured in some of these polls. I'd certainly like to think so. I want to go to another clip. So this is a clip that went completely viral, I think, about a week ago. It was Elizabeth Warren in the, I think it was an LGBTQ town hall. There was actually, unfortunately, we haven't shown that clip, but there's a Joe Biden moment where he says there's people in the back houses having orgies in San Francisco. So I don't know. It's very, very strange thing for this whole. Well, Guy didn't say that. Did you remember the clip? I confess, I didn't see this. It must have happened once over here. I should have put it in the screw. I'll tweet it after the show. It's very funny. In any case, Elizabeth Warren gave this response, which was where many people in Britain sort of, I saw lots of people from the BBC sort of tweeting it, saying, God, she's good. Like, yeah, she can win. And I kind of watched it and I wasn't that sure, but I'm interested to see what you both think about it. So can we get that clip of Elizabeth Warren, please? Let's say you're on the campaign trail and you're approached. You have. And a supporter approaches you and says, Senator, I am old fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response? Well, I'm going to assume it's a guy who said that. And I'm going to say then just marry one woman. I'm sure you can find one. I kind of thought it was a flop. I mean, it reminded me of Hillary Clinton's deplorable comment, because it's sort of just like dismissing a vast wave of the American population, which is a kind of weird thing to do if you're running for president. Also, the fact that the questioner did that kind of accent, I thought was a little bit weird. But I do value success. And the fact that it's been viewed 12 million times on YouTube, mainly by people sharing it, you know, saying this was such a great burn has made me think maybe it was a good answer. I don't know. What do you think, Ellie? I'm scared that I'm going to get cancelled for saying this. I someone sent it to me being like, this is great. And I my first thought was she's going to lose the election. And the reason that I thought that is because it's not because I think like, I mean, obviously, I don't think that any politician anywhere ever should ever express or pander to in any way, homophobic opinions. And obviously that that's not what I think. And I also don't think that, you know, the voters that Trump won over Clinton in like rust belt states are like just de facto homophobic because they happen to be like blue collar. Like that's also not what I'm saying. I'm just like my feeling, my anxiety about it is that it just seems a little bit smarty pants. It just seems a bit kind of like, well, I mean, I'm, you know, the fact that I'm saying this is quite astonishing really, but like, it was just like the kind of inherent like manhating in it. Like, well, I'm going to assume it's a man that's got that shitty opinion. Like, to be honest, there are a lot of women who don't support gay men. Yeah. Also, like when, when I'm like getting drunk with my female friends, like I'm kind of, I'm down. You say all sorts of things about homosexuals. Yeah. I mean, we, you promised you wouldn't bring that up. Like, you know, when I'm getting drunk with my female friends, like obviously we will like make a lot of salty comments about men, of course. But just like, I don't know. Like I just sort of think if I was like a man living in one of those states and you have this kind of like apparently like wealthy woman sort of just being a little bit smarty pants about it. And then like just dropping in that kind of like manhating comment. Like it's also just a Harvard law professor saying if you can get a woman. Yeah. Yeah. It's just a bit like who are you appealing to? Like I feel like you're going to appeal to people who already vote for you. Like who, I mean, you know, like I'm glad that she gave an, I would prefer her to give that answer than to give an answer that was like, well, I respect your homophobic opinion. But I just, it was just the attitude of it that I, like it reminded me of Hillary Clinton, this idea that like this kind of privileged, like wealthy kind of upper middle class woman is like somehow, I don't know, like somehow kind of in some way part of the oppressed and that men are the oppressors. And that's what, like, is that what we're going to sell? Is that what like they're going to sell? And like she is going to sell to people who live in former coal countries in America? I mean, yeah, it just made me kind of nervous. Luke, what did you think about the clip? And also are you worried that Elizabeth Warren could do a Hillary Clinton campaign mark too? I mean, yeah, I have an alternate but I think equally cynical reading of it, which is comes from a fairly perhaps dubious source, which is the Washington Free Beacon. That's the best kind of source. Yeah, and the headline here is CNN failed to disclose Warren Town Hall questioner was maxed out donor. So people can, people can look that up apparently. Allegedly, Morgan Cox, the questioner has donated a lot to Elizabeth Warren. But I think for me, watching the clip again, I mean, it does, it does seem a little canned. I mean, perhaps partisanship is clouding my judgment here, but yeah, I don't think, I don't think Warren is, I mean, there are maybe people that want to compare to Hillary Clinton and I would distance myself from that in that, I mean, she's clearly, her politics are clearly significantly to the left of Hillary Clinton's. Hillary Clinton's politics, I think, were often very hard to nail down. Warren does have particular concerns that she's been very consistent on, at least since she's been in politics and as long as she's been a Democrat, but- Which isn't that long. Which isn't that long, it's true. But I mean, yeah, Sanders has been campaigning for gay rights, was campaigning for gay rights when Warren was still a Republican during the Reagan era. But perhaps that was a little below the belt. But again, a caveat, usual caveats about partisanship clouding my judgment. But I mean, I think there is a sense in which a clip like this does have a kind of Hillary