127. Movin' On Out

Summary

Podcast Summary

Where Politics Meets History
Episode 127: Movin' On Out
Date: May 22, 2026
Host: Iain Dale
Co-host: Dr. Tessa Dunlop

---

Overview

In this episode, Iain Dale and Dr. Tessa Dunlop delve into the week’s most significant news stories, exploring how current events echo historical patterns. The central theme this week is migration—past and present—focusing particularly on recent statistics revealing a surprising uptick in Britons leaving the UK, and how this trend parallels earlier waves of emigration. The hosts also dissect new revelations regarding the Royal Family and Prince Andrew, discuss political malaise, and banter humorously about national identity, the nature of governance, and personal anecdotes.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Personal Updates and Podcast Banter

• Tessa shares anecdotes about a Romanian Embassy visit and juggling motherhood with activism.
• Humorous exchange about cake, social media memes, and personal hygiene sets a light-hearted tone.
  • Memorable moment:
    • [03:38] Tessa: “I just burst into tears at the embassy … Georgiana turns around and goes, ‘Well, I didn’t need to worry about the baby crying because you cried in the end.’"

2. Migration Trends: Then and Now

A. Post-WWII British Emigration

• Historical perspective: In the years after WWII, 2 million people emigrated from the UK, largely young families escaping poor housing and rationing.
  • [14:11] Tessa: "2 million. Which, given we’re a far smaller country at that time, is a staggering number ... A million homes have been taken out by the Blitz ... so this is a massive deal."
• Churchill’s appeal to stay and rebuild Britain highlighted the gravity of national malaise at the time.
  • [15:28] Tessa (quoting Churchill): “I say to those that wish to leave our country, stay here and fight it out ... Do not desert the old land.”

B. Today’s Migration Statistics

• Net migration remains positive (more entering than leaving), but net migration is falling, partly due to a spike in Britons—246,000 last year—leaving.
  • [16:53] Iain: “400,000.”
  • [16:54] Tessa: “246,000 British nationals left.”
• Debate about causes:
  • Some blame the “Starmer deficit” or Brexit.
  • Tessa notes: “We gave them free education, free school meals... now they’ve sugared off because you don’t get overseas on a visa unless you’ve got prospects and a potential job.” [17:37]
• Iain contends some are simply retirees or global professionals, while Tessa stresses that fewer are returning—Britain is less attractive to Brits than in decades past.

C. Historical Parallels and National Perception

• Comparison to aggressive Commonwealth recruitment (e.g., "Ten Pound Poms") in the mid-20th century.
  • [21:17] Tessa: “My mum went over to Canada on a ten-pound ticket.”
• Anxiety over a potential new “brain drain.”
  • [25:22] Iain: "If that quarter of a million figure... went up to 400,000 in the next five years, that would have to speak for itself."

D. Perceptions of Cost of Living

• Disagreement over whether the UK is more or less expensive to live in than other European countries.
  • [19:32] Iain: “Things you’ll buy in the supermarket are far cheaper here than in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany.”
  • Tessa: Challenges with evidence, attributing her skepticism to “your male baritone voice” giving authority.

3. Myths and Media about Migration

• The hosts tackle persistent myths:
  • The idea that migrants are “filling up” schools is false; birth rates are in decline and migrant children aren’t replacing the native-born drop.
    • [27:22] Tessa: “Our children can’t even get a place in a primary school because of migration. That’s rubbish...”
  • Hospital anecdote: Iain observes “80%” of his waiting room in the Chelsea and Westminster Eye Hospital are “not from this country” [27:36], but acknowledges that half the staff equally aren’t, underlining the essential role of migrants.

4. Political Malaise and Governance

A. Parallels with the 1970s

• Both see echoes of the 1970s national malaise—lack of confidence in the political system, economic anxiety, and political instability—despite Labour’s large majority.
  • [46:00] Tessa: “In the 70s there was a similar sense of national malaise. And we did have two elections in one year, for instance.”
  • [26:08] Iain: “...we are in danger of entering a period... of national malaise, when we have no confidence in ourselves... I can see that happening over the next 10 years.”
• Brexit, cost of living, and dissatisfaction with national leadership are seen as key ingredients.

B. Andy Burnham, Labour Leadership & Political Culture

• Listeners' questions prompt discussion of Andy Burnham’s possible leadership bid and critique of ‘career politicians.’
  • [31:27] Iain: “This whole thing about Andy Burnham being King of the North... that could actually trip him up.”
  • [31:34] Tessa: “He’s a cocky little shit. My daughter wouldn’t approve because he did a yak yak degree ... at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.”
• The hosts underscore the cycle of political hopers: “Sometimes you have to recognize that something’s not going to happen. And maybe Andy Burnham should realize this as well.” [50:53]

C. Devolution, Governance, and Electoral Reform

• Debate over federalism, costs of devolution, flaws of first past the post, and proportional representation.
  • [49:23] Iain: “I suppose that is the American model, isn’t it, where they have in the Senate two senators from each state, no matter how large.”
  • [53:37] Tessa: “I think we’ve been poorly governed over the last 10 years and I think that would be the national consensus.”

5. The Royal Family, Prince Andrew, & Transparency

• Discussion of the Queen and Prince Andrew's Trade Envoy appointment, drawing contrasts with vetting and accountability in politics.
  • [38:11] Tessa: “No, no, no, no. He was... ordained by God as the son of the fucking monarch when he was born in 1960. ...the Royal Family don't operate by different rules. They don’t operate by any real rules at all.”
• Iain defends some exceptionalism:
  • [39:12] Iain: “...if you’re the Queen, there are certain things that you have an entitlement to make your views on and for them to happen.”
• Dr. Dunlop argues for greater scrutiny: “[41:47] ...in the longer term for the Royal family to survive, they need to throw open the doors and we need to interrogate more effectively and we don’t and won’t.”
• Light sparring over age, tradition, and whether Royal privilege remains acceptable in modern Britain:
  • [43:23] Iain: “If we tear down some of the edifice, we need to be very careful that the rest doesn’t fall almost immediately afterwards.”

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On British emigration post-WWII:
  • [14:11] Tessa: “A million homes have been taken out by the Blitz ... so this is a massive deal.”
• On today's migration stats:
  • [16:54] Tessa: “246,000 British nationals left.”
• Challenging perceptions:
  • [19:32] Iain: “…supermarket are far cheaper here than in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany.”
  • [27:22] Tessa: “...numbers of children being born in this country has been falling consistently and not been sufficiently replenished by migrants’ children. So that’s a fallacy.”
• On the Royal family:
  • [38:11] Tessa: “He was...ordained by God as the son of the fucking monarch...”
  • [39:12] Iain: “If you’re the Queen, there are certain things that you have an entitlement to make your views on...”
• On political culture:
  • [31:34] Tessa: “He’s a cocky little shit. My daughter wouldn’t approve because he did a yak yak degree...”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:10–06:54: Personal anecdotes, Romanian embassy tale, volunteering, gender and authority discussions.
• 12:12–26:08: Deep dive on migration past and present; comparing data, public perceptions, cost of living.
• 27:22–29:36: Migration myths, NHS anecdote on migrants as both users and staff.
• 29:46–43:05: Labour leadership drama (Andy Burnham), recent political scandals, governance malaise.
• 43:12–44:37: Royal family’s exceptionalism debate; generational divisions in support for monarchy.
• 45:09–46:32: Listener questions – political mood comparisons with 1970s.
• 49:23–53:37: Governance structures, devolution, federalism, and electoral system critique.
• 55:20–58:10: Holyrood vs. Westminster, representation, PR systems.
• 58:10–60:10: Fluffy close—travel plans, football TV row, podcast signoff.

