All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 5, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
45:40
20230905_piers-morgan-uncensored-sadiq-khan-and-vivek-ramas
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
London's Collapsing Buildings Crisis 00:03:43
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensor, back with a bang and two big exclusives.
Sadiq Khan says his climate change cameras will clear the air because they cost his party the general election.
The Mayor of London makes his long-awaited uncensored debut.
Plus he's the breakout star of the US presidential race, Vivek Brahmaswamy, is surging in popularity.
But how do you beat Trump by being Trump's biggest cheerleader?
He'll join me hopefully to explain.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan, uncensored.
Well good evening from London and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensor.
It is good to be back, but nothing saps the national libido more than the noxious sense that nothing is working.
Most of us imagine that countries fall apart in violent shocks, like a stock market collapse or a military coup.
The reality is that it's much slower and even more depressing.
It's a creeping, insidious odour of decline which lurks at the back of the nostrils and eventually overwhelms the senses.
And in Britain right now, the putrid stench of failure is everywhere.
Children return to school today, but thousands won't be because dangerous cheap concrete ignored for years has left school buildings in danger of collapse.
Instead of fronting up on interviews on how she'd handle this massive crisis, the Education Secretary did this.
RAC stands for Reinforced Autoclayed Aerated Concrete and it's a lightweight form of concrete that was used in building construction from the 1950s until the mid-1990s.
Problems with the strength and durability of the material mean that some buildings may pose a threat to safety and nothing is more important than the health and safety of children and staff.
The industry's understanding of the risks of RAC has evolved over time.
Have you ever watched anything more patronising than that?
What are we, five-year-olds?
What was she thinking?
The education system is quite literally collapsing.
And the Education Secretary uploads a video that looks like a health and safety training manual from 1995.
Well this morning when we finally decided she ought to answer some questions, Keegan somehow managed to make it worse.
It is not the job of the Department of Education but we chose to do that because we wanted to make sure that we had that information centrally.
On top of that we wanted to...
But you're saying that the government is not responsible ultimately for the safety of children in school?
The school building's responsibility is with local authorities and multi-academy treatment.
Do you believe the government did everything?
But we have but we've taken further now.
Let me get this straight.
Sorry.
So the education secretary of this country in our government is not responsible for schools literally falling to pieces.
Well whose job is it then?
Whose responsibility is that?
With her reputation appropriately disintegrating faster than some of these schools, she was then caught on a hot mic saying this.
Thank you.
Does anyone ever say, you know what, you've done a f ⁇ ing good job because everyone else has sat on their and done nothing?
No signs of that now?
Well no, with respect, Mrs. Keegan, we'll say you've done an effing good job when you've got off your backside and actually sorted this mess out.
Crumbling buildings are the perfect metaphor for how most people feel about the country right now.
And sadly for the government, it's not the schools.
One hospital made from the same shoddy concrete says it can only treat fat patients on the ground floor in case they fall through the floors above.
Sounds like a comedy sketch, but it's real.
Weaponized Air Pollution Debate 00:14:46
This is happening in Britain in 2023.
It feels like a country with neglected failing infrastructure where national paralysis lurks around every corner.
That's like a quarter of a million people face travel chaos when the air traffic control system is brought to its knees by one single misfile flight plan.
More than seven and a half million people are stuck on the NHS waiting lists.
Seeing a GP is asking for an audience with a Pope.
It rained most of the summer, but there's hose pipe bans in several places because our rotten water companies almost literally failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining.
Our biggest supermarket chain says they're strapping body cameras on his workers because they're so worried about the rise in violent attacks on staff.
Mortgages are rocketing.
Everyone's on strike.
Inflation is draining our wallets as toxic sewage drips into our seas.
And you're more likely to strike oil than find a dentist.
Against this backdrop, there's been a worrying rise in vigilantes.
They've stepped in, where police won't, to shift eco-protesters off our roads.
And they've taken to now ransacking the new ULES clean air cameras in London, which now bill motorists £12.50 a day for driving a Mercedi in all the cars.
Now, in my view, this kind of behaviour is as wrong as the eco-warriors who go around spraying paint and everything.
It's not a symptom, though, of a sick country where people think that nothing works, including the police, and they're tired of it.
So they're getting on with action themselves.
Prime Minister Rishi Suna took on a hospital path of a job.
No question.
He has steadied the ship to a certain degree, but it will take a lot more energy and more bold risk-taking if we're going to dodge the iceberg.
The government thinks Sadiq Khan's air pollution cameras are so vastly unpopular, they could help swing next year's election back in his favour.
But the only air quality they should be worrying about, honestly, is the stench of national decline.
Well, shortly before I came on air tonight, I spoke to the man of the moment, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
Well, I'm delighted to say I'm joined now by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
Mr. Mayor, good to see you.
It's been too long, Piers.
I'm certainly sorry we're not doing this in person, but it's lovely to be with you again, although the first time on your new show.
