A (2:03)

Hello, it's Paddy in the studio.

B (2:04)

It's Laura in the studio and it's Henry at home.

C (2:07)

Henry at home is like a thing now, isn't it? Sounds like a sitcom. Henry at home.

B (2:11)

I. I wouldn't watch that if I.

C (2:13)

Were anyone, but I totally would. By the way, that sounds exactly the kind of thing up my street like to the man are born keeping up appearances. Henry at home, it just trips off the tongue.

B (2:23)

It might be an insult, but I'll take it.

C (2:25)

It's not a.

B (2:26)

Those comparisons.

C (2:27)

I'm A child of the 80s. That is absolutely not an insult at all. That's the highest compliment.

A (2:32)

Yes. You're being compared to Penelope, Keith Henry.

C (2:35)

Brushstrokes. Another one. Anybody else remember brushstrokes? I love brushstrokes.

A (2:40)

Right. Back in the news, there's been a very big development in the career of Peter Mandelson, who was sacked as the UK ambassador. And you've had the first interview with him, which we're going to talk about.

C (2:54)

We are going to talk about. And there was a lot in the interview to digest, and it really is worth a listen to it in full. But if you haven't got time to do that or you're listening to newscasts before you've heard the whole interview, just to take you through the main kind of headlines of what he said. He told me he never saw anything, any behavior around Epstein, any young women, anything that ever gave him cause for concern. He said that Epstein and Epstein's lawyer had spent a long time convincing him that he'd done nothing wrong after he was convicted. He also said he believes he was kept separate from Epstein's sexual behavior and sex life because he was gay. So he basically said, I had no idea about what was going on in that part of his life, and I think that's probably because I'm a gay man. He also says although neither he nor Downing street had known about the emails when he was given the job as American ambassador, he did say Downing street knew everything. So essentially, he was having a bit of a pop at number 10 there, although he doesn't dump on Keir Starmer in a big way, which they'll be very relieved about, I think. But he does say that Downing street knew everything. He also said, look, I'm sorry that there was a system that didn't protect these young women, but he would not apologize. And I asked him a couple of times, he would not apologize or chose not to apologize for carrying on his friendship with Epstein after he had been convicted of abusing young women. So that's just a little summary of what he said during a long interview. There's also lots of really fascinating stuff about how he interprets Donald Trump. So that is also really important.

A (4:29)

He says that number 10 didn't know about the emails because neither did he.

C (4:34)

So you watched it for the first time, Henry, on the TV this morning. What stood out to you?

B (4:38)

Well, it was a fascinating interview in two distinct ways, because first you had the man who the Prime Minister had trusted to interpret and deal with America on his behalf, initially giving us his analysis of what has been perhaps the most, in global terms, consequential week and a bit of Donald Trump's second presidency so far, and that was all quite significant. And then you also had Peter Mandelson, the man who's been at the heart of the Labour Party, as you say, for 40 years. I think, you know, fighting to justify his presence in public life by trying to deal with the question of why his association with Jeffrey Epstein continued for as long as it did and the nature of that association. And. And it's kind of quite hard to sort of analyze them both at the same time because they're so different. I mean, I think when it comes to the questions about his association with Jeffrey Epstein, there will be some people that. That satisfied. For example, Gloria de Piero on your panel, former labor politician and now journalist, including at GP News. I mean, she was a journalist before she was a politician as well. But I. My hunch would be that it's still going to be pretty hard for him to return to the role in public life as a sort of regular opiner and influential figure in public in the Labour Party that he was before he got appointed to the ambassador position. In terms of his analysis of America, I thought it was really interesting and I think I perhaps got. And I'm interested in what you thought, Laura. He was trying to be sort of loyal, but I thought the subtext was that he's not quite sure that this government is handling what Trump has done over the past ten days quite right.

C (6:25)

I think that's absolutely bang on. Let's come to that perhaps in a while, because I'm interested in how you think his apology for the system, but decision not to apologise for his friendship with Epstein after Epstein's conviction, how you think that will play publicly and also with other politicians, because Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, was with us shortly after the interview and I have to say, I think she seemed absolutely furious that he hadn't done that.