---

Tone & Style

• Warm, witty, and irreverent banter, peppered with personal stories and direct, sometimes playfully combative exchanges.
• Analytical and historically grounded, with a penchant for "big picture" thinking and drawing unexpected parallels.
• Frank and informal—swearing, self-deprecation, and sharp put-downs are part of the charm.

---

For Listeners

This episode is an essential listen for anyone curious about the patterns and pitfalls of Britain's migration story—yesterday and today—the shifting sands of political culture, and the peculiar durability of its national myths. Tessa and Iain deliver not just sharp analysis, but a masterclass in making history personal, political, and even funny.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is a global player original podcast. You want to believe the Royal Family are the exception. No, they are human like the rest of us.

[B]

I mean, I think we have to be very careful. If we tear down some of the edifice, we need to be very careful that the rest doesn't fall almost immediately afterwards. I do think they are part of what makes this country Britain. I think we would lose an awful

[A]

lot, you know, just saying the same things everyone else says. So I'm bored. I mean, literally, you're boring me. Am I allowed to say that my own podcast?

[B]

Can I just say that that cake that you've just provided me with was excellent?

[A]

I know, and now I want another piece. But it's rude to talk with your mouth full.

[B]

It is. It absolutely is. And did you like the Instagram video I sent you about this woman who goes back in time to Ceausescu's time?

[A]

Do you know, you did send me two Instagram Reels. I was busy trying to cram the 1973 OPEC crisis, what was going on in Cuba in relation to what did go on in Cuba, and also the last time there was a mass migrant exodus from Britain. So I'm just going to own it that I didn't have time to check out both the Instagram reels.

[B]

So disappointed. Because we could have a really interesting discussion. Because when I get something to do with Romania, I like to send it to you because I think you might be interested.

[A]

Forgive me, but I did watch the first one and it was a fat, middle aged white van man bopping to a Romanian tune. The caption was, when I think I can speak fluent Romanian, so forgive me for not then clicking on the second one.

[B]

You'll like the second one. Have you. I don't know whether this is just my algorithm, but have you seen or got the Puerto Rico song on your Instagram? There's this new song that has obviously gone completely viral purely because of Instagram, and it's a really catchy song about Puerto Rico and everybody does their own little dance to it. I haven't.

[A]

That's lovely. I try to avoid viral memes on Instagram in the hours leading up to the pod because I'm so busy cramming Romanian Cozanak, the aforementioned cake, and like I say, trying to find stimulating nuggets of information. Because people nowadays, Ian, don't just want entertained. That's what you go to Instagram for from a podcast. They want to be informed.

[B]

Well, I think we do quite a good job of that generally.

[A]

Yeah, but you have to dig a bit. I mean, two hours a week. I can't just constantly skim along the surface of my knowledge. I have to add to my knowledge.

[B]

Well, I do that for 12 hours a week on the radio.

[A]

Well, no, that's, that's. You don't add to your knowledge when you're talking.

[B]

I fly by the seat of my pants.

[A]

Yeah, that's. That's a. That's. That's the thing. That's what I.

[B]

Well, I haven't been found out yet.

[A]

Arguably, those who don't listen find you out and those who do didn't.

[B]

I'll have you know, my audience figures

[A]

have gone up and I have no doubt in your abilities to duke people with your authority gap, masculine voice and your 6 foot 5 Persona. Although that isn't so apparent on the radio. Is that all?

[B]

I used to be six foot two and a half, but I've got shorter

[A]

as we are going to be separated by a continent next week. I'm not, by the way, one of the over nearly quarter of a million Brits who is planning to leave these fels, Although I would love to live in Romania. It's a marital.

[B]

Can I just remind you that both Britain and Romania are in the same continent.

[A]

Not on the mainland, though, are we? So it's all.

[B]

We're still. We're still classed as Europe.

[A]

Yeah, we are cast as Europe, but when I was talking about. I was thinking about the mainland. But we're going to come on to migration statistics then and now because they're fascinating and actually the similarities at the moment between Romania and Britain when it comes to migration. But as we're going to be separated because I'm away, may I share with you an anecdote?

[B]

She's been gagging to tell me this anecdote, but she's refused to until we're doing the pod. So it better be a bloody good one.

[A]

Do you know, the thing is, normally it's you that goes to important places and has drinky poos with important people. Not that they're particularly important, but I don't often go into what call the Embassy arena in Kensington, you know, just down from the palace where all those really big posh buildings are. Basically. What do ambassadors do? That's another existential crisis I have. It's one of the reasons why I'm heavily against Scottish independence. I'm sure I've said this before, you

[B]

could be the Scottish Ambassador to Romania.

[A]

But the point is that I'd like

[B]

to be an ambassador. I can be diplomatic Believe it or

[A]

not, Scotland would have to pay. Foreign embassy in every single country. Can you imagine? That'd be most of the nation's gdp. It's so expensive being a smaller national entity. It costs a fortune to maintain a team overseas because they got to look good, be stylish, have a handbag carrier, literally. So I have an appointment at the Romanian Embassy prior to my visit over there next week. And I go with my lovely friend, the one I bid for in the raffle.

[B]

Your slave?

[A]

Yeah. No, not who had a baby three weeks ago. And it's the first time she's ever been to the Romanian embassy. And it's a big deal for her, she's Romanian. First thing I'd say is their embassy is next door to the Israeli embassy, so top security, men with guns, you name it. So it's all bit kind of fruity walking past, you feel like you're somewhere. And she gets out the Uber and puts on this incredible white pair of trousers that only a Romanian could wear. You know, kind of showy white tight on the bum and then a pair of gold stilettos.

[B]

She's a cheeky girl.

[A]

Not a cheeky girl. It's just giving birth. But, you know, it's just. That's an East European thing to look the part. Whereas, you know me, I just look like a fallen out of bed, okay? So I'm like, you don't really need to bother, it's fine. And she goes, I'm really anxious about taking my baby in, Tessa, because she didn't have child care, so just bring it with you. She said, I want to bring my husband, so you can sit outside.

[B]

So let me get this straight. You're going to see the Romanian ambassador and you take a woman with a three week baby with you? Are you insane?

[A]

About three? She's about three months. She says she's going to cry. I know Amelia's going to cry in the. In. In the embassy and it's going to be so embarrassing. She's going to cry. I'm really worried about it. I said, look, Geor, we delivered a Westminster event two weeks after you gave birth with your baby. Wear that baby as a badger pride. You did this and you did that all at the same time. You are spectacular. Own it. We enter with the baby and the baby will be fine. She's still worrying about it, crying. She looks amazing. I would just be worried about the baby, you know, puking on my white trousers. But no, she was worried about the baby crying. So in we go. We do all the lovely stuff, you know, the glasses of water and the coffee, and in comes the ambassador in a powder blue coat. And then I'm trying to explain to the embassy that I can't move this Romanian GCSE Ford without help, like structure, staff, money, dare I say it, some kind of help from the Romanian state to move the British wheels of power. And I'm trying to explain to them just how much time it's taken up. And, you know me. And ever spontaneous. I just. I don't know how it happened, but I just burst into tears.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

It's okay. I've met them before. I know them quite well. But when we leave the meeting, Georgiana turns around and goes, well, I didn't need to worry about the baby crying because you cried in the end.

[B]

And did it have any effect?

[A]

Just actually, before we came on air today, I've had an email through from the embassy. They set up three meetings for me, including the Education Department of Education in Romania's Department of Tourism, and I'm hoping for the Department of Romanians Everywhere, because, I mean, I didn't mean to cry, but I did need to underline. The point is, this has gone on for months. We've. I've never. I'm not a natural volunteerian, and I'm. I've had a bit of enough now does that. I sort of said to them, I'm not taking this any further without some kind of help. And sometimes, I know it's not a thing men can do, but you've got other things, like deep voices, sometimes tears.