Well, it's not new anymore, is it?
Well, it's not new, and you have resisted my advances for quite some time.
So what's made you finally succumb?
Well, I think, to be fair, we were trying to hook something up a few weeks ago, but you were very busy doing stuff overseas, and I'm just really sorry it's taking so long.
Hopefully, next time I'll be in person.
Well, I would like that.
We've always, I think, had a robust exchange of views over the years.
Let's start with the obvious subject, which is your campaign about air quality in London.
I want to preface this part of the interview by saying that I have gone through a quite interesting journey, I think, about pollution in London.
So I thought I had a big issue with hay fever for quite a few years and eventually had a lot of tests done, revealed no allergies at all, and then had a local chemist who said to me, I think it may be pollution.
Is it worse when you come back from overseas?
I went, actually, yes, it is.
And it was knocking me out for like half a day every week.
And he recommended getting some air purifiers and getting an air quality app and not going out too much when it was very high.
I did both those things.
I've got four purifiers in my house now, £80 each.
And it's completely transformed my health.
I'm a different human being in the last eight months to what I'd been like in the previous few years.
I then did some digging into the borough I live in, Kensington and Chelsea, and discovered to my horror that it's one of the worst places in the country for air pollution and that there's a lot of people who die from pollution-related deaths in Kensington and Chelsea.
So I'm a convert to your cause.
I believe it is a real issue.
I've been through an experience myself that's made me see the benefit of having better quality air, albeit through purifiers.
But here's the problem that I think you've encountered.
It's a similar problem to the Just Stop Oil protests, where I agree with their calls, but I don't agree with the methodology.
And it seems to me that your ULES scheme, albeit well-intentioned, and I think we all want to get to where you want to get to on air quality, but it's turned out to be incredibly divisive.
You know this, very polarizing.
The polls actually show it's pretty split down the middle about what people's views are.
Perhaps if you live in the outer part of London, more extremely against it than those who live in the inner part of the city.
But it is very divisive and it is very controversial.
Do you have any regrets about the methodology?
Well, Piers, can I first thank you for the thoughtful way you've asked the question?
Because I, like you, went on a journey.
In 2014, 2015, I had no idea about what you've discovered either.
I was feeling out of breath.
When I was playing football, I was getting tired very quickly.
I had some really bad days where I was wheezing and coughing.
And I'm, like you, reasonably well informed.
I think I know a bit about things like air pollution, air quality, climate change, but I'd no idea that this invisible thing we can't see, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide was making us sick.
And so the evidence in relation to the consequences of air pollution you and I live in out, but also in our city, around 4,000 people die prematurely because of air pollution across our country, according to government figures, not mine, government figures, between 28,000 and 36,000, and at least to children having stunted lungs forever, and adults like you and I with a whole host of health issues from asthma to cancer, dementia to heart disease.
But also, Piers, to answer your question directly, I've seen the evidence of the ULES in central London where it exists and inner London where it exists.
And I'll tell you what I mean by that.
So we introduced the ULES in central London and saw within a year an almost 50% reduction in toxicity, but also a third fewer children with air pollution related illnesses being rushed to hospital, a third reduction.
We expanded it to inner London and we saw a further 20% reduction in air pollution and children going to 1400 schools were breathing cleaner air.
Let me show you the problem.
It's in outer London that's the worst air.
The 10 boroughs with the largest amount of premature deaths are in outer London.
What we've also seen is that 24 of the 30 GPs with the worst number of patients is in outer London.
So that's the aim.
But what I've tried to do also, Piers, is to listen to the genuine concerns.
And I recognise, by the way, Piers, in relation to regret, over a number of years in outer London, we haven't got the good quality public transport we've got in central London and inner London.
So more people are relying on cars in outer London.
The good news, nine out of 10 cars now driving in outer London are already compliant, won't pay a penny more, but we'll see the benefits of clean air.
I don't want to get into arguing about the merits of what you're trying to do because I actually broadly agree with you.
On the methodology, it seems to me, here's your problem in a nutshell.
I have an Aston Martin, right?
A very luxurious car.
I'm very lucky to have it, lucky to earn enough money to be able to keep it up.
And you don't charge me a penny to drive that around London as much as I like because I'm ULES compatible.
But if I lived in North London, in Wembley or somewhere, and I was a hardworking guy, woman, and you're driving a van maybe for work and you have to come into town every day, and you're already facing massive cost of living extra costs for your family, you're struggling to feed your family, you're really feeling the pinch.
And now suddenly you, who really can't afford just to get through the day as it is, are suddenly having to pay another £12.50 every day to you.
Why am I being spared just because I can afford to have a more expensive ULES compatible car?
And why are a large number of people who are having to pay actually at the poorer end of the spectrum of London society?
That is where your optics, I think, are failing.
So because your car is US compliant, it means that you're off Euro four or better.