D (6:53)

What has happened here is that those new emails were published in September. There was new information in there, particularly relating to. To Peter Mandelson's suggestion that the first conviction of Jeffrey Epstein was a wrongful conviction and that it should be challenged. That wasn't information that the Prime Minister had at the time he appointed him Ambassador to the United States. As soon as he became aware of that new information, he obviously acted within hours to withdraw him from that post with immediate effects.

C (7:26)

Should Lord Mandelson, in your review, have apologised to Epstein's victims for continuing his son, friendship with him after Epstein's first conviction.

D (7:35)

Well, I think what we saw there in that interview was, at best, deep naivety from Peter Mandelson. And I think it would have gone a long way for the women who were subjected to the most appalling treatment at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, for Peter to have apologised and taken that opportunity. Yes, I do.

C (7:54)

Was it naive, though, too, for the government to have given him that job when his relationship with Epstein. Epstein was known and he feels that he was. It seems he feels he was badly treated because there was nothing secret about his friendship with her.

D (8:06)

I think the breadth and the nature of the relationship that Peter Mandelson had with Jeffrey Epstein only became clear at the point at which those emails were published in September of last year. And that's why the Prime Minister acted swiftly, took immediate action to remove him as the Ambassador to the United States. Whilst there would clearly be a discussion about due diligence before you appoint somebody to such a role, it is my understanding that the detailed information was not available. Peter, by his own admission, said basically he couldn't remember the emails, but it was there in black and white. He basically said to Jeffrey Epstein, I believe that this is a wrongful conviction and you should challenge it. And I think, you know, if somebody that I was associated with was in that situation, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, is the truth of the matter.

A (9:00)

Yes. So there's a lot going on in this Heidi Alexander reaction, which I think the first thing is the bombshell nature of those emails which Peter Mandelson told you he had forgotten about and number 10 didn't know about. And you think of everyone in your life imagining that a dead man's emails can come back 20 years after he received them, then you have to recall Kemi Badenoch's intervention in the Commons. That's part of this timeline. And then on the word timeline, it's the conviction. It's the conviction in a court law. And Henry, isn't it? It's not so much that I believe the lawyer, it's that in the middle of that, a court, a judge, had decided that he was guilty.

C (9:42)

And I think that's what's problematic for Lord Mandelston here, although he's obviously trying to move on, is he, many people might think can't be blamed for the fact that one of his friends was doing appalling things. He calls Epstein an evil monster. Where it changes is once Epstein has been convicted of doing terrible things, to then say your friends are here for you, your friends love you, fight for your early release, to carry on then for years after contact and association. When you're somebody with a big presence in public life, that's where it becomes tricky. And I think, Henry, that even some people in his own, his own part of the Labour Party, or I think some people who are inclined to feel warmly or to feel sympathy towards him, are going to find that bit of it remains very hard to understand or justify.

B (10:36)

Yeah. And I thought a really fascinating exchange was when you asked Peter Mandelson about his sacking and he said that he understood why he'd been sacked. And I think that was Peter Mandelson, the former spin doctor, the former senior lieutenant of not just Tony Blair, but I think has often forgotten Neil Kinnup before him as well. You know, that Peter Mandelson would obviously, I think, have advised a leader who he was close to to sack someone who was embroiled in the same issue that Peter Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US became in broad. I mean, perhaps that's unfair, but that's certainly my reading of that section of it. But I do think you can also understand why Lord Mandelson might feel frustrated with number 10. Because actually, other than the content of the emails, the fact that Lord Mandelson had continued an association with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction was already in the public domain. What the emails told us was that in vivid detail was that Lord Mandelson thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent after his conviction. Well, it kind of only makes sense for him to continue his association with Jeffrey Epstein if he thought he was innocent. And I think number 10 never quite managed to explain why they'd thought that association was okay in the first place. Then they got emails describing the fact that Lord Mandelson thought Jeffrey Epstein was innocent after his conviction rather than guilty, and continued that association and decided at that point to sack him. And we, we know why they sacked him. It was because the political pressure became unbearable. And many people would say it should have been unbearable beforehand. But nevertheless, I think, you know, there are still issues for number 10 here, but of course they're. They've kind of gone because they sacked him and that's why they sacked him.