[B]

I can turn the waterworks on if I have a mind to.

[A]

Would you? In an LBC meeting?

[B]

Well. Oh, I have done.

[A]

Have you?

[B]

I mean, I haven't done it on. I haven't done it on purpose. I mean, I don't. I mean, I can make myself cry. Do you want to know how I do that?

[A]

Onions.

[B]

No, pinching. I think of the head on crash I had when I was 20, which nearly killed myself and my two sisters.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And I can. I mean, I could do it now. No, no, I won't. But I've never done that deliberately in a meeting or anything, but I. I just have the personality. That means that waterworks come very easily. Far too easily.

[A]

Well, I mean, I. I think. In that moment. Did I worry about it? No, because I sort of slightly think they kind of own Georgiana and I and the little. Our little team of volunteers, like, that we've delivered something that they haven't delivered for 30 years, that. That you Know, big event and the kind of the optics around it. So. And then if, and if it's cost me emotionally and in terms of my marriage, you can imagine that's going down at home. Otis is just working upstairs for free for the Romanian state. You know, you can imagine it doesn't go down well. Husbands are very well.

[B]

He should be grateful, given that he's Romanian. Doesn't really work like that.

[A]

We don't all have the same obsessions in life, do we?

[B]

No, we don't. That is. That is very true. Yeah. Actually, I can relate to that at home.

[A]

Yeah. It's just he feels.

[B]

So let me get this straight. You're going to Southend this evening to speak to how many people and how much are you being paid? I said probably about 50 people and I'm not being paid. Why would you do that?

[A]

That is exactly what I go through on a daily basis. But in fact, Dan's not really speaking to me and neither's Mara because I've written a piece in the INEWS paper this weekend and I sent them three political ideas. It's for the sort of spread bit and they didn't like any of the political ideas. They said, well, not really a political bit. Can we call you up? And then they called me up and they mined me. And of course they want family stuff. People always want the family angle. The truth is, Ian, in terms of journalism, AI can generate all the other stuff. What they want is your personal badge or experience that speaks to a bigger issue.

[B]

Oh, dear.

[A]

And so the other day when I was crying again at home, and was

[B]

that separate from the time you were crying on the phone to me?

[A]

Yeah. And separate from the embassy?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay, Right.

[B]

A pattern is developing.

[A]

So I was lamenting my stop start career and Mara went, I think you've done all right for someone with a history degree. And then later, in a separate conversation, this is teenage Mara. She was looking at her A level subjects and she went, it's just really important to avoid subjects that lead to a yak yak degree. I kids nowadays have to weaponize everything they've got because they know they're going to walk into 60k of debt. So you aren't going to waste your time doing Shakespeare or history, dare I say it, if you've got the propensity for a STEM subjects, that's. That's the Ruth too. So the article is centered around that and I don't use Mara's name, but obviously I own her as my progeny and she's like that's just as bad because everyone knows that I'm your daughter. So you may as well have said, mara and I said you wouldn't come up in a Google search. She went, that's not the point. Anyway, so you can imagine, you see,

[B]

Mara strikes me as a sort of person who will win any argument.

[A]

She starts, yeah, she does, because she's brighter than me. And then I also. Duncan will be pleased, though, because he's a politician and they're all desperate for oxygen. But I also talk about my little brother in the article. I don't know if he'll like what I've written, but we'll see. Let's leave him hanging, will we?

[B]

Oh, dear, oh, dear. I haven't got any fluff. You've filled the whole section with your own fluff. Apart from the fact that you do stink a bit.

[A]

Oh, fuck you, Ian. That is so unfair.

[B]

Well, tell the listeners basically what you said to me when you just. The first thing she said. She arrived in the office.

[A]

We should do a better trail for the pod. I was doing an Instagram reel on the latest revelations concerning the late Queen and Prince Andrew and I didn't like the cut of my jib in a pale shirt. So I changed my shirt into one that I know is made of synthetics and it shows up armpits. And I also haven't had time because I've been busy researching on migration and Andrew to buy deodorant. So the combination of a shirt made from oil and no deodorant. I asked ian, do you have any deodorant?

[B]

To which my answer was, yes, but you're not using it because that's disgusting to use somebody else's deodorant.

[A]

So instead, I'm sweating, so fuck you. Can we have a break?

[B]

And I'm keeping my roller mum to myself.

[A]

Mum.

[B]

I've used that ever since I was a teenager. I don't like the spray on ones. They irritate your skin.

[A]

For someone with a deep, authoritative voice, if only you could be more manly.

[B]

I don't shave my armpits.

[A]

I think it's time for a cake break.

[B]

If we have any listeners left after you told them that we were going to talk about migration statistics, why are these statistics that have come out today so interesting? And I mean, historically, Britain has always been a country of emigration and immigration. Obviously, in the last 10 years or so, it's been predominantly a country of, well, in fact, probably 20 years.

[A]

20.

[B]

Well, maybe more than that, a country of immigration. It's got to the point where so many people think it's gone too far, that it's become a touchstone political issue.

[A]

Massive. I would say it's the defining issue of our times.

[B]

What, more than Brexit?

[A]

Well, it's, it's, I think, a side hustle of Brexit. I think it's one of the leading features of Brexit. Brexit wrote the common tiger of migration to get in the numbers to vote against the eu. We know that you might have had ideological reasons, but huge numbers of people vote against that giant wave of migrants that came in after the first 10 accession countries under Tony Blair. He should have introduced some of the breaks other European countries did and we didn't. Migration, interestingly, has been more people coming into Britain than leaving Britain since the 1980s, almost consistently before then, which will come to in a minute. Between the 50s and the 80s, more people left Britain.

[B]

See, I have to say, I didn't know that. And I do find that quite surprising.

[A]

Do you?

[B]

I, I, I don't find it surprising in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, but I do find it surprising from the 60s going onwards that there was a net, net emigration, a massive net emigration.

[A]

In fact, I was going to start the other way around and talk about today's statistics. We'll come to them. But actually, let's just stick with Post World War II. In the years immediately after the war, guess how many people migrated from the United Kingdom?

[B]

I think I read this, so I'm not, I'm not going to pretend to know, but I think I read 2 million.

[A]

Yeah, 2 million. Which, given we're a far smaller country at that time, is a staggering number. Plus, we've lost quarter of a million young men in the war, and we also lost 60,000 in the blitz, so we're down some 300,000 already. And now we're hemorrhaging another 2 million. Predominantly young, young nuclear families. Huge numbers of couples get married immediately after the war. There's a record number of weddings, something like 48, 000 couples, but they find they have to go and live with their parents. Like, it's so undignified. A million homes have been taken out by the Blitz. You don't want to live in a country where the Ratchenberg, is that right?

[B]

A million?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Really?

[A]

Yeah. Damaged or taken out? Totally, yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

So every street looked like it had a sort of a missing tooth, if you imagine there's a sort of rack of teeth. So this is a massive deal. Winston Churchill is panicking about it, along with the existential crisis about Britain's place in the world, he actually makes an appeal on the BBC. I say to those that wish to leave our country, stay here and fight it out. If we work together with brains and courage, as we did in days not long ago, we can make our country fit for all our people. Do not desert the old land.

[B]

Well, the reason Keir Starmer hasn't done that, because of someone, I can't remember, who memorably once said, keir Starmer is no Winston Churchill.

[A]

Well, but what's interesting if we now go to the present day. So you're quite right to say that migration has fallen, but net migration is still up. So there's still more people coming into Britain than leaving Britain. 171,000. 71,000.

[B]

Net migration is down, but it's still net migration as opposed to net immigration.

[A]

And it's down faster than they imagined.