What that means, Piers, is when you drive your car, your wife may be next to your daughter in the back, they're not breathing in poison the same way somebody driving a non-compliant car is.
That's the first point.
The second point is what we're doing is to support the hard-working van driver you talked about, to support the low-income family you're talking about, to support the charity with a minibus you may be talking about, we're giving financial support to the tune of £160 million.
So a small van owner, a small business with a van like yours, will now receive support, £7,000 to get a ULES-compliant van.
You may be right in your cause.
I believe you're right about trying to get better air quality.
But you know that the Labour Party are very concerned about it.
And I want to play you a little mashup of what Labour figures have been saying about it.
I don't think there's any doubt that ULES was the reason that we lost the by-election in Uxbridge.
And I have said we should reflect on this, including the Mayor.
I've spoken to him, as you would expect.
And so there will be that reflection.
The cost is a problem.
And if you look at who pays ULES, it tends to be poorer families and smaller businesses.
I'm afraid that the hard truth is a £12 an hour, sorry, £12 a day fee costs Labour that by-election.
There is a massive cost of living crisis at the moment and asking people to chill out thousands to buy a new vehicle or pay £12.50 every day to go on the road is just an expense to many.
Now these aren't Tories saying this.
This is your own side.
They think that this is an election liability.
How would you feel if you go down this path, you dig your heels in as you're doing, you keep going, but it ends up potentially becoming an election deciding issue in the next year or so, whenever that general election may come, that the Tories use this as a weapon to actually defeat you?
You very generously and rightly said that in central London, people support ULES and in inner London, but there's some concern in outer London.
I would argue the reason why people in central London and inner London support the policy is because they've seen it bedded in and they realise it's not as bad as they feared it was going to be.
I'll give you some breaking news.
When I announced the central London policy, people were against that as well initially until we had a scrappage scheme and they saw the benefits were far better than the disbenefits.
Why if the government has helped out other cities up and down the country, why have they not helped you out?
Well I think this goes to the core of the anger you're talking about which is basically the government Thinks because of Uxbridge and Ricelip, that actually tackling climate change and tackling air pollution are vote losers.
And so they've weaponised this as an issue.
Are you likely, in view of the pretty extreme reaction from half of your people in London, are you likely to evolve this policy and reflect their concerns?
Yeah, we will always listen to Londoners.
First week of August, I said, every single person in London, it doesn't matter how much you earn, you will get support in relation to the scripper scheme.
And the reason why the government's not giving London support, they're given Birmingham support and Bristol support and Bath support is they think by attacking Londoners they may do better at the general election.
So Londoners are pawns caught in this crossfire.
Nobody wins if people are dying prematurely.
Nobody wins if kids have stunted lungs.
True, but nobody wins if half of the people in London hate you because they think you're targeting the poorer members of society over people like me.
I've got to be.
I've got to be frank, Piers.
You asked the question at the top of the this interview, which is which was, you know, why am I on this show?
I've got to be honest.
One of the reasons I'm on this show is because I recognize many of my voters, you know, watch this show and I'm keen to talk to them through you, Piers.
You ask me the tough questions that they, that they ask me and I respond to as well, because I genuinely think that once people see the benefits of this policy, they'll come with me.
Listen, like I said at the start, I'm with you about the, the problem of air pollution.
I've seen it myself.
I've seen it to my own health.
So I'm with you on that.
But let's move on to some other stuff in the news today.
Gillian Keegan, the Education Secretary, who many people are very angry with because of this crisis over schools being closed because of the concrete that had been used to build them and were blaming the government for not acting sooner, she responded like this, off mic, in an interview today with ITV, thank you, just two microscopes.
Does anyone ever say, you know what?
You've done a good job because everyone else has sat on their and done nothing?
No no, no signs of that.
No, do you feel this is a good moment, mr Mayor, to tell the education secretary she's done an effing good job?
I, i'd not seen that until just now.
Um look, I mean, I mean, for those that don't know, we had a conversation before we went on air.
That's, you know there's, you can be caught out with.
You know a hot mic, as they call it.
But I think the problem, the problem is uh, I mean the the arrogance in relation to you know, thinking you should be getting a pat on the back.
I I spent friday speaking to really worried parents who didn't know whether their kids are going to school on monday, whether they're to organize childcare.
My sister's a teacher, as is my sister-in-law.
They'd no idea whether their schools are affected.
I was also an mp in 2010, lobbying Michael Gove and the government saying, for goodness sake, please don't cut the program.
You're going to cut the building schools, a future programme that Balls had uh announced, and you know.
Austerity has consequences and I think Gillian Keegan needs to understand.
Children are caught in the crossfire because of government cuts for the last 13 years and, rather than asking for a pat on the back, She needs to be spoken, working night and day to make our schools safe.
And it is a problem, the fact that literally, if we get our public services crumbling, literally our schools are crumbling.
