Why has Trump changed his mind on Russia?

0:02The Telegraph.

0:30I wanted the person to pay for what they had done to her. There was a sense of bloodthirst. We have to get revenge. Listen to Murder in the Heartland, wherever you get your podcasts. ACAST helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. ACAST.com

0:56Camilla: Well, who would have thunk it, Tim? Finally, Donald Trump seems to have seen the light when it comes to Vladimir Putin. He's had enough of Russia and he's changed his mind and now wants to throw more military might behind Ukraine. Why has he changed his mind? Is it actually going to stick? We talked to Carla Sands, a businesswoman who knows Trump well, to tell us what's going on in the president's head. And to keep up the military theme, is James Cleverley now on manoeuvres? Welcome to The Daily Tea with me, Camilla Tomini. And me, Tim Stanley.

1:38Overnight, Donald Trump seems to have changed his mind on Ukraine. You'll remember that he was elected in 2024, promising to end the war very, very quickly. I will end that war in one day. It'll take 24 hours. I know Zelensky well. I know Putin well. I would get that ended in a period of... You can break that deal. 100 % it would be easy. That deal would be easy.

2:01Camilla: But it appears he has now had it up to here with Vladimir Putin and has told this to the BBC. Are you done with him? I mean, I know that sounds a simplistic thing. But I'm disappointed in him. But I'm not done with him, but I'm disappointed in him. We had a deal done four times and then you go home and you see he just attacked a nursing home or something in Kiev. I said, what the hell was that all about? Do you trust him? I trust almost nobody, to be honest with you. So how do you deal with someone you can't trust? Well, it's not a question of that. It's like I'm disappointed that this hasn't been done.

2:43Speaking in the Oval Office with Mark Rutter, who is the head of NATO, he offered two new policies. One, America is going to sell weapons to Europe, who will then pass them on to Ukraine. These are short-range missiles, howitzer rounds and medium-range air-to-air missiles. The second policy is he is threatening to hit Russia's trading partners with severe 100 % tariffs on imports to America if a peace deal with Russia hasn't been reached within 50 days.

3:16Camilla: Which is interesting because we've switched from sanctions now to tariffs. Yes. Why use sanctions if tariffs will do? And then in turn, could there be threats made to Russia's partner in crime, China, on the same level? Yeah. Just screw both economies. And of course, tariffs are also just his favourite weapons. His favourite thing to do is to hit something with a tariff. Establishment Republicans who have long supported Ukraine will absolutely love this. People like Senator Lindsey Graham. Most voters in America, when they're polled, dislike Russia and support Ukraine. But of course, part of the MAGA base is, dare I say, isolationist or anti-war.

3:52And they will be really browned off about this because they feel they voted for Trump to end the war. So how did we get to this place?

4:03Camilla: Carla Sands, former economic advisor to Donald Trump, a businesswoman and a former United States ambassador to Denmark, joins us now. Lovely to see you this morning, Carla. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. We are a little bit confused here because Trump seemingly was in support of Putin to an extent against Ukraine. We had that unedifying scene in the Oval Office with President Zelensky. And now he seems to have completely changed his mind on Russia and is sounding extremely hawkish. What's happened? What's changed? I think the problem is that the UK folks are listening to the left wing American media.

4:42President Trump is a dealmaker. President Trump wants the United States to be secure. President Trump is the peace president. Zelensky was out of line in the Oval Office. Putin has retraded on every deal that he verbally cut with President Trump. President Trump just looks at the world as it is, not as he wishes it could be. And so he's saying, I want to get a deal done here. I don't have an honest broker on one side. I've got a kind of squishy guy on the other side that benefits from the continuation of the bloodshed. So, you know, I think he's going to get a deal done. It's just going to be a lot harder than it had to be.