[B]

It's hugely down faster than people thought, because only two years ago, I think the net figure was close to a million. I think 970,000 or something like that. And so to reduce by that amount in just two years is quite astonishing. Now, if you are somebody who thinks we're already. We're full up, Ian, if you're that sort of person, you think, oh, this is great news. Well, if we can do that in two years, we can get down to zero in the next two years. It doesn't quite work like that, but

[A]

when you drill into the statistics, what sort of immigrants are we attracting and who are we repelling? And what's interesting is the number of British nationals that are leaving and thus pulling the net migration figure down. Have a guess how many British nationals left in the last year?

[B]

400,000.

[A]

Now, that would be extraordinary. That's nearly half a million. 246,000 British nationals left.

[B]

But is that particularly surprising? I mean, what would it have been 10 years ago?

[A]

Well, when you think only 110,000 British nationals arrived in the UK, that means 136. 6,000 more Brits are leaving than arriving. That's sizeable. And these are people, these are trained, skilled individuals and they're calling it. So the Reform lot are calling it the Starmer deficit, The Liberal Party is saying it's because of Brexit. Like every party's claiming it for their own. But what's interesting is what should be a victory day for the Labour Party. We've got migration figures. Net migration figures down, actually.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

But look, quarter of a million Brits. These are kids. We paid for we weaned on the nipple of the state. We gave them free education, free school meals. We helped their mother back in the days when there was sure start, for example, and now they've sugared off because you don't get overseas on a visa unless you've got prospects and a potential job.

[B]

Well, that's not quite true, is it? Because that figure will also include people who've just decided to go and retire to Spain and they are still doing that despite Brexit. So I'd like to see the breakdown of those figures. Now, I don't think that is a massive figure actually. I think in the globalized world you're always going to get a slightly increasing number of people that depart for pastures new. I mean, I'd like to know where they've gone, for example, sort of how many have indeed gone to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America, and also how many of the people that have gone in the last five years have actually come back.

[A]

What's interesting is you're right to speak to the fact it's not unprecedented. In fact, if you look in the last few years, approximately quarter of a million people leave every year. But it's the equivalent numbers aren't returning. So Britain isn't an attractive destination for Brits. They're not missing home when they leave, they're staying away.

[B]

And I think that's or they believe all the negative publicity that there is about this country in terms of London being a war zone and all the J.D. vance and Trump rhetoric about Britain being out of control and being dominated by

[A]

immigrants or actually that it's just really expensive to live here and have a good time.

[B]

Well, you say that from somebody living in London and from that point of view, you're absolutely right. But our cost of living actually is less than a lot of European countries.

[A]

I challenge you on that.

[B]

Well, the statistics prove it. Okay, what country in terms of food costs, for example, just general sort of things that you need to exist because the things that you'll buy in the supermarket are far cheaper here than in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany.

[A]

You say that with such authority and I've got used to you saying things with that male baritone voice.

[B]

I can't quote you the, the statistics, but it that, I mean, everywhere you read that, you will find that I'm not making it up.

[A]

I concede that we've seen food inflation go through the roof right across Europe. I know that because I go to Romania and I always blink now and

[B]

supermarket, it's more expensive to buy Spanish tomatoes in Spain than It is buying Spanish tomatoes in Britain, which I. I can't get my head around that.

[A]

Depending where you buy them in. Let's just clarify.

[B]

Well, I'm not sure it is.

[A]

Where did you get that fact?

[B]

From a newspaper?

[A]

I'm using the word fact loosely there, by the way, ladies and gentlemen.

[B]

Well, no, look, I'm. Tessa.

[A]

Yes, darling, yes.

[B]

I'm not going to sit here and make up just to try and win an argument. It's based on something I've read somewhere that has assimilated into my brain.

[A]

But it's interesting. I don't think that they're staying away because they're thinking, oh, gosh, J.D. vance talks rudely about Britain. I think they're staying away because they clearly find the balance, on balance, the lower rents, for example, housing costs, the energy costs are lower in other countries.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

And also that the climate might be better, the roads less congested, that the atmosphere less negative. What's interesting is, so in the wake of Second World War, why did people leave? It's really obvious why they live rationing, including food, fuel, furniture, clothing, newly married couples, as I said, forced to share or live in the cold, inadequate housing, etc.

[B]

Inside toilets.

[A]

Yeah, all sorts of things. But also, interestingly, there was an awareness, a cognizance across the Western world, but not only that the human resource, which is the workforce, was in short supply post war and countries like Canada and Australia were recruiting Britain's really aggressive 10 pound palms. My mum went over to Canada on a ten pound ticket.

[B]

Did she?

[A]

Yeah. And then she lived in Argentina for a while and flirted with Sarah Ferguson's father, Major Somebody.

[B]

He was a bit of a goer.

[A]

He was, but she didn't.

[B]

I don't think Wickmore street prozies, but immigration offices. Am I allowed to say prosies?

[A]

I don't know. Might need to cut that bit. Immigration offices across the Commonwealth countries, they spring up in cities throughout the uk, all pulling in and advertising their better housing, better employment opportunities, better standard of living.

[B]

So effectively, what you're saying is that this phenomenon now, particularly of doctors and nurses going to Australia, it's nothing new, it's been going on for decades.

[A]

But what's interesting is it's not been going on for decades. We're suddenly seeing it occur again and we've not even had a war. At least post 1945, we had the excuse of a war and also we'd pollinated the world in a way that meant there was incredible cultural capital to arrive somewhere and be British. Countries like New Zealand and Australia had family, had friends, you had the same linga franca, you felt at home. And now it's, it's a different type of person that's going. You're not just going on a ten pound ticket. You probably have to plan your journey in advance, know that you've got a shout at a job, a visa, etc. This is more deliberate tunneling out of Britain, I would suggest.

[B]

I think there is a certain truth to that. My auntie Jean, who is my father's sister, sorry, She emigrated to New Zealand in about 1959. She'd married a New Zealander, had never traveled anywhere in the world, I don't think, before that. And I've only ever met her three or four times since she, she came back, she never came back to visit her mother until after her mother died in 1979. And I don't know how many, how many British women or men would have married New Zealanders or Australians, but that would have been a little bit of a phenomenon in those days, I guess possibly more so than now.

[A]

I was always aware growing up in Rannoch, a Highland village. Scotland tends to be more rural places. In Britain, which attracted migration, was always aware that large numbers of families had family members in countries like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa as well. Interestingly, in Canada.

[B]

I've got a lot of family in Canada.

[A]

Half a million Brits emigrated to Canada in the 25 years after the war. Churchill gets so excited about it that five years later he says, calls them rats leaving a sinking ship, which is extreme, very odd. And then he does see fit to try modify the language and let me find the quote actually when he speaks

[B]

a little bit warm, more warmly while you're doing that.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I've also just recalled, I've got family who went to Australia in the 20s and 30s, who I looked up when I went to Australia in 2010. I found out where they lived and turned up on their doorstep, which was quite an emotional experience actually, because you think if those, if they had stayed in the Britain, they would have been reasonably close relations who we would have had a lot to do with. And it was just really weird to meet them all for the first time. And this was when I discovered that one of their children had married a Pinochet.

[A]

Oh, I think you told me about that. Yeah, interesting.

[B]

No relation, apparently, which slightly destroys the story, but.

[A]

Well, no, but does a bit. Yeah, cut that bit, Corey. Anyway, luckily, luckily, I've saved us with a Churchill quote. Here it is. He went on a visit in 1952 to Canada, where he then said, a magnificent future awaits immigrants in Canada. A bit like when the Romanian president comes here and speaks nicely about migration. Because what's interesting is that we here in Britain think this is such a victory to see falling migration levels coming into Britain, but actually aware of the numbers of people who have left countries in the east of Europe and it being seen as a national tragedy on that side of the continent, I think. How long before we start also seeing this as a reflection on the state of our country? And how quickly will it be flipped the narrative?