Yeah, I completely agree.
I thought it was unbelievably arrogant and tone deaf.
Let's talk about women, because she's a woman.
Criminal Negligence in Schools 00:16:03
What is a woman, Mr. Mayor?
Well, I asked that question, knowing full well that people may be watching this who may have gender dysphoria and may have concerns in relation to this issue.
So let me be quite direct in relation to this.
So a woman, when it comes to biology and sex, is an adult girl.
But there are some women who may have gender dysphoria, and trans women can also be women as well.
Ron says that next Sadiq Khan's bitter feud with Donald Trump has raged for years.
And what happens next will do nothing to improve the chances of any peace deal.
Welcome back to Petersburg and Sensor.
Sadiq Khan's long and fiery feud with former President Donald Trump.
He's made the London Mayor a big name across the pond.
He does nothing to douse those flames.
In the second part of our interview.
At City Hall, you have a weird series of rules that have been laid down.
You don't like gender-specific phrases like ladies and gentlemen to be used because it may exclude non-binary people.
What if somebody wants to be called a lady or a gentleman?
You know, British Airways have done this too.
And I'm like, hang on.
When I get on a plane, I actually quite like to be called a gentleman.
Where are my rights to still be called a gentleman?
Well, I'm not sure about that.
About that being City Hall rule.
What I can tell you.
Well, my self-categorisation is.
Well, I love days when I'm called a gentleman.
But I think what it may be is, somebody may have said friends or people or Londoners.
I don't know.
But nothing is banned.
Well, it's an advisory.
It says, for example, migrants shouldn't be called illegal, even if they're illegal migrants.
They should be called insecure immigration status people or undocumented.
But frankly, if they're an illegal...
I can deal with that.
Yeah, but if they're an illegal migrant, they're an illegal migrant.
Why do you care what the phraseology is?
Let me deal with that.
So when you're an asylum seeker coming to the UK, there are no safe routes to come to the UK.
And what the government has done is outlawed, made it a criminal offence to come to the UK for asylum seekers.
So many asylum seekers who come to the UK may be defined as illegal migrants because of the government passing this law, which isn't law in other countries, but they are asylum seekers who go on to become refugees, many of them great Britons.
A couple of quick ones before I let you go.
By far the front runner in the Republican race remains Donald Trump.
You and he have got a pretty chequered history, to put it mildly.
You allowed a big balloon of him as a baby to fly over Westminster when he came into town.
He's been pretty scathing about you.
How would you feel if he is re-elected President of the United States?
Just to give full context, I also allowed a balloon of me with a bikini to fly in London as well.
So it could have been worse.
It could have been me in person with a bikini.
What source for the goose?
But can I say this?
Look, this is my problem with Trump.
I've got a number of problems with President Trump, and you and I have discussed this in the past, is how I felt, how I felt when he said some of the things about the religion that I follow.
How my family felt in America, proud Americans, proud Muslims about what he said.
About women, I know, how they felt when he was elected.
But you would have seen what happened on Capitol Hill.
You know, when, you know, listen, there's losing with dignity, being magnanimous in defeat.
And what happened at Capitol Hill, for those who were agnostic or not sure, should be the final straw in relation to his fitness for office.
This is America, for goodness sake.
You and I are big fans of West Wing.
We look to America as a beacon for democracy, human rights, separation of powers, so forth, the checks and balances.
And I think sometimes, yes, challenge is good, debate is good, but sometimes people are not fit for office.
And I frankly don't think, and I don't want to cause offense to your American viewers and stuff, I do not think Donald Trump is fit to be the president of that great country.
I mean, should somebody who's facing nearly 100 criminal charges, just on basic principle, should they be allowed to be a candidate for president?
As the Constitution stands at the moment, he is allowed to be.
He could be president and be in prison.
Can I say, one of the wonderful things and the joys of America is due process.
And I think it's right that Donald Trump has his day or days in court.
I think there is a presumption of innocence.
There's a separate discussion about whether somebody who's presumed innocent should be barred from office.
I think as a former human rights lawyer, that may be unfair.
You're charged with an offence, not found guilty.
He later on may be acquitted.
I think there's a separate discussion about that.
If he was convicted, for argument's sake, if Trump was convicted of a criminal offence before the election, what would your position be then?
Well, surely then you'd expect there to be a provision where he's not allowed to stand with a conviction, particularly if it's a conviction to do with what happened on Capitol Hill, particularly if it's to do with the conviction in relation to dishonesty and so forth.
I used to be a lawyer, Piers.
If you've got even a minor conviction for dishonesty, the law society doesn't like you to be a lawyer, because you've got client money and so forth and so forth.
So I think the president of the United States is not arguably, it probably is, definitely is the most powerful person in the world.
The idea somebody with a conviction can be leader of the country beggars belief.
But also, let me show you the problem.
What message does that send to people across the great country of America and around the globe in relation to no consequences for your action?