5:19His goal is to stop the killing and to make peace. So let's see. I think that he'll get it done. But now we see the threat of sanctions, more arms. It's getting uglier and more complicated. I take your point, Carla, about he wants a deal. But I suppose the view of many in the West is by saying you want to have a deal, you already hand a win to Putin. Because up until Joe Biden lost and Donald Trump took over, the general strategy was just keep fighting until Russia is ground down. And then it comes to the negotiating table because it's forced to. Whereas Donald Trump was happier instead to invite it to the negotiating table when it was in a slightly stronger position.

6:02So how does one explain why he has that attitude towards Russia, which is so very different to much of the West? Yeah, if I may, there were two premises you stated that were incorrect. It's not Russia that gets ground down. Russia's war, Russia's method of war is they ground down their opponents. So you've got the grinding down on the wrong side. That's Russia's method. And number two, President Trump understands this war has to have an end game. When you talk about just supplying weapons with no plan for winning, well, that's a losing strategy that just drains the treasury of the United States and of European capitals, and it impoverishes our people with no benefit.

6:49So President Trump is looking at this and saying, how do I end this? There has to be an end game. President Biden never even spoke to Vladimir Putin. He never even attempted to end the war. He simply fed the war machine and the killing. That has to stop. President Trump's goals are correct. I wish that the UK leaders and our European friends and allies, especially in NATO, would get their heads around the fact that this war is not winnable for Ukraine. It's not winnable. Ukraine cannot win. They're not part of NATO. And frankly, you'll hear this in the United States, this isn't our war. This is Europe's war.

7:32What was it caused by? Weak and flabby militaries throughout Europe, right? With very little capabilities, candidly, at that time when they were invaded in 2022, but also a feckless American president who oversaw the most disastrous withdrawal of any US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. We all saw the photos of people falling off the wings of planes, desperately trying to leave Afghanistan, the loss of American life. We saw him say, I'm not going to sanction Vladimir Putin's Nord Stream 2. Well, it wasn't just Vladimir Putin, was it? That deal with Gazprom was also with Germany. It was European, you know, the wealthy investing in this pipeline, bringing more Russian gas.

8:21Biden said, I'm not going to sanction it. And then third, Joe Biden from the podium said, well, if there's a minor incursion by Russia into Ukraine, a minor incursion or two, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to let it go. Well, that's it. That's holding the door open. It's an invitation for invasion. So we now have a strong president in the White House. I wish that our UK and European friends and allies would acknowledge it and work with President Trump to bring this conflict to an end, to help our societies grow. The UK just had a retraction, like lost ground for all of the people of Great Britain.

9:03And also your energy is very expensive and it's causing deindustrialization with the wild net zero agenda, which is anti-human. So if we can get our energy in a good place with our allies and partners, we need strong partners that are prosperous and that can have credible defenses, but also strong growing economies. This is important. We can't be a growing island alone and be strong as a nation. We need great partners. OK, Colin, if I may, even if perhaps Donald Trump's position hasn't changed, as you suggest, he was always all along looking for a deal to be struck. It is a change in the position of the Republican Party historically.

9:44First presidential campaign I cover was 2012, when Mitt Romney in a debate talked about Russia being the most important strategic opponent of the United States. Barack Obama slapped him down and said, I can see Ronald Reagan behind you on the bookshelf. He said the 80s called they want the foreign policy back. Republicans were incensed, and then when Russia attacked Ukraine, Republicans said, look, we were proven correct. So the traditional Republican position up to Donald Trump was take a strong stand on Russia on the basis that, OK, it's a European war. But ultimately, if America is to be the preeminent power in the globe, it cannot allow countries like Russia or China to bully their neighbors and by implication undermine or threaten American strategic superiority.

10:30I disagree with you. So I've been watching China over the past 30 years. We had bad trade deals with China. We had bad trade deals with other allies, for instance, Canada and Mexico since the 90s. the hollowing out of the United States, of our towns across the nation, the deindustrialization happened over the decades because governments on both sides of the aisle in the US incentivized companies to move their production offshore to Asia and then ultimately to China. And that has been what has caused the deindustrialization of the United States where everybody said, oh, now we're a service economy.