[B]

Well, if that quarter of a million figure, say, went up to 400,000 in the next five years, that would have to speak for itself, wouldn't it? I still think that this is one of the greatest countries to live in, in the world. Yes, it's got its problems, hasn't every country? And I think we are in danger of entering a period, which I think we were in, in the second half of the 1970s, a period of sort of national malaise, when we have no confidence in ourselves, that we've lost confidence in the political system. We see all sorts of problems in society that we don't know what to do about and the politicians fail us. And therefore this feeling of national malaise just gets worse and worse. And I can see that happening over the next 10 years, and it's difficult to know what you do about it.

[A]

Well, West Streeting's got the answer, hasn't he?

[B]

Has he? What's that?

[A]

Rejoining the eu.

[B]

Oh, yeah, that'll solve everything, because all the EU countries, the lands are flowing with milk and honey.

[A]

Nice to have 27 friends.

[B]

I think it's about to be 28. Isn't Montenegro about to join?

[A]

Need to check that. But I think the point is that freedom, the freedom we had to travel and live in other countries, and interestingly, now we don't have the same freedom. And yet still people are leaving, that they're putting the effort into working and

[B]

funnily enough, they're going to live and work in those other countries as well. I mean, this fallacy that Brexit meant that people couldn't travel or couldn't go and live and work in other countries. Yes, it is more difficult, I'd completely concede that, but it's not impossible. And I think sometimes this is all a bit exaggerated.

[A]

No, but if we now look at. To what extent are these migration figures going to feed into the national debate? Because what fascinates me is, and I heard this in the run up to the local elections, in the national elections, also in Wales, where they went, oh, our children can't even get a place in a primary school because of migration. That's rubbish. Because the numbers of children being born in this country has been falling consistently and not been sufficiently replenished by migrants children. So that's a fallacy.

[B]

Yeah, but the number of schools has gone down as well.

[A]

Yeah, but it hasn't trickled into the national consciousness. We still think, oh, migrants are filling up our schools too quickly. So two things, you know, aren't true at the same time.

[B]

Well, they can be true, but they're not true, Ian.

[A]

I mean, it's not true.

[B]

I completely understand whether it's true or not. That is the perception. And I completely understand why. When, for example, when I go to the Chelsea and Westminster Eye Hospital, I would say a good 80% of the people in the waiting room there are clearly not from this country. Now, I've got no idea what proportion of them are actually British citizens or have legal right to stay or whatever. But if you're an ordinary Joe who doesn't do politics but just sort of observes these sorts of things happening, you have to understand why people have come to the conclusion that hospital waiting lists are so high, in part because of the numbers of people who've come to this country.

[A]

And do they also make the leap and work out that the nurse, the doctor and the receptionist that are serving

[B]

them are all also born in trees? I mean, thinking about that, of all the people I see in that clinic, I would say 50% of the nurses and doctors and ancillary staff are from overseas in some way.

[A]

Just be assured, ladies and gentlemen, that his 80% anecdote of foreigners in the waiting room, relative to the 50% of staff members who may be born overseas, are 100% anecdotal. And Ian was having an eye operation. It may not have seemed clearly, I'm

[B]

not making it up.

[A]

Why would I make things a dangerous.

[B]

It doesn't bother me that a lot of the people that work there, when I was in hospital two or three years ago, literally every nurse on the ward was from overseas. And I had some really interesting conversations with them about why they came here to work in the NHS and their lives. And there was one of them, I think she was from the Philippines and she said that I'm having to pay £1,400amonth now to rent a one bedroom flat in Tunbridge Wells. I don't think I can stay here much longer. I mean, anecdotal Tessa, but obviously complete fiction.

[A]

Well, if you do live in gold plated Tunbridge Wells, I think it's time for a break.

[B]

So are you very excited by what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment? Because it seems as though for the short term, Starmer's got away with it.

[A]

We've got a very good question. I know we're not onto the question, so I'm just going to read it out in relation to this very topic. Question to both. If Burnham wins the by election, how long does he wait before launching his leadership bid? Does he wait a few weeks or do it immediately after being sworn in? He's so arrogant and big headed, he'll probably just turn up at number 10 with his removal van. But to then win a leadership contest on the third attempt after implicitly suggesting the MPs aren't adequate, can't all be Starmer's fault. Feels like a big ask. Thank you, says Katie.

[B]

This whole thing about Andy Burnham being King of the north, so just effectively thinking he's got a right to be Prime Minister, I think that could actually trip him up in a big, big way. Because it's really becoming a narrative now. You read in all sorts of publications right and left, who does he think he is? And you had an instance yesterday where Christian Kalgi, who's a political journalist on the Daily Mail, admittedly quite a sort of upfront kind of guy. He just happened to hear that Andy Burnham was in the same cafe as he was because he'd been trailing Nigel Farage around the constituency. So what would you do as a journalist in that situation? You would seek Andy Burnham out, wouldn't you? Oh, big mistake. Andy Burnham absolutely let rip at him and said, how dare you? You can't come in a place like this. And. And so he, of course, has written it up in the Daily Mail today. And this whole thing about sort of people. He doesn't like being questioned about his various policy flip flops and there was so many of them.

[A]

He's a cocky little shit. My daughter wouldn't approve because he did a yak yak degree. He went to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where

[B]

he studied, oh, something yak yaki English. Yeah.

[A]

And he graduated with an MA degree. We all graduate with an MA from Oxford.

[B]

And the thing is, you have to really question, what has Andy Burnham ever actually achieved? Now I would.

[A]

Life's great in Manchester, don't you know.

[B]

Apparently it's a, it's a halcyon city now that after his intervention. And I think he has, he has achieved things in Manchester.

[A]

Streets are paved with gold up there.

[B]

But he's never done what most people would regard as a real job. I mean, I think he started off as a researcher to Harriet Harmon and Ed Miliband, didn't he? Something like that. He's a career politician and he was Secretary of State for Health. He doesn't like being reminded that he was the only Secretary of State for Health that's ever privatized a hospital. And I think he's got a pretty checkered record in politics. And you can say, well, he's done okay in Manchester, but doing okay in Manchester does not mean to say that, that you're going to be a good Prime Minister. He's a great salesman, a great marketeer. But is there anything there beyond the ability to do that? I'm not sure there is.

[A]

The grass is always greener. I very much see Andy Barnum as a showman and not even a particularly successful showman. And just to be going into the fray again, having been rejected twice, it gives this idea of an almost unbalanced ego, that you haven't got the message, mate, that you don't quite cut it for the leadership, not just of the Labour Party, but of the country.

[B]

A by election is a unique opportunity for all those flaws to become readily apparent. And if he starts getting a reputation as being a bit tetchy and irritable, he's a bit like Nick Clegg. I mean, Nick Clegg I really like, but when you do an interview with Nick Clegg, he's almost in a permanent sense of irritation. And Andy Burnham's a bit like that. And I just wonder if the people of Makerfield are going to like that. I mean, they. Look, he is a local guy. He was born, I think, within a few miles of the constituency. He still lives in the area. So from that point of view, he ought to be a very good localish candidate. Everyone knows who he is. But that, that can come back to bite you as well.

[A]

He's also abandoning his mayoral role in Manchester. He's also fundamentally undermining not just the leadership of the Labour Party, but the leadership of the country. What's interesting is all the optics around right now, the governance of Britain, whether it's the GDP figures coming in higher than we expected, 0.6 growth, all these extraordinary falling migration figures. Actually the government is delivering in a way that I think we've forgotten which

[B]

of them are actually going out there and trumpeting this.

[A]

None of Them, they don't know how to communicate.