C (12:23)

It is nonetheless awkward for them that this comes back up, you know, just a moment when number 10 is, you know, trying so hard and so determined to try to get onto the issues that they think are going to try to cheer up the public, whether it's, you know, money for potholes that Heidi Alexander was talking about. Today or the support for energy bills or this, that and the other. You know, yet again this raises its head. The foreign situation is absolutely head spinning and dominating. So many headlines and again, inevitably they are going to find themselves with headlines about something that was deeply, deeply embarrassing. But I just wonder how you think people are going to respond to it, maybe more broadly. I mean, Patty, you had the former Tory leader, Ruth Davis, Tory Scottish leader, not former Tory leader. There were people who hope that one day she might become this Tory leader. But politics has taken a different turn. She's now in the House of Lords. And Ruth Davidson was with you on Broadcasting House this morning.

A (13:18)

We have a panel of guests who we invite in advance. And it's by coincidence that Baroness Davidson was on today. She is married to a woman and therefore when it came to address all of our guests today, she was simply one of the people who was responding. But it's obviously relevant to this conversation and she reacts specifically to the section when Peter Manuson told you that he was treated differently because he was gay.

E (13:43)

Let's not use your sexuality as a shield here, Peter. There is no way that some, that Peter Epstein was holding straight parties and gay parties. I just, I don't for a second believe that somebody is astute and has switched on as Peter Mandelson can't make the link between going to someplace nicknamed, widely nicknamed Pedo island on an airplane called the Lolita Express was in some way completely in the dark. Now, obviously I, I don't know what Peter saw or what he didn't see, but I think that and have been continually aggrieved that in something that was deeply troubling about young women, vulnerable young women being exploited by rich, bulletproof men, that the only people have ever been prosecuted in this has been a woman.

C (14:28)

Now, it's worth saying Peter Manderson did say in the interview, he said, I never saw anything. I never saw young women. He said some of the times that he stayed at Epstein's properties, there were two middle aged housekeepers there. He said also Epstein himself wasn't always there. So he said very adamantly he never saw anything. There were never young women floating around. However, it's interesting to hear Ruth Davidson respond in that way, saying, look, don't put your sexuality out there as part of this conversation.

B (14:55)

Just to return to the sort of other half of the interview, which is Lord Mandelson speaking as a former UK ambassador to the US I mean, we should just dwell briefly on what he said about Greenland. Lord Mandelson appears to be confident that Donald Trump is not going to invade Greenland, essentially, at least by force. But he also did suggest that there is going to end up being some sort of resolution to this situation in which the US has a much bigger role in securing or policing the Arctic, stopping China and Russia from having a role there. I thought that was really interesting. And I just think one thing worth mentioning is that just a few days before Christmas, number 10 announced who the successor to Lord Mandelson will be. And it's a man called Christian Turner, who most newscasters won't have heard of. And they won't have heard of him, because unlike Lord Mandelson, he's a career diplomat. And I think it's just worth saying the chronology of this number 10 didn't decide our ambassador to the US must be Peter Mandelson. They decided we need a different kind of ambassador in the Trump presidency. We need a politician, someone who is different to the profile of person you get in the Foreign Office. So they didn't just interview Lord Mansell, they also interviewed George Osborne, former Conservative Chancellor. I think we're led to understand that David Miliband had conversations about it, former Labour Foreign Secretary, that Kathy Ashton, the former Labour politician who had a big role in the eu, was spoken to about it. So I do just think it's really interesting at this time of big flux, to say the least, in the international situation, that Downing street in the Foreign Office reverted to type. Christian Turn is very distinguished, former ambassador to various places. But it is quite interesting that you have Lord Mandelson, a former politician, interpreting what Donald Trump is saying, at least to some degree, as bluster. And I just am curious whether the new inhabitant of the role, steeped, unlike Lord Mandelson in the Foreign Office, will end up having a different perspective and how number 10 will come to value or not value that advice. Because one thing that everybody said at the time that Lord Mandelson was being sacked was that they thought he was doing a very good job.