11:11We don't have to make things. But no, it's not true. You have to make things to be a great power. You have to make steel and aluminum. You have to make things that you will need in a conflict. You have to make rare earths and you have to process them on your own land. You have to be able to have pharmaceutical precursors and make your own pharmaceuticals. China has threatened us on all those things. China is the great, I would say, the greatest danger for UK, EU, US, for global sovereignty, for the freedoms that we in the West enjoy. And unfortunately, their kind of socialism is being imposed largely across the EU when you see what EU leadership is doing to take away freedom of speech, to try to do central planning, and to basically take over the sovereignty of individual nations.

12:06We need strong, sovereign countries. Nobody goes and fights and dies for the world. They fight for their country, for their culture, for their family, and for the flag, if you will.

12:20Camilla: But Carla, if the war in Ukraine can't be won, as you've just said, you've described Zelensky as the squishy guy wanting to prolong matters, why on July the 4th of all dates did Donald Trump say to President Zelensky, apparently? Why did he ask him, can Kiev target Moscow directly with the US's help? Why did he also say to Zelensky, apparently, that he wanted Ukraine to make them feel the pain? Why would he say that if he doesn't think there's a chance that Ukraine can defeat Russia? Well, but President Trump has just said he wants a peace deal within 50 days, or Russia will have 100 % tariffs on their energy.

13:04And the US Senate is threatening 500 % tariffs on anyone who does business with Russia. He's trying to jam a deal. And the fact is he's going to get a deal and Vladimir Putin should do a good deal, a better deal than he's going to get if it's an ugly deal. This war is going to end. President Trump's not going to let it drag out for years. I don't believe it. and Putin and his leadership team is going to have to come up with the best win that they can get and keep their dignity, but get out.

13:38Camilla: But don't you agree that Trump asking Zelensky whether Kyiv could drop bombs on Moscow is indicative of him perhaps leaning into the idea that Ukraine could win this with America's help? You know, I can't speak to what President Trump thinks he's going to do. I believe that this is a negotiation and that it's going to come to an end. We saw what President Trump did in Iran. He speaks kind of softly and carries a very big stick, if you will, to use an old analogy. I think we can anticipate surprises. He may keep the leadership in Moscow off balance as this moves forward. Remember that surprise is really good in negotiations, that your opponent doesn't know everything you're going to do is helpful.

14:30In fact, it's the only way that we'll defeat the Chinese Communist Party in their goal to be the global hegemon. Can you comment on what some of the MAGA base think about this policy shift? I know you don't think it's a shift, but just accepting that premise that there's been a slight change in tone, I mean, some of the MAGA base are not very happy with Donald Trump's foreign policy, be it on Iran. They were against intervention in Iran. Be it this, they just want the war to end and they don't understand why America is continuing to be involved. Tucker Carlson, the media giant, has become particularly critical of the president.

15:01Is there any sign of a slight split in the MAGA camp on this stuff? Well, you know, I think that people are people and they have their own opinions. There was a mixed opinion about bombing the nuclear capabilities in Iran. But as a matter of fact, President Trump took a really bold move and did it. And the outcome is excellent, right? Between Israel and the US, Iran, the global state sponsor, the greatest state sponsor of terror around the world is on their back foot. And that is a good thing. the people of Iran deserve to have opportunity like the people of UK do. They don't want to be ruled by these malas who are, you know, so, I mean, they're opposed to everything that we all love and share.

15:47The people of Iran deserve better. But President Trump with, you know, you have to think about how he's able to pivot and be nimble in order to get a good outcome. I think that in Europe and the UK, process is very important and kind of signaling what's coming and being very gentle about how you go about diplomacy. But President Trump looks at it and says, what's the outcome I need? How do I get there? And he's more about he's outcome focused, less than more than process focused. And I appreciate that. I agree with you. There is some mixed opinion among the base or Republicans about whether we should even send another anything to Ukraine.