[B]

No, they don't. And that is the problem. Now, while Streeting, I was actually rather disappointed by his resignation speech. It was certainly no Geoffrey Howe resignation speech, was it? And I wonder whether he's sort of misjudged it now. And there's all sorts of rumors in the papers today that if Andy Burnham does win, he will then try and row in behind Anti Burnham and sort of demand a top job from Anti Burnham and won't run himself. Well, I don't think there should be. If Anti Burnham does win, which I still doubt whether he will, but let's assume he does. I think for there to be an Anti Burnham coronation would be a terrible thing, both for the Labour Party and the country, because he wouldn't have been tested in a leadership campaign. And I think that somebody, whether it's West Streeting or Angela Rayner or whoever, needs to put their name forward as well.

[A]

I would be really disappointed if we're. Streeting really didn't buy D. He had a top job anyway. Is running the NHS not a big enough gig?

[B]

Well, I think the Health Secretary job is the biggest job outside the top three.

[A]

Sacred cow kind of job. And I just want to. Now, if we may touch on the other big issue of the day, and there is a connection here between the optics around the Labour Party and how we've ended up with all these mini wannabes trying to acquire the leadership of a party which is already being led, arguably not terribly effectively, but by a man who I think ultimately saw the nail driven into his coffin around the Mandelson issue. Would you agree the ongoing drip, drip, drip of the Mandelson affair was really the final straw for Keir Starmer's credibility.

[B]

Well, and it should also be the next final straw because of course, they've now delayed publishing the rest of the documents that they promised would be coming. Well, either last week or this week. And Darren Jones, who I have a lot of time for, stood up in the House of Commons on was it Monday or Tuesday? And said, well, now we could publish him on Thursday, but we don't think that's right because then there's a parliamentary recess, so we'll wait to June. And I'm thinking, how convenient for Keir Starmer because by all accounts, these documents are going to be the final nail in his coffin.

[A]

And of course, there were other documents released just today. Yes, on the former prints that he'd been building to that. I sowed the seed about three minutes ago. What I find Fascinating. By the way, before we go into what today's documents revealed is the difference between the impact Mandelson's appointment and fallout through the Epstein case has had on governance in relation to the impact that Andrew has had on the wider institution of monarchy. Very little at all. Walk on By King's never been more popular, despite the fact that we know the Royal family absolutely bolted the door when it came to answering questions on Andrew and his affair with Epstein from 2011 in the publication of that photograph onwards. And now today we see yet more.

[B]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Andrew had an affair with Epstein.

[A]

You know what I mean? Liaison relationship. Just an ongoing relationship with the revolting man. Okay, So I now want to draw your attention, if I may, to the Queen and the pearl clutching that's gone on son today. We know, unsurprisingly enough, she pushed hard for Andrew to be appointed trade envoy. She said she wanted her son to have a prominent role pushing the national interest. It was fitting, a natural fit. In fact, it was referred to as. Because the Duke of Kent was about to resign and now the Duke of York could leave the Navy. God help us. What would he have done if he wasn't given this sinecure, which is effectively what it was, a paid job where you didn't have to do anything.

[B]

What? Okay, my role here is to push back a little bit on some of that. It isn't a sinecure, it is a job where you are promoting Britain overseas. I think it's not fair to say he didn't do anything. He went on a lot of trips, go back to 2001. Andrew was reasonably respected at that point. He was a Falklands War hero. He was reasonably well known throughout the world. What was there not to like about making him a trade envoy? I mean, it made perfect sense.

[A]

But that's what's interesting, the pearl clutching that's going on today about the fact he wasn't vetted. No, no, no, no. He was pre selected, ordained by God as the son of the fucking monarch when he was born in 1960. I mean, don't people understand that the Royal Family don't operate by different rules? They don't operate by any real rules at all.

[B]

Well, that's an exaggeration.

[A]

It's not really, Ian. What the Queen wanted, the Queen got and you know it. By the way, Charles didn't want the appointment of his brother. He said he strongly campaigned against it.

[B]

On what grounds?

[A]

I just knew that Andrew was going to be a dismal fit for a role that Took.

[B]

What did he do in terms of that lobbying? Has this come out in these documents?

[A]

No, I know that. I know that from his previous memos. And it's in the public domain that Charles strongly advised the Blair government. I think Mandelson was implicated in the appointment, wasn't he, against the role. But nobody's going to go against the wishes of the late Queen. She was incredibly powerful in her quiet, diminutive opposite of the authority gap way,

[B]

and I don't regard that as surprising, I don't even regard it as worrying. I think that if you're the Queen, there are certain things that you have. You have an entitlement to make your views on and for them to happen.

[A]

Yeah, and they did happen. What's interesting is we would have no clue about any of this were it not for a request having been tabled by a Liberal Democrat, and that meant that they had to then go and find the relevant documents. And Chris Bryant, Trade Secretary, said it has not been straightforward. Well, no shit, Sherlock, because it's very, very difficult to access documents on the Royal Family.

[B]

He's had a very interesting week because, of course, he was up before the Commons yesterday trying to explain how we haven't really lifted any sanctions on Russian oil, but we have, really. And when I saw this, I know I'm going off the subject a bit, but it's not like you, because it's Chris Bryant. I thought I would. I still can't quite get my head around this, because the way Chris Bryant explained it was reasonably convincing. He said, look, I haven't explained this properly, it's my fault, but hear me out. We haven't weakened the sanctions. There was never any sanction on using refined oil in other countries, which everybody thought really well, there should have been then. So he had a slightly uncomfortable time, but handled it really well in the commas yesterday. So to go from that to then, this today, he must think he's. He's got the mark or something.

[A]

I know, but I think today he feels vindicated because actually, it's very rare to get this level of documentation on a Royal working in a public capacity. Those documents tend to be under lock and key. In fact, they shouldn't have been released until 2060 because Andrew's got special protection. What it speaks to, as I said, again, is the different set of expectations we have regarding the Royal Family. We. We don't look to criticize them, and unless they very publicly fail, like Andrew, and look how we've cut him off, like a sort of cancer or something, we then don't want to or we find it easier not to interrogate the institution around the individual, around Andrew. It's like a kind of walk on by. So here we have this exceptional case of an exceptional man who's been exceptionally bad. But notice the lack of interrogation. Is there going to be any call for other royals to be vetted? For example, like there has been re the Mandelson case where we've now changed the rules already regarding vetting and appointments happening post vetting, not pre that the same won't be applied to the Royal family because it never is and you're not bothered, which is interesting.

[B]

Well, I'm not hugely bothered in the sense that there's no point in having a royal family if they operate by exactly the same rules as the rest of us. And you can argue all you like and you'd be right that maybe that's wrong, but I don't really want to go down the road of just making them like us. I don't see any great scandal brewing with other members of the Royal Family. I just can't get particularly excited about it.

[A]

Time for a break.

[B]

I thought you were going to challenge me.

[A]

No, because there is. It's B for believer, A for atheist. I think in the longer term for the Royal family to survive, they need to throw open the doors and we need to interrogate more effectively and we don't and won't.

[B]

I think that a lot of doors have been thrown open over the last 30 years, far more than you would have anticipated. And it was mainly the death of Diana that I think led to that. I think things will. What doors change, what doors?

[A]

Namely what? Can you give me one example?

[B]

No, thank you.

[A]

I rest my case. Because they haven't been. Ian. It's a perception over reality. It's like believing immigration is a problem.

[B]

I'm not sure it is. They throw the doors of Buckingham palace open, which they.

[A]

Yeah, we pay a fortune and for six weeks a year and no one lives in there. So why isn't it open all year round, frankly?

[B]

Well, they don't live there now. They did.

[A]

Well, hardly, Ian.

[B]

They've got about 10, the queen. Very rarely for quite a bit.