A (17:04)

Also, he wrote in the Spectator a piece about how Europe. This is Europe's moment, which it's losing, to step up and be quick, swift, strong. And that's in a lot of the Sunday papers. One part of our job here on Sunday's newscast is the best of broadcast and the best of print. And there's a lot of writing today about how Europe's not got its accurate mojo at the moment in dealing with the White House.

C (17:29)

And I think that's very clear. That's why Peter Manelson was willing this week to Step back in front of a microphone, which is to newscasters. He has not been willing to come in front of a microphone up until this point. And I think because he wanted to share and tell people this, he believes an important message about how to interpret Donald Trump and how to respond to Donald Trump. And one of the things he said to us is like, there, I know fine well, there are people in this country, and I'm paraphrasing, who would rather clutch their pearls. He did use that phrase, who would rather clutch their pearls, that actually deal with the realities of the world. But we have to deal with the world as it is now. There is no point, he says, worrying about Donald Trump's tone and how he says things. The point here is that Europe must show to be taken seriously, they have to spend more on hard power, they have to invest more in the military. We have to take a more sort of muscular approach. And he didn't say it rudely, but he made it very clear that he doesn't think that the UK's plans to spend more on defense are anything like as detailed as they are as they ought to be in this context. And I wrote a bit about that for the website yesterday. That is clearly, and we've talked about it a lot in the last couple of years, but this issue is becoming more and more and more and more pressing. Yes, the government has put in a very significant increase to defense spending, but where the money is going to come from is not clear after the next couple of years. And there's reports in the last few days that there's a gaping hole of more than 20 billion pounds, nearly 30 billion pounds in the existing defense budget. So I think that's a message that he also really wanted to land. And I think newscasters are going to hear other people using that and using that argument more and more in the coming months. It's an argument the Conservatives are already making. And privately there are more people in labor circles who sort of say, oh, gosh, yes, it is. Oh, it's all very difficult. We're going to have to kind of find money somewhere. But we know what the state of the book says. We know what the level of the debt is, we know what the level of welfare spending is. We know how much people want to spend money on hospitals and schools. But if the government's promises on spending on defense are to be kept, that's going to mean either lots of money being cut from other ails, or borrowed or coming from tax.

A (19:46)

Well, I wonder if we should change the subject now. Because you also had a leader interview.

C (19:52)

Yes.

A (19:52)

With Kemi Badenok.

C (19:54)

Yes. Next episode in the box set.

A (19:55)

In the box set of leader interviews. And Henry, over to you to tell us what kind of Kemi Beynot we got. There was a period in her political leadership when she was being laughed at as Conservative leader. And I mentioned earlier in this newscast how one of the defining moments was when she went after Keir Starmer over Peter Mandelson. So what kind of Kemi Badenoch presented herself to the nation today, Henry?

B (20:22)

The post PMQs at which she went for Keir Starmer over Peter Mandelson, Kemi Badenoch. I mean, I think that was by coincidence or by consequence the turning point in Kemi Badenoch's leadership, actually, because it was the first time she clearly landed some blows on the Prime Minister and she grew in confidence. It was very shortly before party conference where she gave an excellent speech and she is not a laughingstock anymore. She was a laughingstock, frankly, for the majority of her time as leader of the Conservative Party. And more to the point, there have now been a clutch of polls in the new year, in this new year in which they've been ahead of Labour in second place. And if that becomes a trend, I think that will have quite a big impact on the conversations around the Labour leadership. But anyway, Kemi Badenoch actually came armed with a new story, quite a significant one, which I think we'll be talking about for a while, which is that she said, like Australia, the UK should ban under 16s from accessing social media platforms. That is a interesting shift in policy from the Conservatives. I think it will pile pressure on the Labour government, some of whose MPs already want them to do the same. And I wouldn't be at all shocked if this is government policy by the time of the next election.