16:39I would say probably half of his supporters don't want a thing going to Ukraine. And then about another half or maybe a third would like to continue to send arms. but they're not thinking strategically, like, what is the outcome? If you just continue to deplete your treasury and your arms when you have larger conflicts that you need to focus on, greater threats you need to focus on, then it becomes a sort of a no-brainer. But let's not forget that the war would end today if China stopped funding and assisting Russia in this war.

17:17Camilla: Final question, Carla. Is it not the case that he's had to pivot because he's been played by Putin? I mean, he said himself, we tried to go to the negotiation table four times. Putin said one thing and then shock horror. It's of no surprise to anybody in the Western world. Done completely the opposite. The man is a liar and a murderer charlatan, so he was never to be trusted. And now he's ramped up his attacks on Russia in the face of the US president trying to persuade him to do precisely the opposite. So he's been played, and ever the negotiator, the art of the deal now is to pivot. You can say what you will, but I disagree with your premise.

17:58You know, when you go into negotiation, sometimes you're dealing with people that you can trust, and sometimes you're dealing with people who will, you know, try to cheat and lie and steal from you. And that is the leadership in Moscow. and he still will get a deal done. It's just an uglier deal. It's just harder to get done because you don't have an honest broker across the table. But I think that his idea of keeping a friendly relationship with every world leader, being able to pick up the phone, being able to work on bringing this to an end is really important. The leaders have to be able to do that, but his team is working behind the scenes.

18:42I mean, I don't know that they're getting a lot of sleep right now working to bring this to an end. Carla Sands, thank you very much.

18:51Camilla: Wow, Carla. Yes. Look, she makes an interesting point, doesn't she, when it comes to it's all very well you and I sort of saying in a slightly Team America World Police way, oh, we must take on the Mullers and we must take on the communists. and it's just America against this axis of evil that we perceive China, Russia and North Korea to be. She's actually saying, it's all very well using all that kind of gung-ho rhetoric. We need a solution here. So actually, yeah, everything is about the art of the deal. Yes. That's credible, isn't it? I think she put it very well. There are very few administration people putting it as well, which is part of the problem.

19:31There are not enough Trump whisperers to explain to us in compelling and convincing terms what he's thinking and why. So it all ends up going through the filter of the media, which picks up on the inconsistencies or the outrageousness of what he says. And I'm personally not one of those Team America world police people. I'm one of those anti-war conservatives who wanted, if he had won, I would have wanted him to win in order to end wars. But I am satisfied to allow him to do what he thinks he needs to do, because I don't regard a vote for Trump as a vote for a particular ideology. It's a vote for a character.

20:06I'm trusting that he has a character I sympathize with, which is that of a dealmaker who wants peace on the best possible terms. And therefore, I'm willing to let him go away and negotiate. And sometimes to ramp it up, sometimes to go hawk, like he did with Iran. But I trust in his character that he won't go all the way to war. Because remember, with Iran, there was a week in which we all thought America might actually go to a war with Iran and people were talking about World War Three and all that. And I never thought that. I just thought, no, he's just going to let the Israelis bomb the nuclear sites.

20:40He might get involved himself and then he'll step back. Because like Carla, I see this from the point of view of he has the right character to be president in these foreign policy situations. I don't think he's going to set the world on fire.

20:52Camilla: But this is also what the left gets wrong about Trump. The left looks at Trump and because he is bombastic and bright orange and so vocal in his beliefs. People assume that he is gung-ho, trigger-happy. Yeah, that he's bellicose and he's not. You know, that he's literally like, you know, got a pump-action shotgun metaphorically strapped to his shoulder at any given period, willingly sending generals off into battle. He is not that person. No, no. And neither was Ronald Reagan, who, as I said, was behind Carla on the bookshelf. She had a little bust of Ronnie Reagan. She had a nice photo of her and Trump.