[A]

Very rarely in the latter years. Sorry, you want to believe and I understand it. We need something to hold on to. You want to believe the Royal family are the exception? No, they are human like the rest of us.

[B]

I mean, I don't regard the Royal family in the way that people in North Korea are encouraged to regard Kim Jong Un. I really don't And I recognize that there are great weaknesses in the whole system, but I think we have to be very careful. If we tear down some of the edifice, we need to be very careful that the rest doesn't fall almost immediately afterwards. And I, I, I do think they are part of what makes this country Britain. And without them, I think we would lose an awful lot.

[A]

You're now just saying the same things everyone else says. So I'm bored. So can we go to a break, please? I mean, literally, you're boring me. I'm allowed to say that my podcast, Ian on the Royal Family is boring.

[B]

I know when I do that.

[A]

But I know you're not going to say anything that everyone else of your ilk of a certain age.

[B]

It's got nothing to do with age.

[A]

It actually.

[B]

So ages.

[A]

I'm not ages.

[B]

You really are.

[A]

Hundreds.

[B]

As well as being misogynist. No, they're not misogynist. And, and misunderst. I was gonna say androgynous. Yeah, she are a bit androgynous.

[A]

Oh, you. I'm not actually. I've got slightly longer hair these days. I just want to point out that it is an age thing. If you look at the polling, young people are apathetic at best. Old people lean into it.

[B]

But that's always been the case.

[A]

Okay, good. Right.

[C]

If you work in university maintenance, Granger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[B]

So let's answer a few questions. By the way, while we were just doing that break, Tessa was being ageist yet again.

[A]

No, what did I do that time?

[B]

You said that I was a bit slow on my computer because I was old.

[A]

Corey, can you back me up? That Ian's always slow dithering around looking for his questions on his computer? Isn't it?

[B]

I'm gonna side with Ian on this. Oh, no, See, Corey knows which side is bread's butter.

[A]

Well, as you were waiting. Hi. Hope you're feeling better. Thanks. I am. Rich, question for the pod. What previous period in British history does today's political mood roast resemble? Well, Ian tried to steer us onto the Napoleonic wars last week. Jesus Christ. I spent most of last night looking into 1973 in the Yom Kippur War and how we ended up having a 70% spike in oil prices and then I got pulled off into Cuba. But I do think that in the 70s there was a similar sense of national malaise. And we did have two elections in one year, for instance.

[B]

I agree, totally agree with that. That's how it feels to me. And I can remember that period, even though I was only a teenager. But just going back to the Napoleonic wars thing, I read yesterday that when John Stuart Mill was in Parliament, he was only there for four years. There were five prime ministers in those four years. So it does show that nothing ever happens for the first time.

[A]

This was before the Great Reform act, before the enfranchisement of women and most men. But Ian still thinks that it's a worthy example.

[B]

I do think it's a worthy example.

[A]

I think we know that often international chaos and war lead to serious domestic disturbance, revolution. I mean, just look across the continent, whether it's Spain, Italy, Russia, etc. But given that we're not actually at war, you know, arguably Ukraine's fighting the war for us. It's a proxy war. We're not at war. And we can blame Trump for shutting the Strait of Hormuz, but it doesn't explain why.

[B]

No, we blame the Iranians for shutting the Strait of Hormuz. I'm so sorry, Trump hasn't shut the streets of Horus.

[A]

Trump went to war.

[B]

Strait of Hormuz. Would you admit that?

[A]

Of course he hasn't, but we know his actions led. You just said he had causation and

[B]

effect, so I was just correcting you.

[A]

Okay, if you're going to be a nitpicker, but everyone knows what I meant. But the point is that we are exceptionally affected, it would seem, by the current cost of fuel, etc, and it's impacting on our governance in a way that doesn't seem to be in other countries. And that is.

[B]

Well, again, that's simply not true. It's impacted far more in Asian countries than it has.

[A]

And I'm looking at comparative Western OECD countries.

[B]

But why? Because it's. If it's impacting mostly on Asian countries, which generally are not as developed as we are, we should have more concern about that.

[A]

Yes, we should. But if we're looking to at Britain's exceptionalism, why are we exceptionally politically unstable despite a massive labor majority? We need to look for fundamental flaws

[B]

within our political reason is because the Labour Party is full of people who

[A]

are incompetent okay, so it's just the Labour Party sworn.

[B]

I said it's partly because I think

[A]

there's some structural issues going on as well.

[B]

There may well be, but I mean that we don't have the political leaders capable of doing the things that are necessary to pull us out of this.

[A]

Perhaps we don't encourage the appropriate sort of people to politically lead us. Let's go to the questions, darling.

[B]

Well, you just did.

[A]

Yeah, okay. That was one.

[B]

Well, okay.

[A]

Can the next one be sort of

[B]

more fluffy From Barry in Air.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

My home area. Ian and Tessa. I listen to Ian's show and catch up every day. Don't always agree with Ian. As a sidebar, you are far from racist as accused, because I was accused last night of being racist on my show anyway. But I agree England should have their own parliament. Take all Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs out of the Commons, scrap the Lords and in the second chamber send equal representation from all four nations to deal with matters that affect the island as a whole. I think it should be islands. True federalism is what this country now needs. Would this not kill nationalism and call for independence? So you'd have a second chamber with like 50 English, 50 Northern Irish, 50 Welsh and 50 Scottish. I don't think that would work, would it? But I suppose that is the American model, isn't it, where they have in the Senate two senators from each state, no matter how large.

[A]

I think one of the great problems, the design flaw of the United Kingdom is that England is so much bigger than the other three nations. And I think it is an issue, I am struck by just how much devolution costs us. And I referred at the beginning of the programme to how much then independence would cost those respective nations. More governance equals more cost. So while we don't necessarily want the sort of centrist Thatcher model, I am cognizant of the ever devolved power structures, you know, appealing to the grassroots, especially when, as we saw in the last set of local elections, people were campaigning on international matters. It was very disjointed. It felt like a sort of cognitive dissonance.

[B]

I think that's true, though I'm not sure that that's particularly new because local elections have always been seen as a sort of pseudo referendum on the performance of the national government.

[A]

I vote locally.

[B]

Yeah. And so people should, but they don't. So. And I mean, I did this time as well because I. I thought the guy that was our councillor was doing a good job.

[A]

But I thought maybe if there was A Scottish equivalent in England. So a place where you'd have your MEPs, your members of English Parliament, be perfect for you. You'd be able to slide in on the list like my little brother did. It'd be a sort of third way in. I think you could end up feeling.

[B]

You'll see that I'm looking for a third way.

[A]

Well, we. We know that you wanted to be an elected member.

[B]

But I don't anymore.

[A]

Are you sure?

[B]

Absolutely. 100.

[A]

Why is that? Ambition.

[B]

Twice bitten, twice shy.

[A]

Unlike Andy Burnham.

[B]

Well, sometimes you have to recognize that something's not going to happen. And maybe Anti Burnham should realize this as well. By the way, maybe we should mention the other candidates in the by election. I'm not. I'm never quite sure whether podcasts are coming.

[A]

They don't need to bother. Yeah, you don't need to bother.

[B]

Well, there is a reform candidate. What's his name?

[A]

He's the plucky plumber.

[B]

Peter Kenyon is it?

[A]

He's pretty extreme.

[B]

Robert Kenyon. And then there's a restore. You see, it could be Rupert Lowe wins the premiership for Anti Burnham. Because Rupert Lowe's party, they. If they took a couple of thousand votes off reform, which they inevitably are going to do, well, that could let Andy Burnham in by the back door.

[A]

The Conservatives are tabling someone who stood apparently in the constituency about three decades ago. I think the Green Party have decided also they're going to run a candidate.

[B]

I mean this idea that parties should stand down, I think it treats the electorate with absolute contempt. Because I think if you're a Green voter or a Conservative voter, you want the opportunity to vote for your party's candidate even though you know they're going to lose.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

Good.