C (21:38)

You do get the sense, actually, when you talk to people in Labour about this, and, you know, we've talked a lot about it at the weekends, haven't we, that there's just a hint that they're kind of looking for a bit of a way out on it, you know, because this has been building and bubbling and today a teaching union came out lots of in support of this. Lots of campaigners have been calling for it a while. Then Australia moves in and the Australian government under Anthony Albanese is something of a kindred spirit to the Labour government here. And you just get a sense, especially after the row over the Grok AI platform behavior this week, you just have a bit of a hint that the government is Kind of looking for a way to toughen up these laws and to make a move here without too much embarrassment. Yeah, we don't know if that's going to be the case, but there's going to be action in Parliament because the Tories are going to try and get this through the House of Lords and then get it back into the Commons. There's another vote coming as well about banning phones in schools, using the law to do that, rather than just saying to head teachers, oh, you should probably ban them, and you just get this building sense. But it's really interesting padding from another point of view, because it's not a very Tory policy, theoretically, if you think, well, don't they stand for freedom of speech and should be up to parents, not the government, to tell families what to do.

A (22:48)

Yes. She's trying to speak in doorstepable issues, it seems to me, because she's also said she'd abolished many business rates and now she says she's going to ban social media use for under 16. These are simple sentences which define policy and put some idea in voters mind, who she is, what she stands for. And I suppose the interesting thing is, for all of us is that we know social media can be a cesspit and we navigate it as adults. But the question is, for loads of our listeners, how do you navigate it as a child and what is the responsibility on the parent and what is the responsibility on the state? So, I mean, it is, it is. That's a conservative issue, family issues.

C (23:29)

It is. And she says, look, that's the distinction. Adults can do what they like within the law, kids should not be left vulnerable and parents are screaming out for help. What's interesting is whether you're talking to people about it in government or indeed people about it in the opposition parties, the comparison's been made to me that it's a bit like having seat belts in cars. No one's necessarily going to go out and do it on their own. And actually, sometimes you need government to step in and have a rule, even though you don't necessarily want to force people to do it. Even if you don't want to be on an estate and finger wagging, sometimes there are issues where it has to come to government to step in. The flip side of this is, is it realistic to think that you can keep under 16s off social media? Is there a risk if you do it, that all they'll do is to go to darker places on the Internet or to platforms that aren't regulated because kids are smart and they can get around these things and is it even remotely workable? So this is not a kind of slam dunk, you know, this is not a straightforward issue. And of course, we would never, you know, we're not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but from a political point of view, as Henry suggested, there's no doubt the pressure on government to move on. This is building. Tomorrow there's going to be guidance from, I think, the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary about screen time for under fives. But it does feel to me, Henry, that this whole area is becoming harder and hotter for the government to deal with, not least because at senior levels in the government, there's a real skepticism about whether the regulator Ofcom is doing a good enough job at trying to make sure all the harms are as minimized as they can be.

B (25:12)

That's. I mean, that last point is definitely true about frustration with the regulator.

C (25:17)

I'm glad you said that and made it up.

B (25:19)

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I just meant it. I've heard that too. I've encountered that frustration.

C (25:24)

The last one, that's definitely true.

A (25:26)

The last part of what Laura said is definitely true.

C (25:28)

The rest of it.

B (25:29)

No, no, no, I meant it like that. I said it like that because all through what Laura was saying, I was thinking that I was going to make a different point. But I also just wanted to say I've encountered that frustration with the regulator Ofcom as well. But the additional point that I was going to make was that that pressure is building, I think, on the government, even this morning, because while Laura was interviewing Kemi Badenoch, an influential viewer decided to use social media to say that they agreed with Kemi Banoch. And that was Andy Burnham, who, as newscasters all know, is the mayor of Greater Manchester and is also the Great Prince across the water for at least some people. And that's quite interesting and that's quite significant. Laura ended up putting it to Heidi Alexander, which drew attention to the fact that the government is not just now in a different place to the Conservative Party, is also in a different place to some parts of the. The Labour movement. And that is a bit of an uncomfortable position for them.

A (26:23)

So this is really. News will eat itself. We're on the podcast talking about the broadcast and watching the broadcast was the mayor of Greater Manchester, the former Labour MP and minister. What did he say? Did he say, I. Kemi Bano's right, we should ban smart social media use?

C (26:39)

Pretty much, yeah.

B (26:40)

Essentially, I don't have the Exact words in front of me. But that is. Oh, hang on, I've got it now.

C (26:46)

Uh, yeah, let's just read it out.