21:26Camilla: Did you see that on the left-hand side. Yes, you did. Reagan went to war with one country, the Caribbean island of Grenada, which was not in a position to fight back, right? No. He did not readily get involved in hot wars when a bomb went off in Beirut. He protested and pulled the Americans out. He negotiated for hostage releases. Traditional Republican position is actually one of extreme pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. The exception was George W. Bush. Trump is a return to normal. Yes. Which is why I keep coming back to... Because George W. Bush and Tony Blair just went off the reservation.

21:58Yeah, and of course it's so often Britain is the tail wagging the foreign policy dog and that's what a lot of conservative Americans think. They love Peter Mandelson, by the way. The Trump administration has really come around to Mandelson. They think he's great.

22:10Camilla: Why? But many, I guess he's just super charming and tells them everything they want to hear. Yeah, probably gossip as well. That's the way Mandelson gets ahead in life. He just tells people what they want to hear. But a lot of American conservatives actually blame us. They blame particularly Boris Johnson for the Ukraine war still going. They think it could have... Because they think that Boris was the international statesman on the back of his support for Ukraine, which, while great for his own political stature, might not have been good for troops on the ground. They think he disrupted negotiations in Istanbul and they might not be wrong.

22:39Camilla: I still do want the goodies taking on the baddies in a fairly robust way, though. Sorry to be old-fashioned about it. I still want the Ukrainians to win. And you know what? Trump has not just said, we're pulling out. He could do that. He could just say, this is it. I'm not having any more to do with it. You're done. He hasn't actually said that. But you can't have it both ways. We've discussed this before. On one hand, I'm the strong man on the world stage. I'm the most important player. It's USA, you know. I'm the big leader, and yet I'm going to back out when the going gets tough and not sort of lead the Western world over the top, so to speak.

23:12Camilla: Well, sorry, then you're perceived to be weak and an appeaser, and it doesn't play to the whole star-spangled approach that you're trying to take on the global stage. So you've got to be careful with that. I mean, we do expect... It's interesting, though, because this is all kind of America trying to help Ukraine, OK, as Carla says, not necessarily to win, but not to lose badly through its now European proxies. Just as it used Israel as its proxy in Iran, it's now saying, right, well, we give the weaponry via Europe. So it looks as if you're doing this, not us. But also Europeans will buy it. Now, what suckers are we that Europeans will pay for weaponry and then give it to Ukraine?

23:53I mean, that's weird, isn't it? Well, what do you want us to do? Why are we handing over our own stockpiles of weapons to Ukraine? I mean, Americans just think we're crazy. Hang on, I think the Americans,

24:03Camilla: aren't the Americans giving short-range missiles, how it surrounds, medium-range air-to-air missiles to Ukraine via us? They're selling the weapons to Europeans. European governments are then giving the weapons to Ukraine. So effectively, America is selling us our own war. Yes. So that's quite clever as a deal goes. He's good at deals. He's very good at deals and we're very bad at deals. But don't you want to be giving weapons to Ukraine? I do want to be giving weapons to Ukraine and I want Ukraine to win. But Trump's administration, again, left gets it wrong. It's not chauvinistic in the sense that it believes America is the greatest nation.

24:35If you say make America great again, you're conceding it's not great right now. They think it's overextended. They've noticed that the multipolarity is the future. China and Russia and India are going to be big players too. And they are worried that if America continues to, as you put it, go over the top, lead the West over the top. The point will come when, like the Roman Empire, it's so overstretched that it collapses. So for America actually to maintain strategic power in the world, it's actually got to say no to things as well as yes to things. It's got to stay out of some conflicts. That's why it's happy to bomb Iran's nuclear sites to stop it from getting the bomb, but it won't actually go to war with Iran because that would actually destroy American power.

25:16I love that. The next book from Trump, The Power of No. The power of no.