Final question, Mr. Mayor.
I know you've been very generous in your time, but recent studies showed that there have been more than 300,000 racist messages about you since you became mayor in 2016.
And that number's increased exponentially since the Ulez story has played out.
And you've said that you've had PTSD from some of this abuse, this racist abuse you've been suffering.
We had the founder of Pimbico Plumbers, Charlie Mullins, banned from Twitter, now called X, after writing racist and threatening comments about you referencing the fact you're a Muslim mayor and saying that you should be killed.
Someone should kill him.
How did you feel when you read that from such a high-profile person?
I want to say a beggars belief.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
It's more the impact of my daughters.
You're on the receiving end of some of this stuff as well.
And you know as a dad, you worry about your kids, right?
I don't know how old they are.
And as my daughter's seeing that, that upset me the most.
My wife's an adult.
She's seen some of the stuff.
But also, when you say this stuff, even though you might say you don't mean it, how do you know how somebody else is going to react to it in relation to, you know, the phenomenon of grooming being radicalised, incitement?
And so listen, I'm up for robust debate.
I think it's really important in democracy.
People should be acting in a way that make their views clear.
But it should be lawful, peaceful and safe.
And that's one of the reasons, by the way, I'm like you, I support the ends in relation to justice oil and extension of rebellion.
I don't support some of their tactics because they're not lawful, safe and peaceful.
But this goes on the other side of that because you're inciting others to not just commit a criminal offence, but to kill me.
I mean, I was somebody who was close friends with Joe Cox, who was murdered in 2016.
I mean, you know, we were close.
And so, and you know from the work you do, people across the globe who are often the receiving end when people act on these sorts of messages.
And listen, you've challenged me during this interview, and you will confirm nothing was off bounds in relation to the challenge.
That's the joy of a democracy.
Yeah, I agree.
But inciting people to commit criminal offences, commit criminal damage.
I think, come on.
I mean, you know, say if somebody did behave in a way that, you know, brings to life what people like that are saying, and I'm at the receiving end.
Or say you're creating an environment where my ethnicity and my religion is a relevant issue.
And I just think, you know, we live in a multicultural, multiracial society.
The great thing about our country and our city is there is no ceiling by which you can't go through.
Forget the glass ceiling being smashed.
It was decimated ages ago.
And you're just doing back some of the progress make.
And I'd implore people, yes, be a critic of me.
Sign petitions, go on demos.
You know, don't vote for me if you don't want to vote for me and stuff.
But there's got to be a line beyond which you shouldn't cross.
No, I completely agree with you.
It's disgusting.
And Mullins has apologised since then.
He's been taken off Twitter, which is good.
Good to see Elon Musk's Twitter ex as it now is taking action to take him off for that because that's unacceptable.
And I'm glad he has apologised for it.
Just want to leave on a positive note, Mr. Mayor.
You've just committed £135 million of funding, meaning that 287,000 more state primary school children in London will get free school meals from this week.
That is a great thing to do.
And I congratulate you on it.
Thanks, Pizza.
I was somebody who had the benefit of free school meals.
That's great.
We've got a picture, I think, of you and your brothers, actually, which you put out.
Look at you, all sweet.
I'm the good looking one.
I'm the good-looking one in the centre.
I'm sure that, like my brothers, they might take issue with that.
But I think it's great.
Mr. Mayor, it's good to have you on Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Don't leave us alone next time.
I promise I won't.
Thank you for joining me.
Well, you can watch the full uncut interview with London's Mayor Sadiq Khan on the Piers Morgan Uncensored YouTube channel, which includes what this, laterly in the interview, he said about Jillian Keegan.
There are some days when I see our Prime Minister forming, but I think he's not for the job either.
Oh, Rishi Sunak?
I mean, some of the decisions he makes, I mean, come on, he should have sacked Jillian Keegan.
You showed me that video.
If I was Sunak now and you showed me that video of Jillian Keegan, I'd be demanding she'd be kicked out.
Would you?
You know, his decision to...
Yeah, he was the chancellor.
He was the chancellor who decided as chancellor to reject the advice of the education secretary and cut the school's budget by a half that was going into repairing the schools and spent half that budget instead on an ideological free schools project.
And so, and those chicks are coming on to roost.
Interesting stuff.
Will Rishi Sunak fire his education secretary?
Well, he probably won't just because Sadiq Khan tells him to, but it was very intemperate what she said, and her handling of this has been, frankly, pretty appalling.
Uncensored next, he's the breakout star of the US presidential race, but can Vivek Ramaswamy actually win?
Maybe with me next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
There's some pretty good interviews there.
If you think we've been the best interview show out there this year, vote for us in the National Television Awards.
You've got a few hours left before we all trudge down there to the O2 and hopefully don't have my miserable, unhappy face.