B (26:48)

He said. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Kemi Badenok is saying about children and social media. It seems to me parents would welcome a cross party consensus around much bolder action. I mean, that is Andy Burnham saying the Labour Party should join the consensus that the Conservative Party is forming here around much bolder action, which is to say, banning social media for under 16s.

C (27:10)

So interesting that he felt the need to say that publicly when his colleague in the Cabinet is sitting on the telly. Very interesting. And I think, you know, polling suggests this would be popular. Polling doesn't always give you a true readout of how things would actually pan out, but polling suggests some elements of this would be popular. But, you know, let's see. But I think, as ever, you know, it's one of the myriad ways where our relationship with technology as a society is becoming more and more and more and more of the debate and the conversation in our politics, and which is just. It's a reflection of how we live our lives. Technology is more of a part of our lives and therefore it's more of a part of our politics. And I have to say, it's not necessarily something that many people in politics, whether in Whitehall or Holyrood or Cardiff or Storm or anywhere else, there's not many people around who are experts in tech. And it was interesting, the whole debate about Grok this week. As I understand it, it's not the only app where you can do the terrible thing of nudifying an image, but the kind of giant political spark start flying because it's Elon Musk's app. And then all the politicians who spend a lot of time on X, then get in a flap about what to do about X, and you can see how this just becomes a. A kind of Catherine wheel spinning round and round, but with lots of people who aren't necessarily versed in the realities of technology. I'm not suggesting they don't what they're talking about. I'm not a technological expert either. I just think there's a lot of debate in Westminster about tech that doesn't necessarily have a full understanding.

A (28:47)

A useful. I want to move on to ask you about reform, but let me. A useful way I've been finding this, who's not an expert, is to imagine myself in the future looking back. And I think we. We will look back at this time and we will say that the Australian decision was a tipping point in this argument. I think that's helping me understand where policy's moving. I like to do that sometimes to understand what on earth I'm thinking. So with that in mind, can you both brief us? Because I didn't see it on the issue of will there be a pact between the Conservatives and reform and whatever Kemi banox says on BBC1, does that automatically rule out a pact in the future? To my point about the future, what's she saying about a pact?

C (29:28)

Well, she said this morning that reformer authoritarian and that she would never have any deal with them. If we go to 2029, let's put ourselves into the Tardis, which I think can go forward, not just backwards. But I'm not a big Doctor who fan, so who knows? So correct me if I am inevitably wrong. Can you imagine, dear newscaster, that labor doesn't have a majority, Reform doesn't have a majority, the Tories don't have a majority. But the Tories have two options. Do they say, we would never work with the Reform Party because they are authoritarian and ghastly, as Kenny Bergnott was saying this morning, and therefore we will miss out on the opportunity to get bums on seats in government and we will miss out on the opportunity to get the Labour Party out of power? Or do they hold their nose and say, okay, let's do some kind of a deal with reform in order to get some bums on seats back in government, to get Labour out of power and in order to return to having influence over actually what is decided in this country by government rather than just being able to put political pressure on Newscaster. Pick your version. But I don't think that what came in, Badenock says, in January 2026 is necessarily an accurate predictor of what that decision might be.

B (30:53)

I think it also bites just before a general election as well, because if it were, and this is not actually, as it stands, an implausible scenario, though of course, we're several years away and lots of things can happen. But if it seemed possible just before a general election, that a split vote on the right was going to make it much likelier that the Labour Party would remain in government, I think you have to ask yourself this. Would the majority of Conservative MPs rather Nigel Farage became Prime minister or Keir Starmer got another five years as prime minister? I actually think the answer right now, I haven't asked all of them, but I'm pretty sure the answer right now is that they'd rather Nigel Farage as Prime Minister. And I think that's a bit underappreciated because that wouldn't necessarily have been the case with some past Conservative parliamentary parties and some past Labour leaders and some past incarnations of Nigel Farage. But I think that is where the Conservative Party in Parliament is broadly now. And I think that means that there would be, if the polling landscape remained roughly similar to where it is now, quite a lot of frenzied conversations in the run up to a general election to ensure avoiding a split between two parties of the rye.