25:20Camilla: Also, I love how you're saying marga. You're saying marga like how Jacob Rees-Mogg, who, by the way, is on the podcast tomorrow, says maas. Is it maga? I've always thought it was maga, right. I say maas, you say maas. I say maga, you say marga. But you're a royal reporter and you know that it's mam, not maam. It's mam as in jam, not maam as in smam. Exactly. We're going to keep up the military theme because we had a very interesting interlude, if we can call it that, with James Cleverley, who absolutely does not want to challenge Kemi Badeknoch's leadership. I'll have you know. Discuss that in just a moment.

26:06Camilla: I'm Vinicia Rainey. And I'm Roland Oliphant. As hosts of The Telegraph's podcast Iran The Latest, it's our job to keep you up to speed on what's going on in the Middle East. Join us every day as we ask, can the US put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all? Who will come out on top in the peace talks? Has this war damaged America's ability to take on China? And what are the long-term implications for the wider world? Search Iran the latest and listen wherever you get your podcasts. We're also now on video. Watch us on YouTube and on The Telegraph's website.

26:45Tim, you and I met this morning bright and early at Methodist Central Hall in Westminster to listen to James Cleverley, formerly a Tory leadership candidate, now just a backbench MP for Braintree, address the Institute for Public

27:00Camilla: Policy Research. And I'm reflecting on it now and wondering, what was all that about? What was that? Why did he call us there? Why were we there, James, to drink this bad coffee and listen to him talk? He spoke for about half an hour about how to beat populism. And actually, the speech had some good thoughts in it. He's arguing real conservative philosophy here, which is to say it's not good enough just to say let's tear down systems and sack loads of civil servants. That's not how things work. If you just break things, you'll end up with something broken. Rather, you should have a strategic plan for how you transform institutions from within.

27:37And so the Conservative Party, he's saying, should be focused not upon like reform, saying loud, noisy, attractive things, but on promising delivery. And he mentioned again and again that when he was Home Secretary, he halved net migration. One should add, and no one did, that he halved it from an incredibly high figure that it had risen to under the Conservatives. Nonetheless, I take his point that rather than rhetorically talking about immigration and promising all sorts of things that he implies you can't deliver, better to actually deliver so the public will go, oh, it's worth voting for you because you get things done.

28:14Camilla: I liked the line, we need a restitution, not a revolution. Yes. So this is about him. Whoever wrote that for him is very clever. Are you suggesting he didn't write it? No, no. What he's saying really is that reform aren't being realistic with any of their policies. Labour are so calamitous as to be completely dismissed. And by the way, we did have some polling today, didn't we, from Portland saying three in four voters don't know what Keir Starmer stands for. Yeah. Bit problematic a year in. he's trying to pave the way for sensible conservatism or at least the desire for sensible competent conservatism to win the day again to shine through between where sort of reform meets reality and labour hits calamity that's what he's trying to do but then as ever we were both sitting there deeply suspicious of the motivations because he framed it as I am here to criticise the populism of reform but implicit within that is he's criticising the populism of people within his own party.

29:22Camilla: We're talking about Kemmy Baton. We're talking about Kemmy Baton, but also Rob Jenrick. Oh, Robert Jenrick, who you pointed out to me yesterday, has taken the social media so far that he has spotted, you spotted an image that he had posted of himself in a lake, draped in a white towel, which is reminiscent of Colin Firth emerging from the fountain in that very famous BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. We've had Rob Jenrick arguing with people in train stations. We've had Rob Jenrick climbing Mount Snowden. I think we are days away from the Rob Jenrick sex tape dropping. Stop it. I don't think Mrs Jenrick would advocate that.

30:00Camilla: I thought you were going to say, yes, Robert Jenrick, the sequel. Who knows how he might emerge? But so we've got poor old Kemi Badenow. She's putting in a shift here, isn't she? Yeah. She's got Robert to the right of her, James Cleverley to the left of her. Yes, and she has been saying all along, let's not make policy up on the hoof. Let's go away and talk about and think about it. So we offer people a costed manifesto at the next election. But it's approaching a year, what is it, like nine months into her leadership. People are noticing that reform is at 34%. The Tories are sometimes below 20 % in the polls.