[A]

Next question.

[B]

Right, let's bring the next question up. It is from David Smith. Good morning, folks. I would like to hear your thoughts on our voting system. There is a growing call to bring in PR as first past the Post is no longer working and produces weak governments. I'm not convinced First Past the Post has brought in governments with clear and strong majorities. Those in the mid-70s and May's attempt are the exceptions rather than the rule. For me, the problem is the people being elected do not seem to know exactly what they would do once in power. The current government is a perfect example. A majority of 174seats is more than enough to govern effectively and do what the Prime Minister wants. Look at Thatcher and Blair. They may divide opinion, but they knew what they wanted to achieve and got on with It PR might create a more mathematically fair parliament, but it would not necessarily produce strong governments. In fact, it would easily lead to even more instability in infighting. First past the post is the best system, provided parties have strong leadership, know what they stand for and have a clear sense of direction. I mean, I think that has been true up to now. The fact that we're now in five or six party politics, I think calls into question some of the conclusions that David has reached there. I think if we did go to pr, he's right in that it would be much more difficult to cobble a government together. It may have to consist of three parties rather than two, and it would be mathematically fairer in terms of how many seats each party would have. But would it lead to better governance?

[A]

Well, I think we've been poorly governed over the last 10 years and I think that would be the national consensus, actually.

[B]

Well, I would agree with that.

[A]

So there's no harm in exploring other options because what we've seen is this idea first past the post was going to keep extreme parties from either end of the fringes out, meant that in fact those more extreme political opinions ended up being the tail that wagged the dog. And I think that was profoundly undemocratic. It would have been less problematic had ukip, as it was called at the time, been represented inside the House of Commons. I think we're more likely and we see already the scrutiny that, for example, Nigel Farage is under over that 5 million pound bung from the cryptocurrency dude. That kind of level of scrutiny pulls his teeth slightly and exposes him. And I think therefore there might be a case for are first past the post system to be re examined. Funnily enough, I know I said at the beginning of the pod that I wouldn't say what I'd written regarding my little brother in Scotland, but I do think that the design of Holyrood. So Holyrood was opened in 2004 and a huge amount of work went into it and the way it was going to be laid out, the Scottish Parliament and the money spent, of course, it was like H2O, what's it called, that train line, HS2. Way over budget. They don't do things cheaper in the north. It was the beginning of the time where everything went over budget. But it's in that horseshoe form and it deliberately was trying to avoid the yaboo sucks politics south of the border. I did point out that we had we grown up with a circular kitchen table. I don't Think it would have stopped us throwing utensils at each other and having heated to bed.

[B]

Well, also, I mean, I don't know the answer this question, but I suspect I do. Does anybody watch the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament?

[A]

No, but the idea is, if you have a horseshoe layout, you're not pitching one side against the other. We saw that when there was the takedown of Robert Jenrick earlier this week. Oh, you're on the wrong side. Yeah. And that kind of. But that was an example of the kind of yaboo socks that being the Liberal Democrat mp.

[B]

Was it Max Wilkinson, something like that. He was actually sitting in the row in front of him. So that wasn't a case of a. Being adversarial because they weren't on the opposite side.

[A]

No, but he said, you should be sitting over there. So it actually did play exactly to the layout of the House of Commons, which also plays to the first past the post model, where it's not about sharing power, or which, of course, the Scottish Parliament was always going to be because it was a proportional representation design. And even though we've had this extraordinary success over the last two decades of the SNP in election, actually today's makeup in the Holyrood building is much more, what was expected, a sort of power sharing.

[B]

But it's much more difficult to identify where they're sitting in that.

[A]

But that's the whole point.

[B]

Yeah, but in the House of Commons, the government sits on one side, whether it's a coalition or not, and the opposition sits on the other side. And there's a certain logic to that.

[A]

But what happens if it's blurring at the edges? So you've got a minority government and you're relying on other parties to vote

[B]

through each piece of legislation, they're still the opposition. If you're in a. Like the Liberal Democrats, they sat on the government benches when they were in coalition. I don't see a problem with that.

[A]

But that's because it's a formal coalition. But it might or not always be. It might be sort of a Hazier example. Like, I think at the moment, in Scotland, they're not. They're not in coalition with anyone. The snp, they're a minority government. So therefore, where do you sit on which side of the bench? If you're a party, say the Greens are the most likely.

[B]

You sit on the opposition benches, it's quite clear.

[A]

Well, not if you're agreeing with them on certain pieces of legislation that are putting.

[B]

But you're not part of the government. So if you're not part of the government, you're part of the opposition.

[A]

But it's very. All I'm saying is she's. Look how you're so dogmatic and black and white.

[B]

Oh, and you aren't?

[A]

No, I just like that. I like the idea of it being a shared.

[B]

Why are we sitting opposite each other rather than sitting next to each other? Because you want to fight, fight, fight.

[A]

Well, actually, if there wasn't a large table with a remaining cake in the front, I would swing for you right now. I'm going to bugger off in a minute. I've got a plane to catch.

[B]

Oh, you're going tonight?

[A]

No, but, you know, if you could, you could have just gone with it. Theatrical, kind of, you know, Tessa's flying off to wetter. Poor clothes.

[B]

Are you traveling with children?

[A]

Only with Elena. No, we can't travel with Dan because we get recognized on the plane, and me and Elena because of our Facebook habit, and he doesn't like that, so he flies separately. I know, right?

[B]

You're just weird.

[A]

So are you.

[B]

Why am I weird? I don't fly separately to members of my family.

[A]

Well, he's flying separately because he doesn't like being spotted on the plane. It would trigger him, and I don't want Dan triggered in a confined space. Yeah.

[B]

So you're going to Romania how long?

[A]

For a week.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Half term. And I'm going. I've already just had another email, and I'm going to see three government departments

[B]

to try and get money out of them.

[A]

Not even just money, just to raise awareness in Romania as well, about what we're trying to do with the Romanian.

[B]

And will you be doing Romanian television while you're there?

[A]

I've got two television meetings. Yeah. And all the while, Elena's being left in the north of the country eating cake with Granny, and I'm traveling down to Bucharest by myself.

[B]

Should I tell you just for a little bit of fluff to finish it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I got a call the other day saying, would I be interested in hosting programs during the World cup on television? I said, what? Talking about football. They said, well, yeah, you know about football. I said, yeah, I'd absolutely love it. So you may lose me for a couple of weeks in June doing.

[A]

It's exciting. What?

[B]

Who for? Can't possibly tell you. Well, I'll tell you off air, but I can't tell you.

[A]

Oh, well, don't says mean. It sounds like you don't trust the listeners as much you trust.

[B]

Well, no, I'll tell people. If it comes off, I mean, I'm sure it's gonna be one of those things that doesn't go anywhere, but I would absolutely love to do that.

[A]

I'm sure you would. Okay. He'd be in that bit, you know, where there's no proper football fans. What's it called? With all the canapes and smoked salmon prawn Cocktail lounges.

[B]

Yeah, no, I'd be in a studio with a panel of footballers, trying to make them make sense of each other.

[A]

Oh, God. Horrific. I'll be back here in Britain with Corey, avoiding.

[B]

I'll still do the podcast, though.

[A]

Scotland's in the World Cup. Anglon. Yeah, it should be a good one. I'm sad.

[B]

Romania is actually. We might. Should we do a bit of where politics meets the World cup history or something like.

[A]

I think David Badil's done that, annoyingly on Radio 4, but we'll have a listen and do it better. Yes.

[B]

Okay, good. Right, do send us questions on email where politics meetshistorylobal.com or leave questions on the Instagram feed. Bye.

[A]

Bye. This has been a global player original production.