Well, I've got my pack waiting to comment on that Sadiq Khan interview, but also to talk about my next guest, because the 2024 presidential race so far looks like to be a rerun, potentially, of Donald Trump against Joe Biden.
But this weekend, a grant swallowed commentators claimed that Trump could yet be disqualified from the ballot altogether over his alleged attempts to inspire insurrection.
My next guest may have some pretty strong feelings about that.
Vivek Ramaswamy is the breakout star of the Republican race so far.
The only one, frankly, to rival Trump for any kind of publicity or momentum.
There's just one problem.
He hasn't really explained yet how he'll actually beat Trump.
Or Vivek joins me now.
Great to see you again.
It's good to see you, Pierce.
How are you?
Well, first of all, an apology, because I've always called you Vivek, and then you very kindly corrected us all and said you are Vivek as in cake.
That's correct.
I appreciate best efforts, but I usually save the airtime for substance.
But thank you.
I appreciate it.
Well, look, we've done a few interviews, Vivek, so far.
And obviously, when it started, not many people knew much about you other than your entrepreneurial stuff.
Now, since the last debate, you've become incredibly well known, very well talked about, and a lot of unfriendly fire is coming your way.
So my first question is, how are you handling being now in the proper spotlight of being a presidential candidate?
I'm fine with it.
And I do think, Pierce, that's part of the process.
We jumped into this race early on, going in eyes wide open, knowing that politics is a dirty sport.
It's filled with falsehoods.
You may have seen a report over the weekend that actually one of the other candidates' large super PACs was taking credit to their donors for the donors, for the attacks that have been manufactured against me.
That's okay.
I can handle it.
And to tell you the truth, if I'm asking the people of this country to ask me to represent the U.S. across the table from Xi Jinping, I better be able to sit across the table from other candidates or from left-wing media or anybody else.
And so we're doing just fine with it.
I'm focused on what we want to achieve for this country.
Shutting down the administrative state, keeping us out of World War III, declaring independence from China, growing the economy, reviving national pride.
These are my actual focus areas, not some side attacks that I really could care less for.
Okay, look, you've certainly been so far, I would argue, the most pro-Trump of the other candidates.
But that raises a question.
If he's so great, even to the extent you would pardon him of any crimes he may be convicted of, why would you run against him?
Why not just let Donald Trump run again and potentially win again, and maybe you get a good job out of it?
In other words, if you keep talking him up, how does that help you?
So the answer is, I'm not looking at what's going to help myself or not.
I'm looking at speaking the truth.
And I do think he was an excellent president as judged by results, but I'm going to deliver something that he did not.
National unity.
Uniting this country is a top objective for me.
I'm 38 years old.
I am the youngest person ever to run for U.S. president as a Republican.
And Piers, we're reaching the next generation in droves.
We're reviving national pride amongst young Americans.
40% of my 100,000 plus donors are first time ever donors to the Republican Party in any form.
That is unheard of.
That number is normally 2%.
And so yes, on 90% of policy areas, I do agree with Donald Trump and I respect his accomplishments.
But there's more to a president than just being a policy book in a binder.
Part of this is how we reunite this nation.
I think I'll be best positioned to accomplish that.
And I look forward to working with Donald Trump when I hope he's my advisor.
Frankly, my mentor in my first year in office.
That much I will take.
But that's how I think this is going to play out.
You managed to say that you thought Donald Trump would be your advisor as president with a straight face there, Vivek.
I do.
I think he's somebody who has a lot of experience.
I don't want to start with a standing start.
I want to build on those 40 years of experience.
No, I could see what he left off.
Just to explain, I think.
agenda to the next level.
No, no, I can see why you would want him as an advisor since the idea of Trump playing second fiddle to anyone I think is highly unlikely.
And I guess my overriding view is how do you beat him?
He's so far ahead.
You had a good debate I thought in many ways.
You got a lot of publicity out of it, but it hasn't really moved the needle on the polls.
Trump is so far ahead.
He looks unstoppable.
And all these indictments, all they seem to be doing is helping him.
Well, I'll tell you one thing.
I'm dead set against these indictments.
That is not how I want to win this election.
Seeing the opposition eliminated, no, that's the wrong way to do it in this country.
I will say this, though, Piers.
Beating an Unstoppable Putin 00:10:05
I started, people said you started at 0% in March.
I said, nope.
I started at 0.0% in March.
I'm now a solid second or third in nearly every major national poll that's coming out.
And many people in this country didn't even know who I was six months ago.
Most people couldn't pronounce my name until two weeks ago.
And so the fact of the matter is we're on our way up.
I'm still introducing myself to the country.
And I'm confident that we're going to be successful.
I'm talking to you from a farm in New Hampshire.
We're meeting voters and I think we're very confident about where we're at.
You are going to have to take the gloves off with Trump at some stage, maybe on a debate stage.
So what don't you like about Donald Trump?
Well, look, it's less about what I don't like about him, but what I do think this country needs to go further.