30:33It's not working. You have to say something to get noticed. so she has, perhaps against her own instinct, started to say stuff in a bid to get notice. Oh, we might leave the ECHR. We might rethink net zero. So the moment she starts to say stuff that gets journalists like us sitting up and thinking, oh, wow, maybe the Tory party has changed. Maybe it's got something to say. Maybe you don't have to vote reform. People like cleverly start to stand up and say, I'm not criticizing Kemi, but I don't think people should go around making promises they can't stick to.

31:05Camilla: And he backed away from the idea of leaving the East HR, just as in a previous speech, he backed away from the idea of Kemi saying that net zero by 2050 was impossible. Now, I put this to him, didn't I? And it got a little testy. Let's have a listen. Do you still harbour leadership ambitions? And I ask that because you've mentioned in the conclusion of your speech, the importance of strong leadership, but not actually linked that to Kemi Badenock. And the previous intervention that we've heard from you in the last few months has been to actually go against her claim that we should cancel net zero by 2050.

31:44Camilla, you need to read the speech that I gave. And I know you guys wrote up that that was a big attack on net zero, but a couple of points. The speech wasn't about net zero. I never even mentioned net zero. But, you know, why let facts get in the way of a good headline, eh? so and I've said this I've said this privately I've said this publicly and I said this when I got knocked out of the leadership and a number of people came up to me even before the competition had finished saying oh you've got to get yourself ready da da da and I said look we have got to get out of this habit of cycling through leaders in the hope that ditching this one and picking a new one will make life easy for us I said that at the time I say it still I still mean it.

32:30And also, again, I've said this to people publicly. If you watch someone stick the knife in the back of the current leader, and then that person says, do you want to stand where the current leader just stood? And I'm like, well, where the knives are out, that's not such a compelling, that's not such a compelling thing. We've got to stop. And again, it kind of links back to the point I made in the speech. We've got to stop grasping for these easy solutions. Oh, a new leader, that will solve all our problems. Well, we tried that a number of times in the last government. It did not end well. And I can't remember who said it.

33:10It's probably apocryphal, but Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have been, is it swipe left or swipe right? I'm happily married, so I don't know which way the apps work, but whatever the equivalent is, that kind of like, yeah, try again, yeah, try again, yeah, try again. If we keep doing that, we shouldn't be surprised if we keep getting the same result. Last time I checked, the result was not what we wanted. So maybe let's not do that. So while you're having this conversation with him, I got my phone out and Googled the speech. And he was correct that he didn't technically refer to net zero in that speech.

33:42But he did say in the course of it, and by the way, it's printed on Conhome and it's riddled with spelling mistakes. He said, over the past few years, there have, of course, rightly been discussions within the Conservative Party about how we balance our environmental commitments with the need to secure economic growth and energy independence. So he was framing his speech as speaking to debates within the Conservative Party. And he went on to say, the idea that we must choose between a strong economy and protecting our environment is outdated and wrong. So I'm referring here to a debate that's going on in the Tory party, and I am taking the position that it is wrong to say that it's bad for economic growth to be pro-environment.

34:22He did not explicitly say that the net zero policy was wrong, but come on, that's what it means.

34:29Camilla: So obviously we are not going to take it lying down at the Telegraph to be accused of misrepresenting politics. We didn't get where we are today, Tim Stanley. By lying about politicians. By lying about politicians. In the copy that we wrote up, because I also read that, our colleague Genevieve Holl Allen wrote up the speech and said, he does not explicitly refer to net zero, but dot, dot, dot. This doesn't seem to be in line with what Kemi Badenock is saying. So we caught up with him afterwards to get some clarity on where he does actually stand on net zero. I just want to settle this debate that we're having about net zero.