Clinton campaign energy to it, to me, or not the clip itself, but the sort of viral quality of it and how it was received. I think that I'm obviously a lot more comfortable with the program that Warren's running on than the one Clinton was running on, which was, I think, pretty openly contemptuous, not just of the socialist left, but of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I mean, I think it was very much a center-right kind of campaign. But I think, given how kind of professional and managerial a lot of Warren's most enthusiastic support is, things like this, the good things Warren is running on a side, things like this do have a slight vibe of the birth of another sort of middle-class personality cult, right? Getting excited about someone who, because of their credentials, this is a, I do think there are a lot of liberals who think, we get a Harvard lawyer in here with the white papers and the plans, and that's how we can fix things kind of by fear and by strength of kind of raw intelligence. And I think that, to say the least, is not a good analysis of how change has worked historically or how it could possibly work in America in 2019. I think she's got substance and that differentiates her from Clinton. There was some data that showed that Clinton spoke more about herself and less about policy than any other candidate for which those records exist. And I think like- Wow, that's amazing. Because it was all about, I'm the most qualified woman ever to be United States president, but she didn't have any policies. Whereas Warren's got a plan for everything, which Hillary Clinton did. There's a paper that I will send you the link to if you want to tweet along on the YouTube with the show, but that's what it said and the other thing that it mentioned as well actually as you were saying earlier that Bernie's donations from small donors is actually like unprecedented in 2016. So I think like, you know, Clinton's whole, like apparently one of the slogans they were thinking of coming up, they were thinking of using for Clinton before they settled on, I'm with her was hashtag it's her turn. So the Clinton's whole campaign was like, coronate me. That was her message to America. I deserve this, coronate me. Whereas Warren has substance, she's making arguments, she has policies, she has ideas. And I think that gives her a better shot than Biden against Trump and it certainly gives her a much better shot against Clinton. But as you say, it is this kind of like middle class personality cult that makes me really anxious because there are a lot of Americans who feel very excluded by that who need to vote for this person who didn't vote for Clinton, Democratic voters who didn't vote for Clinton and they need to feel like it's worth them going and voting for this person. And so, yeah, that does worry me. And I'm not sure that Trump has done a significantly disastrous job for those particular Americans for them to feel that like a second term is actually bad enough for them to actually try and go out and... I don't know, as I mentioned earlier, I am just a pessimist and so I always tend towards the most pessimistic reading of things so that is something that you should take. We should have got you another G&T before you came on, although maybe that makes you more pessimistic, I don't know. How do you respond to alcohol? I don't know what you mean, I am as sober as a judge. We're gonna move from one middle class personality cult to another and go across the border to Canada and just in Trudeau. But first of all, you're watching Navarra Media, you're watching Tiskey Sour. As you know, this show is only possible because of your kind donations. So if you are already a subscriber, thank you very much. If not, please donate the equivalent of one hour's wage a month. We'll be in our new studio, I think next week, thanks to your brilliant participation in our fundraiser then, but we wanna keep getting those subs up so we can have some full-time staff because that'd be kinda cool and we could make loads more content and it'll be super professional. Let's go to Canada. Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015 as leader of the Liberal Party after a decade of conservative rule. He won world fame basically for being attractive fundamentally in a boxer, but also for his brand of modern liberalism. He's a feminist, pro-migrant and says the right things about the environment. Luke, can you, as our resident Canadian, can you introduce our audience to Justin Trudeau? What was he about and what of his four years in government looked like? I think the simplest way into understanding the Trudeau phenomenon from abroad is that in kind of the period spanning, I don't know how far back to go, but 20, let's say 2014 to 2016 when the US presidential election happened, liberalism everywhere was in crisis and it was struggling to find a formula that could work against an increasingly electorally viable right. And Canada was the one place where kind of the old liberalism managed to hack the secret code in order to do this. And Emmanuel Macron a few years later was able to do the same thing. And what it was was, I mean Trudeau was a tremendously effective political vehicle because he had an aura of youthfulness to him, but the Trudeau name in Canada is really associated for members of Generation X and baby boomers with 1968, which was the original Trudeau mania when Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau's father. And so in many ways, he was actually a vehicle for nostalgia, which is something that you wouldn't know kind of to look at him. And I think what he was able to do was express, he was able to not threaten the elite consensus too much in Canada really at all, but was able to express a version of what people really wanted to hear. And so he talked a good game about the environment. He talked a lot about, yeah, the migrant crisis. He embraced a version of kind of Keynesian economics and deficit spending, which was considered very heterodox in Canada and gave his campaign, I think I'm missing a couple of slides to perhaps endure. And so when he was elected, it was very much received in the...