I will unite this country.
And if Trump was going to do that in his four years, that would have already happened.
He delivered great results, but I think we have to actually speak about this country in a way that reaches the next generation.
Talk about what it means to be an American.
He's too divisive.
Piers, I'm not in this race to run against anybody, but I am unifying.
I'm not in this place to be unified.
And I think that's all that's going to be.
That sounds the essence of what's different about the candidacy that we're going to be doing.
That sounds great, but you are in a race, and you are going to have to try and beat Donald Trump.
And it's interesting to hear you admit that.
You admit that the dividing point for you is he's too divisive, right?
I think I am more unifying.
That's the answer.
And I think that that's more important.
And the way we're going to unite this country is not by tearing down other people who have made great contributions to this country, Donald Trump being high on that list among them, but by actually articulating what this country stands for.
Answer what it means to be an American at a moment where we're in the middle of a national identity crisis.
Fill that void in the heart of the millennial generation and younger with an actual vision of national identity instead of woke poison or any other poison that fills that void.
That's how we win.
Well, you have a lot of things for us.
We've got a lot of running something for a long time.
We've got to start running to something.
That's what I'm doing.
There's a lot of stuff about you I really like.
A, you come on my show a lot, which I love, and you do a lot of interviews and you're upfront and you take the tough questions.
You go on lots of places where you might get a hard time.
I love the energy.
I love the dynamism and everything else.
But there are aspects of some of your policy stuff which I really don't like.
One of which is your position on Ukraine.
And I want to read you, this is a tweet that you did on the day the war started.
Putin is a bully.
The way to stop a bully is to punch him in the nose, you said.
Now, now your position is you should just give, unless I'm wrong, Ukraine should just give Putin the land he's stolen with his illegal war.
I don't know how you equate those two statements.
So, Pierce, I think there's two things here.
One is we should have never been in this situation in the first place, because if the U.S. actually had energy independence, if we drilled, we fracked, we were a net exporter of energy, Putin would have never had the leverage to go after Ukraine.
But now being where we are, it is our job to make sure that we secure peace and advance American interests without sleepwalking into World War III.
That is what I'm leading us to do.
How have you moved?
The answer is I've moved.
Okay, but how have you moved from a guy who illegally invades a country, a democratic sovereign country?
You said the only way to stop this bully, Putin, is to punch him in the nose.
But when Ukraine, in my view, valiantly fight for their territory and their people, and Putin still takes a load of their land, your answer to the bully is to now give him what he's taken illegally.
No, that's not correct, actually.
It's going to be to require a major concession from that bully so that we don't ratchet this up to the next level.
It's a third of the country you want to give.
No, no, no.
Piers, Piers, I think you either, I mean, and it's not your job to know every aspect of everything I've said.
If you're questioning on me on it, I would ask you to know what I've said countless times.
I would actually require Putin to exit his military alliance with China.
That is the big demand and requirement we will have for any deal of any kind.
That Russia-China military alliance is the single greatest threat to the West and to the United States as we know it.
Putin is in Xi Jinping's arms.
Communist China is fundamentally hostile to the United States.
And I have a clear vision for how to pull Russia apart from China.
We will end the Ukraine war on terms that leave Ukraine's sovereignty intact.
I will note, Piers, I'm skeptical that that's even the path that Ukraine is on right now.
So that's a win for Ukraine, but more importantly, it's a win for Ukraine.
It's not a win for Ukraine, though.
If you were president of the United States, I think it's better to be losing its sovereignty.
Yeah, but giving a bully what he's taken illegally is not, to me, strong leadership, is it?
Well, Piers, I'm not giving anybody what he's taken.
The fact of the matter is we have to honor our commitments.
We had a commitment to Ukraine in 1994.
We fulfilled that commitment.
But James Baker also made a commitment to Gorbachev in 1990 on behalf of the U.S., saying that NATO would expand not one inch past East Germany.
Turns out NATO has expanded far more after the fall of the USSR than when the USSR advised.
I do think we should be clear that NATO should not admit Ukraine to NATO.
But I want to be really clear about this, Piers.
I'm not letting...
Putin has, his actions are craven.
I've said so, but I don't trust Putin.
I do trust him to follow his self-interest.
Is he still a bully?
Is he still a deal that causes him to exit?
I mean, many autocrats around the world are bullies.
Putin is one of them.
But the fact of the matter is, you have to actually do a deal that advances everybody's self-interest.
Require Russia to exit its partnership with China.
That's the key to the kingdom to secure peace and keep us out of World War III.
Vivek, we've run out of time on this interview, but I, you know what I'd love to do with you?
I feel like I've interviewed you a lot, but for five to ten minutes at a time.
I don't think as you get better and better known, people want to know more about you as a human being.
I would love to get the chance to sit down with you and have a proper one-on-one about who you are, where you've come from, because I think you are igniting this whole presidential race in an exciting way.