35:03Camilla: OK, when we wrote up the piece, we said you weren't going to directly reference net zero, but you were speaking in a different way to Kemi Badenock, who had only a few weeks earlier said, and I quote Badenock, Net zero by 2050 is impossible. So do you agree with the party leader or disagree we were on that? So I think she's right. I think she's right that at the time when net zero is being talked about, the time when Theresa May put it forward, the time when the Conservative Party and government supported it, it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was prior to the massive energy disruptions that we saw at that point.

35:40It was prior to that massive energy spike. And it was prior to some really big changes in the Middle East. And when circumstances change that fundamentally, you can do one of two things. You can say, oh, we said it once, so we have to keep saying it over and over again, or you adapt. And what Kemi was saying is that we have to adapt. The point I was making in the speech is that we mustn't, and I fear this is what a number of people have done, We mustn't look at the words net zero and think that that means everything to do with renewable energy or energy innovation, that kind of stuff. They are not.

36:20You can't transpose those words.

36:22Camilla: It's not the catch-all phrase for all environmental reform. Bingo. And the point I'm saying is, if we want sub-Saharan African farmers not to fall victim to people smugglers, we've got to make sure they can still grow food on their farms. If we want Britain to compete with China in exporting next generation energy production and storage, we need to keep developing stuff. And that's the point I'm saying about let's not be Luddites. The circumstances changed fundamentally with net zero, but let's not throw the baby out of the bathwater. That's what the speech was about. And one more quick question.

36:56Camilla: You kept on referring to kind of anarchists that want to break up the system. Were you talking about Dominic Cummings? Well, anybody that says, I've got a simple answer to these complicated problems, just smash it up and start again, is talking nonsense. And I think it's, you know, my view is for people who have been in the heart of government to basically start proposing stuff that they must know is just not credible enough, but just not possible. It's, I don't think it's a serious proposition. and so tempting, headline grabbing, but just not credible. OK. James Cleverley, thank you very much indeed.

37:38Camilla: She's well. Thank you. So he sort of says, yes, I do support Kemi. Yes. And by saying that... Does he, though? I feel that these two blokes are just waiting for her to fall. Yes. They're not going to take her out. That would be, frankly, suicidal at this stage. I mean, how much infighting can this Tory party sustain? I mean, imagine if they get rid of Kemi, but they just will look so ridiculous. It will make reform look positively sensible and coherent in its party management. Yes. So they can't do that. But don't you just get the impression they're both waiting in the wings for her to fall? If they are not, then there was no point to that speech whatsoever.

38:22Why call everyone together to give a speech in which you say, I'm just reflecting upon our war with reform and I'm totally behind the leader. You don't need to give that speech.

38:31Camilla: No. Unless he's sort of promoting himself for future appearances on cruise ships or something. What would you do if you're Badenock, though? I'd bring both these blokes in closer. Yep. He rejected, I think, a shadow cabinet role. He should probably take one because he would be more effective, I think, than some other shadow cabinet members. Yes, and he'd have a proper platform for giving speeches. Yes, which should be in favour of her. And then Jenrick. I mean, if I were her, I'd just bring him in, borrow some of his communications people, have him as her deputy or something. I'd steal his staff, definitely.

39:09Camilla: Yes. But if I was her, I would ignore them both because I think the argument is understood within the Tory party, among the people who matter, i.e. the donors, that the party will look ridiculous if it changes leader. And for that reason alone, I think reform is her best friend, the threat of reform. She can probably just coast through to the next election without a leadership challenge because no one wants to blow the party up at this stage. And the donors like her. They've given her five million quid in Q1. Right. That's double the donations to Labour and far more than Rishi Sunak raised last summer.

39:44Jenrick and Cleverley are waiting for her to realise the polls aren't good and resign voluntarily. I can't see that happening. I don't think she's a quitter.

39:53Camilla: No. But let's see. We won't quit. As I said, I'm going to be back. You're going to be sketching away and running around the Houses of Parliament. So I am going to be presenting the podcast tomorrow with Jacob Rees-Mogg. And we shall be reunited, Tim, on Thursday, 5pm.

40:09Thank you.