C (32:06)

Two other things to say. Don't forget, in 2019, it was Nigel Farage's decision to withdraw some candidates or to stand back in lots of seats. That landed Boris Johnson with an enormous majority. Well, it seemed enormous at the time. Majority of 80. Important fact number one. Important fact number two, if, as Henry says, the polling landscape remains roughly the same, I think a lot of the run into the next general election is going to be about the possibilities of who would do a deal with who. Yeah, that's going to be a conversation about labor and the Lib Dems, maybe. What about labor and the Greens or Labor, the Lib Dems and the Greens.

A (32:43)

Because of multi party Britain?

C (32:45)

Well, I think because we should introduce a new concept because of block Britain.

A (32:50)

Okay.

C (32:50)

Which I think is different to multi party Britain, because multi party. Somehow I probably get told off by John Curtis. Never a good place to be. It's a sort of psychological difference, I think, with a multi party thing, because then you somehow, in your head, or in my head anyway, they're sort of all rivals. It's kind of like the Grand National. I just wonder and did we talk about this last night or last week.

A (33:11)

Or did I dream this?

C (33:12)

Oh, sorry. Well, I'm trying again to ram it down your throat if what we're looking at really is this. Two big blocks. That's kind of different, isn't it, to the horse race of multi party Britain?

A (33:23)

They're not mutually exclusive.

C (33:24)

No, they're not.

A (33:25)

You can have mutual. You can have multi party and blocks and.

C (33:28)

And then just block Britain's my new phrase. It sounds like a reality show on Channel 5, doesn't it, Henry?

A (33:33)

Do you see a coalition on the centre left and a coalition on the right? Is that the sort of block world?

B (33:39)

I think it's entirely plausible. Yeah, absolutely. For all the reasons we were discussing last week about how the conversation in the run up to the next general election is going to be about who do you want to stop or who do you want to Block with a K. And you know, which block do you want to join with a C to do that?

C (33:55)

Double Block Britain. Henry at home on Double Block Britain. It's funny because there was definitely a TV series.

A (34:01)

I know you are a collector of grammatical moments in podcasts. There was another moment when we were clutching pearls and clutching poles. That happened earlier and I wanted to store it up to say I was listening to Henry. I feel we're very nearly at the end, but I wonder, can we just look ahead? There's quite an important leader selection going on this week, Henry. What else? How should I mark the days of the week, looking forward?

B (34:24)

Well, among all the usual sort of things that are going on in Parliament this week, Reform uk, of course, we've just been talking about our choosing formerly their leader in Scotland. And that's significant, of course, because we've talked a lot and we're going to talk a lot more about what's going on around the country in the run up to those big elections in May.

C (34:44)

And the former Tory peer, Lord Malcolm Ufford, has defected his Reform UK and he's going to give up his ermine gown in order to stand as a member of the Scottish Parliament for Reform. There'd been quite a lot of suggestions that therefore it's likely he's going to be chosen as the leader. But we will see. But it is interesting. Reform now see themselves as a potentially very dominant political force in Scotland. You would not have said a couple of years ago that Nigel Farage was somebody who was going to do well in what we traditionally see as the Scottish political scene. That now has. Is something that has changed.

A (35:20)

Yeah, I know. If I wanted to really annoy you in the closing seconds, Tell me about Scottish politics. It wouldn't be to tell you. It would be to say that his is affecting the tartan wall.

C (35:28)

Oh, no.

A (35:29)

You can be sure that this is. No, but I'm doing it deliberately to annoy you. I'm not introducing the tartan wall at all.

C (35:34)

Okay.

A (35:35)

As a thing.

C (35:35)

Good.

A (35:36)

Saying it would annoy you if I were to now.

C (35:38)

It would annoy me a lot, Henry.

A (35:41)

Lucky you didn't, Henry.

E (35:42)

At home.

A (35:42)

It's goodbye from. From us here, Henry, and goodbye.

B (35:45)

Goodbye.

C (35:46)

Goodbye. Newscast Newscast from the BBC.

F (35:50)

Well, thank you for making it to the end of another newscast. You clearly ooze stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? And then, without having to do anything else, our meandering chat will miraculously make its way to your phone.