I don't agree with you about some of the stuff you're saying, not least Ukraine, but I do love the way that you're out there doing your thing, and I would love to get a chance to get to know you better.
I enjoy our exchanges.
It would be bizarre if we agreed on everything, right?
So let's do that.
Join us on the campaign trail.
I'm talking to you from our campaign bus.
Ride the bus with us.
We'll spend a day together.
I'd enjoy that.
And you can also see how some of the audiences here in the U.S. are responding.
I think it's really motivating to me, but it's quite something to see.
Final question before I let you go, and I want a quick answer.
If you were President of the United States, and you might be in a year or so time, what's the first thing you would do?
What's your number one priority?
Implement a 75% headcount reduction in the federal bureaucrat base and shut down government agencies that should not exist.
That's how you revive the lifeblood of a constitutional republic.
It's also how you grow the economy.
That's what I'll start on on day one.
Vivek Ramaswamy, you're a fascinating guy, and your race is exciting people, good and bad and ugly, but that's the way it often is.
I look forward to meeting with you properly, face-to-face, and having a more in-depth chat.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Piers.
I look forward to that.
Well that says the next, the Pierce Bank.
We're waiting with bated breath to feast on these two meaty interviews with the London Mayor and the rising star of the Republican Party.
I'll talk to them next.
Welcome back to Piers Bulgarian Sensor, joined by Esther Kraker, the Talk TV contributor and the Associate Editor of Dela Mira, Kevin McGuire.
You've been waiting very patiently watching these two big interviews.
Esther, Sadiq Khan.
He attracts equal amounts of loathing and love.
He's obviously been re-elected.
He probably will win again, tell you why the candidate put up against him.
What do you make of that interview?
I was very surprised.
I went into that interview wanting to throw eggs at him over Ulez.
I still kind of do.
But he was very polished.
He seemed very sincere.
And the thing is, you can understand his appeal.
I've often made comparisons between him and Suwella Brotherman because I think they're two terrible politicians.
But actually, I think he needs to do more interviews in this style because it makes him seem more genuine and more likable in ways that Suwella Brotherman just isn't.
He's not as unappealing and as repelling as she is.
I mean, I think, Kevin, with him, that I, having personally discovered that pollution was really impacting my health and doing something about it and it working and it was cleaner air, I am, you know, I'm pretty wedded to this idea we need better quality of air.
It's how he's doing it.
It seems to be divisive because it does seem to be the poor elements of society in London that are having to pay because they can't afford to make the transition to the new more expensive cars.
And that is the problem he's got to get over.
All of the poorest in London don't have cars.
They use public transport.
But the fact is he's doing something.
And he is a politician who's doing it.
Now, charging is crude.
So I'm normally hostile to it, but you can't carry on with dirty air in London.
It is a very pollution policy.
I think one of the things I found difficult to square with that policy is because of the MOT emissions test that were updated in 2018 and will probably be updated in the next couple of years.
You know you actually could have realistically waited a couple of years before he implemented it.
I think he'll have to adapt it, but I do think his heart is in the right place on it.
And I think that's why probably the polls are divided because I think people think what he's right about is it's like the eco guys with the throwing the paint around.
If they didn't do that, I'd be more supportive.
Here's I remember the opposition.
He mentioned this, Sadikon mentioned it, to Ulez and the central London.
And then most people realize they don't pay it.
Most cars are compliant.
In outer London, most people are going to realise their cars are compliant.
If you've got a car that isn't compliant and you're going to have to pay the charge, it's generally a diesel more than eight years or a petrol over 16 years.
Very few cars.
Let's talk quickly about Vivek Ramasamy.
Eco Guys and Internet Bias 00:01:01
Fascinating character.
Fascinating.
I feel like he talks in like internet sound bias.
Like he doesn't make any sort of queer.
Well, he's a dynamic entrepreneurial guy.
He's memeable.
He's one of the motivated types.
Yeah, he's memeable.
He's like one of those entrepreneur-like sites, pages you follow on Instagram being like, oh yeah, drink cold water in the morning to get you going.
Like that's what he is.
But is he real or is this all just show and no substance, do you think?
I would say all sure and no substance.
I think he's glib.
Look, he's changed his position on Ukraine.
You wouldn't admit that.
He talks about the truth, but he was peddling 9-11 conspiracy theories.
No, he didn't change his position.
He didn't know what he was talking about because he doesn't have the...
Well, he wanted to give the bully a punch in the face, but now wants to give the bully what he took.
And I don't think he could swear those two positions.
But he's certainly energised that race.
There's no question about that.
Guys, I've got to leave it there.
Thank you for being patient listening to those two interviews.
We'll get you back and have a longer chat about other things we've missed in this summer.
But good to see you both.
That's it from me.
It's good to be back.
Even if you're looking at me spitting with rage, it's good to see you again.
And remember, whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection