145. Who Wants to Tax a Millionaire?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Where Politics Meets History

Episode 145: Who Wants to Tax a Millionaire?

Date: July 24, 2026
Host(s): Iain Dale & Dr. Tessa Dunlop

---

Overview

In this energetic and argumentative episode, Iain Dale and Dr. Tessa Dunlop take on the week's biggest news story: the debate over wealth taxes targeting millionaires and billionaires. Drawing on historical parallels and contemporary controversies, they discuss whether a wealth tax is a fair or effective way to address growing inequality, the differences between British and American tax regimes, and the legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies. Interwoven are anecdotes from their own lives and musings on politics, class, and morality—with their trademark blend of wit, banter, and sharp disagreement.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. The Life and Times of a (Lobbying) Lunch

• Both hosts recount a comically chaotic day around a lunch at London’s Travelers Club—a famously male-only institution (02:00–10:46).
• Tessa’s Madcap Commute: Cyclist misadventures, high heels in a bucket, and a live TV appearance (08:12).
• Debate over the exclusion of women from the club, exposing differences in principles and organizational oversight (06:50–07:16).
• Context: The lunch was a lobbying event hosted by the Romanian Ambassador, pushing for more ties between the UK and Romanian communities.

Notable Quote:

Iain: “I thought, well, I’m compromising all my principles by going to this lunch. And you...you don’t have any principles, clearly.” (02:41)

---

2. Who Wants to Tax a Millionaire?

The Wealth Tax Debate

• Tessa insists on discussing Gabriel Zucman, a prominent pro-wealth-tax French economist, whose ideas are gaining traction in California and possibly the UK (11:05–19:13).
• Performative activism: Gary Lineker and other wealthy celebrities call for higher taxes in an open letter, raising questions about sincerity and effectiveness (12:00–12:46).
• Gabriel Zucman’s Argument: In both the US and UK, the richest have amassed vastly disproportionate wealth, with the richest 200 Britons now owning wealth equivalent to 20% of UK GDP, up from 5% in 1989 (18:13–18:40).

Notable Quote:

Tessa: “They feel that if it was just, you know, us 100 or however many signed the letter millionaires, it wouldn’t be worth doing...The point is, and I hate to be disappointing, they’re not rich enough. They’re already paying considerable amounts of tax.” (12:48)

Avoidance vs. Evasion:

• Iain distinguishes legitimate tax avoidance from illegal evasion; contends it’s the government’s job to close loopholes, not vilify the wealthy automatically (16:47–17:09).
• Tessa presses that the super-rich accumulate assets offshore and escape the progressive intent of the tax system (23:26–24:00).

Notable Quote:

Iain: “Avoiding tax is not illegal. Evading taxes is, and I’m wholly against evading tax. But if...people are avoiding tax...then it is up to the tax people in each country to close those loopholes.” (16:47)

The Risks of a Wealth Tax

• Iain argues that higher taxes or wealth taxes risk driving away wealth creators and the venture capital they provide; Tessa downplays the risk, saying successful entrepreneurs are not motivated by marginal tax policy (21:17–22:36).
• Debate over the exodus of millionaires from Britain; Iain cites data showing an unprecedented outflow, second only to China (21:17–22:11).

---

3. Income Tax, Flat Taxes, and Historical Context

• Historical note: Britain pioneered the world’s first progressive income tax in 1909 (27:02–27:46).
• Iain floats the idea of flat taxes (as in Estonia) as a simpler, fairer system—prompting predictable outrage from Tessa (27:46–28:14).

Notable Quote:

Iain: “If you look at Estonia, where they have a flat tax...there would be no incentive to avoid it then.” (27:46)

---

4. Thatcher’s Legacy and the North-South Divide

• Discussion pivots to Andy Burnham’s political strategy and his explicit rejection of Thatcherism in favor of “old Labour”—is this a vote-winner or a dangerous nostalgia? (31:32–37:36)
• Both agree that Thatcher’s “medicine” created winners and losers, especially geographically; home ownership policy expanded the Conservative base, while deindustrialized regions have struggled since (34:04–36:32).

Notable Quotes:

Tessa: “There were winners and losers and even you would not disagree with that.” (33:34)
Iain: “They did make an effort to regenerate parts of the north...but they didn’t go far enough.” (33:34)

• Iain maintains that New Labour did little to reverse Thatcher’s core legacy, despite their rhetoric (32:03–32:26).
• Both touch on the failure to invest sufficiently in “levelling up” and the disappointment among left-behind communities (36:32–38:08).

---

5. Quick Hits and Audience Engagement

• Questions section covers: the value of robust historical debate (43:52–44:53), unsung backbenchers in Parliament, and whether Wes Streeting is suited to the Defence Secretary post despite lacking military background (45:42–47:41).
• Tessa offers praise for Labour MP Gareth Thomas for his advocacy for the Romanian community.
• Discussion returns to British Imperial history and the necessity of teaching a nuanced, balanced version to future generations (43:52–44:53).

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Tessa on British vs. American tax systems:

  “Britain educated you, Britain birthed you. Britain gave you your good health, your...your sense of identity.” (24:24)

• Iain, summarizing the exodus of millionaires:

  “We have a bigger exodus of millionaires from this country than we’ve ever had...We’re only behind China in the number of millionaires that are leaving this country.” (21:17)

• On the flaws of privatization:

  Iain: “It worked for about the first ten years and then it didn’t because these Australian asset strippers came in and we now have the legacy of that...that was the fault of bad regulation.” (32:40)

• Tessa, on “levelling up” and left-behind regions:

  “Not enough account is made for losers who feel they’ve had their head pushed even further under...I don’t think we’ve ever fully come to terms with those people, how to reach them.” (36:32)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:00] – The “Gentleman’s Club” lunch, women and membership
• [11:05] – Introduction of Gabriel Zucman and the wealth tax debate
• [13:23] – The “performative” nature of celebrity tax activism
• [18:13] – Historical comparison: Richest Britons’ share of GDP, then and now
• [21:17] – Outflow of millionaires from the UK
• [27:02] – History of progressive taxation in Britain
• [27:46] – The case for (and against) flat taxes
• [34:04] – Thatcher’s economic policies and regional divisions
• [36:32] – Levelling up and the post-industrial north
• [43:52] – Questions: Teaching history and empire
• [45:42] – Questions: Unsung politicians and the Defence Secretary debate

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is fast, playful, occasionally combative, and rich with historical asides. Iain is more skeptical of new taxes and intervention, often stressing pragmatism and realism; Tessa positions herself as the advocate for reform and moral urgency. Both joke, interrupt, and provoke—classic “good-natured row” territory. Listeners get both sides of the debate with ample data, pointed barbs, and wry self-awareness.

---

For listeners short on time: This episode is a must-listen for those following the debate over wealth inequality, the merits (and risks) of wealth taxes, and the modern echoes of Britain’s Thatcherite legacy. Expect rigorous disagreement, sharp historical perspective, and plenty of laughs.

Transcript

[A]

This is a global production. America continues to tax citizens that have left America, whereas if you're British, you pay tax when you're here working and then you leave and you just go and become. I don't know if you live in Sweden or Iceland or Romania. You don't have to play by the British taxation rules.

[B]

Why should you. If you're working in Sweden, why should you have to pay tax in Britain?

[A]

Britain educated you, Britain birthed you. Britain gave you your good health, your. Your sense of identity.

[B]

So you think a doctor that leaves Britain to go to work in Australia should also pay not only income tax in Australia, but pay British income tax too.

[A]

Have a look at the American model. Have a look at the American model.

[B]

Yeah, I don't agree with that.

[A]

Where it's interesting is inheritance tax you do still have to pay, even if you leave Britain. And so if you can do that with inheritance tax.

[B]

So if I think, gosh, I'm just addicted to taxation.

[A]

No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm addicted to people who don't pay enough tax when I paid, well, enough tax.

[B]

In your view, do you think we've

[A]

had enough of an argument?

[B]

Fucking hell. Who are you? I can barely see you.

[A]

Oh, God, not the eye. Oh, that reminds me of the Trump quote of the week. Trump doesn't do eye for an eye. He does head for an eye.

[B]

Does he?

[A]

So maybe he's taken your eye or the Houthi have run off with your eye. I don't know. Where's your eye gone, Ian?

[B]

My eye is still there, but I had to have a horrible injection in it on Wednesday. And normally when I have injections, they're just like. You hardly notice it. This one. Let's put it this way, I noticed. And would you like to hear the sound I made as they stuck the needle in my eye? I went.

[A]

I don't know how to respond to that. It's a slightly unusual way to start

[B]

the podcast and it meant that I had to have the night off my radio show because I was just. So I did come to your lunch, but honestly, I was all over the place.

[A]

Basically, Ian arrived like a big splat at the Travelers Club in Palmar.

[B]

Actually, talking of that, before we get on to the lunch, I've got a bone to pick with you.

[A]

Right, before you pick bones, we will also going to be talking about why Andy Burnham doesn't like Thatcher, which means Ian will never like Andy Barnum. We're also going to be talking about the wealth tax and the main Propagator of the wealth tax, who Ian hadn't heard from because he's so invested in his own echo chamber. What's the bone, darling?

[B]

The bone is you made me go to a club which doesn't admit women. So, I mean, how. How the worm has turned. Where I used to boycott the Carlton Club because they didn't have women members. And I get an email like the night, the day before we had this lunch saying, it's a gentleman's club. Ladies are allowed to come to lunch or drink at the bar, but they're not allowed to become members. And I thought, well, I'm compromising all my principles by going to this lunch. And you. You don't have any principles, clearly.

[A]

Do you know? No, I'm just. And I hadn't checked where we were going. All I'd done this, by the way, for context, was an event which Ian has said I can't put on my Romanian Facebook page. So halfway through the lunch, I thought, well, what's the point? What is the point of me being here if I can't put it on my Romanian Facebook page? It was a lobbying lunch with some very important people. We were being hosted by the Romanian ambassador on the quest for a Romanian

[B]

GC who is a woman. So I don't know how she can be a member there.

[A]

Well, once. So I basically, I got the venue, I forwarded it onto you. I knew that I was tight anyway because I was trying to get from the Storm Huntley and Alexis Co Ran show on channel.

[B]

Listen to this. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Tessa Dunlop all over a typical morning in the life of Tessa Dunlop.

[A]

Do you think we might lose listeners? I'll try and keep it short. Long and short. If it was. I hadn't realized that the 22nd of July was the same day as the 22nd of July that was happening in 2000.

[B]

It's strange that, isn't it? I mean, do you not use that Microsoft Outlook to keep your diary?

[A]

I don't. I put everything in my head. No. What? I just put things.

[B]

Well, that explains a lot.

[A]

Don't. You're like my little brother. Oh, he's also got an issue with me, you know, my MSP little brother. The Liberal Democrats succeeding and flourishing in the south of Scotland. Who says I'm not nice enough about him and his friends who listen to the podcast don't think I'm nice enough. But I'm like, we did.

[B]

He's got a point.

[A]

We've done 50 years of tough love in my family. If we Compliment someone, it's by offending them. I practice the equivalent with you day in, day out. The listeners don't get it. This is a sign of my love. What's the point in being nice all the time? It's just insincere.

[B]

I mean, I reckon that in an average week, you tell me that you love me at least 20 times.

[A]

But not on air. Do I? No, only after I've been new to you.

[B]

But, you see, the more you say it, the more I don't think you mean it.

[A]

And interestingly, Ian loses his temper much more with me, arguably, because he's Mr. Global. The power resides with him.

[B]

I have to put up, as I'm a man, obviously, yeah, with the power.

[A]

And I have to put up with him flouncing around with the timelines when we're doing the pod when we're not, when he's got a book interview, can I fit around his chest a giant and busy schedule. Okay, etc. Etc. And yet I get the hate. Same with my little brother. I get a concussion. He texts, go to the doctor and say you've got adhd. And then he wants me to go, I love the Liberal Democrats in the south of Scotland. I did ring him and say, make sure, because I think he's Education Secretary for the Liberal Democrats now in Scotland. I said, great. You can. You can export. Once I get my Romanian gcse, you can export it into your Scottish fiefdom. And. And you can.

[B]

You just have to be empowered to do that. Oh, I'm not unlikely with the Liberal Democrats.

[A]

Worry not about small details. And all he said was, well, it's a different exam system up here and you'll have to get me a different version. I was like, oh, jings. He's blinding me with problems. Anyway, obviously, lovey and Dale and I love my brother. Got my fingers crossed and we're back to the event in the Travelers Club. I then looked after we'd been to the Travelers Club in Palmal, a very prestigious venue. I looked it up. Do you know the genesis of this club?

[B]

No.

[A]

We're sort of late on in the Napoleonic wars. In fact, after. Just after we'd won, beaten Napoleon. 1890s, the doors open. It moves to Pall Mall a bit later, but it is for Travelers. And in fact, the stipulation. Let me pull up the details because they're utterly fascinating to be able to become a member. Quote. For gentlemen who traveled out of the British Isles to a distance of at least 4,500miles from London in a Direct line. That's quite challenging in 1819. You've not got an airplane or anything. Membership. And this is why the Romanian ambassador invited us. There was extended to foreign visitors and diplomats posted to London.

[B]

And they can even be ladies.

[A]

Indeed. She was very proud of having been given this honorary membership and she was basically trying to impress the assembled audience. Fair play to her. I wasn't going to go and say, you know, my podcast partner's having a flag.

[B]

No. But sue, if I had found out that a week in advance, I would have asked for the venue to be changed because I. I do think it is a disgrace in this day and age that women should be excluded from an establishment like that. Now there are men only golf clubs. I wouldn't join one of those either. There are women only establishments now. I think that there either was or is a women's only equivalent club in London, but I just think we're 20, 26.

[A]

Anyway, the upshot is that had a formal dress code. Ian's busy tis waszing and I can't take any of his petulance because I didn't inform him the day before because I was busy telling the ambassador what not to say without being undiplomatic at the event.

[B]

But normally I would have come dressed appropriately, but because I only found out I had this eye appointment to the Chelsea and Westminster at nine o' clock on the Wednesday morning. The afternoon before, I was already in London. Now, I did have the foresight to bring a shirt and pants and socks with me just in case I had to stay over, but I didn't think

[A]

to bring a tie or appropriate trousers or footwear.

[B]

They didn't notice the trousers because they're dark and I don't wear shoes. I always wear sketches.

[A]

Well, compared to the guests that you bought. Because Ian was invited to this lobbying event because of his networking capacity, but he was in a suit that looked like it had enjoyed the same tailor as King Charles iii. And you weren't?

[B]

I wasn't in a suit. I was in a light blue jacket and chinos.

[A]

Meanwhile, I was having a nightmare because I looked at the address having realised I double booked on the same day. Live telly ended at 12:45. Event started in Pall Mall posh club at one that gave me 15 minutes to get from King's Cross to Pal Mall. There was no way of doing that without a push bike. So in my little head I was like, okay, that means I've got to cycle bike all the way into the Jeremy vine show from southeast London. So I set off nice and early with my high heeled shoes in a bucket on the back of my bicycle. Dan's helmet that kept slopping off my head. And I pumped up the tire before I left because it's a bit soggy. And then it never been on such a long walk. My bike.

[B]

Anyway, should we talk about a wealth tax?

[A]

No. And halfway to Jeremy Vine I got a puncture and I was like, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. What am I going to do? How do I mend a puncher and get to the Palmar Club? I'm sweating really badly and I've got live TV to get to. And then I find a cycle sh. And then I leave it at the cycle shop and I go, I'm going to come back at 12:45, it's going to be totally ready. And then I start running, sweating in my TV clothes to get to the Jeremy vine studio to do the Jeremy vine event, to run out of the studio to get by, pay for my bike, to put a helmet on my head, to take off my high heels, to cycle to Pall Mall, got my phone in front of me in a hand fall off the bike. Everything comes crashing down. Literally. I'm Sally Hawkins and happy go lucky. Okay? That's what I was meant to be floating through London. What.

[B]

What you don't know is that I got after I'd left the hospital where I literally couldn't see anything because of all the drops that they put in your eyes. I thought, right, I'm going to go and sit in the reception of the Sofitel Hotel in Waterloo Place, which is just over the road from the Travelers Club. So I thought, well, I'll be there. I kind of. I hadn't ever been to the Travelers Club before, but I kind of knew roughly which building it was. So I sit down and I sort of think I'll have a little snooze. So. And I woke up at six minutes to one thinking, fuck, shit, bollocks. So I sort of race over to the Travelers Club, hoping that I'll be like the first one there. And of course our guest of honor was already there with the ambassador and

[A]

I was not that late, given that I'd fallen off my bike and had a puncture.

[B]

I was thinking, she's not, she's not going to be here till at least quarter past one. But two minutes after I got there, you got there. You must have been peddling your little socks off.

[A]

Yeah, I was absolutely stressed.

[B]

Anyway, I think everyone's lost the will to probably. I was very proud of Tessa's performance in this lunch until about 20 minutes from the end when the word wanker came from her lips. Well, if anybody's still listening, let's have a little break because I'm sure you need one. I know I do.

[A]

Had to cycle home again.

[B]

Well, to the two remaining listeners, glad you stuck the course. We're going to talk about something that Tessa's been badgering me about all day. We must talk about Gabriel. What's his name? Zuckerman.

[A]

Zuckman.

[B]

Zuckman. And I'm thinking, who's the fuck's that? Never heard of him. And she insists that he's the world's most famous person.

[A]

He's a very, very well known economist. French was at Barclay California. Big part of the push behind this wealth tax that looks like it might be introduced to California. He was, dare I say it, on a significant rival podcast. He's written a best selling book. He is leading the charge for taxing those who evade tax.

[B]

I thought that was Gary's Stevenson. Is that his name?

[A]

No, that's Gary Lineker who came out today.

[B]

There's another bloke who's going around all the studios advocating wealth tax. I'm sure it's called Gary Stevenson. He's a lefty economist. That's right, yeah.

[A]

Okay, Corey says that's right, but also Gary Lineker with Richard Curtis.

[B]

Do we really need to know Gary Lineker's views on taxation?

[A]

Well, no, but did you not hear what he did today? He released a public letter with some other loveies.

[B]

I did see that.

[A]

Who earn loads of money. It was basically a way of them letting us know how much money they earned. They were like, put more tax on us knowing, fine, that Burnham isn't going to tax income, which is what it's all about. And they're not rich enough. I hate to burst their big ego bubble, but 10 million.

[B]

Is this group called Patriotic? Is it patriotic or patriotic? I never know. One is American and one isn't, but I never know which one's which. Anyway, whatever they've. They, they form this group because they want to pay more tax. And the thing is, if they want to pay more tax, they can easily do it. There is a bank account that the treasury have for people who wish to pay more tax. So they could just write a cheque if they wanted to or just transfer it if they wanted it to.

[A]

It was performative, of course.

[B]

Well, I'm glad you accept that.

[A]

Of course it was to get Clicks and also, they clearly feel that if it was just, you know, us 100 or however many signed the letter millionaires, it wouldn't be worth doing. You know, we need to obviously catch and broker this idea so that we get all millionaires. But the point is, and I hate to be disappointing, they're not rich enough. They're already paying considerable amounts of tax. In fact, if you look at the taxation system, and this is where Gabriel Zuckman is so impressive, and Jeremy vine was going to do this as a debate, and I learned it all off by heart. And then they suddenly told me at the last minute they wanted me to talk about the hose pipe band.

[B]

I mean, is that an interesting thing for discussion?

[A]

I think it's been introduced now in London because of this. Was it prolonged period of dry weather? Because they're desperately trying not to say drought. And I went on the Jeremy vine show via my bicycle with a p. With a bucket. And I said to everyone, you need to take a bucket into your shower and shower with a bucket. And you catch your gray water. You stand in the bucket, ideally, you take the gray water outside your shower water and you feed your trees and plants with it. And it's a way of recycling the water. Because we don't have a system in this country where we separate the sewage, the poo and the wee from the gray water that other continental systems have. So we need to recycle our gray water, which is what I've started doing. And my crab apple looks so happy. I've only done outside plants. And I erroneously said on the Channel 5 thing, I stood in the bucket. And I said, this is what you do. And then you go. And on live telly, things pop out of your mouth and you can't catch them back in again. I said.

[B]

And you go, they do your mouth. Yes.

[A]

I said, you can go around feeding your house parts and your outdoor plants. And I said, crab apple and morning glory. And then I got this massive house planter with like 300 million followers going, trolling me going, this is why you don't get a historian talking about house plants, because apparently it kills houseplants, but it definitely doesn't kill garden plants.

[B]

So what's the morning glory bit?

[A]

The morning glories are lovely plants, not erections.

[B]

Oh, I thought that was something different.

[A]

God almighty. Wealth tax. Get back with the picture just because you don't want to talk about it.

[B]

Here's a quiz question for you. How many billionaires are there in the uk?

[A]

I think if we tax those who are Worth over a hundred million pounds.

[B]

No, I. Answer the question.

[A]

I don't know the exact statistics. How many guys?

[B]

No, just guess.

[A]

I would think there's probably billionaires. Not that many. It's not about numbers, it's about the size of their wealth, which has gone off the scale. I think we're talking between 200 to 500, 157.

[B]

Now, I haven't got the figures for three or four years ago, but I suspect it would have been quite a lot higher than that. How many millionaires are there in this country?

[A]

Oh, huge numbers of millionaires. Because of the houses?

[B]

Yeah. I mean, technically I'm a millionaire, but I certainly don't feel like it. But I think you are.

[A]

No, I'm not a millionaire because I don't own enough of my house and house properties have gone down. I'm not. I just. I hate to disappoint you.

[B]

Two and a half million millionaires in this country. Yes, that surprised me.

[A]

But which is why, by the way, Andy Burnham's going to go for a capital gains tax so he can rake in money off those, particularly those who have made money out of their sleeping assets. That's normally property, without hitting the industrial muscle of the country.

[B]

Well, if he wants to lose the next election, I suggest he does that. If you put capital gains tax on your first property, I mean, millions of people would not vote Labour if you did that.

[A]

Kirsty also is very worried that that might be what he's going to do.

[B]

Just Kirsty is always right on.

[A]

What we're talking about here is the disproportionate way the super rich have got so much richer. They avoid taxation. Jeff Bezos famously doesn't declare any earnings whatsoever, and his daughter therefore got some sort of university grant because. Or some equivalent grant because her father had no earnings. Like, literally. They play by totally different rules. So let me tell you about the Sunday Times Rich list, which is a tracker.

[B]

Before you say that, can I just come back on that point, then? If they're doing that, I mean, avoiding. Avoiding tax is not illegal. Evading taxes, and I'm wholly against evading tax. But if there is some sort of way that people are avoiding tax, whether they're billionaires or not, then it is up to the tax people in each country to close those loopholes, which is

[A]

what Gabriel Zuckman is all about. Now, just a couple of things I want to let you know, and I can't claim this as my own research, it's not. It's clearly done by Frenchmen. The Sunday Times rich list. You think that's going to convince me in 1989? Okay, the first year of the Sunday Times richness ranking. Interestingly at the tail end of Thatcherism, by the way, isn't it? We were so vulgar, we had to work out how rich everyone was. The top 200 wealthiest families in the UK owned wealth equivalent to how much of the UK's GDP. This is 1989, the top 200 wealthiest.

[B]

Well, it's an irrelevant statistic.

[A]

It's not an irrelevant statistic because this is about the level of wealth of the very, very, very rich.

[B]

But so what? There will always be very rich people in any society. There are in China, believe.

[A]

I'm trying to demonstrate how much richer they've become. So just answer how. What percentage of 5% of the UK's GDP? That meant that had they spent their wealth they could have bought the equivalent of 5% of all the goods and services in the UK at that time in 1989.

[B]

Again a meaningless statistic.

[A]

It's not meaningless when you compare it with today's Sunday Times rich list. The twent the 200 richest people in Britain on the most recent rich list, their wealth was the equivalent of what percentage of the UK's GDP. GDP?

[B]

Didn't we just answer that question?

[A]

No, we did it. I knew you weren't listening. 1989, 5%. Today, same number of very rich people, 20%.

[B]

So a French communist is calculating this 20%?

[A]

No, he's not actually. He's highly esteemed from Berkeley University in California. And I think that that is a statistic we can't wriggle away from and it's replicated across the globe. The exact same in California where you get the super rich and the super po and you also get the hollowing out of any kind of public subsidies because of Trump and Doge and everything else. Which is why they are seriously considering mooting the idea of the California billionaire tax. A 5% one off tax on their wealth.

[B]

A 5% one off tax on which of course then wouldn't be a one off tax because then they would repeat it.

[A]

What's fascinating is, and I was listening

[B]

intently, are you in favour of that here?

[A]

I was listening intently to his argument because I do think if we look at the way this is a statistic from California in the last two years, how have these richest billionaires, and we're talking about 200, 250 billionaires in California and their wealth by the way, is the equivalent of 50% of California's GDP how much has it grown by their wealth in the last two years, these richest, richest men in the world in California, I have no idea, 150%. So, in other words, even if you're. Even if you're Gary Lineker rich, you're trundling along in the slow lane. These bonkers, most of them are technocrats. They've made their money through tricks on the World Bank.

[B]

You're talking as if none of them

[A]

ever pay any tax, but especially, by the way, in Europe and the uk, where you get these holding companies where they can avoid tax. That's the whole point. They're so rich they're able to avoid tax. And his argument is these other men mainly, but not only that, we need to hit, to chase down, because I'm

[B]

sure some of them do do that. But you can't just blithely say they all do it.

[A]

If they're already paying tax, then they wouldn't need to pay more tax, but they have to be forced to pay tax because otherwise you don't have an equitable system.

[B]

You're just putting them all in the same basket. And out of 157 billionaires in this country, I'm sure there are some that don't pay as much tax as they should.

[A]

Shouldn't be optional, Ian. It should not.

[B]

Well, that's up to HMRC to do something about, isn't it? It's not up to politicians to do something about it. You shouldn't say, well, let's tax all the billionaires because some of them aren't doing it. Right. That's the fault of the taxation system.

[A]

Well, and his point is, we need to reform that taxation system so we catch these bonkers billionaires. If they reside in Britain, if they reside in Britain, they cannot be or have wield this extraordinary wealth and not be accountable. And the thing that you're going to say next is they'll leave. That's what you're going to say, isn't it?

[B]

Well, I'm not going to say they're going to leave because they already are leaving. All the statistics show that. I don't know about billionaires, but certainly millionaires. We have a bigger exodus of millionaires from this country than we've ever had in our existence in the world. We're only behind China in the number of millionaires that are leaving this country. Now, if you think a lot of people on the left say, well, so what? If they're not patriotic, let them go, fine, well, but look at the consequences of that. Where does the money come from to invest in new startup businesses. It doesn't come from the banks anymore because banks won't lend generally to startups unless you provide security. So a lot of people, they will go to a billionaire and say, look, I've got this really good business idea. Would you like to invest in it? And that's where a lot of the seed capital comes from for new businesses. If that dries up, we really are buggered as an economy.

[A]

Well, he would flip it around and say that huge numbers of entrepreneurs are not thinking, oh my goodness, we might end up being one of the 150th richest people in Britain and therefore be taxed at a rate of 2% for our holdings that currently are in companies and offshore accounts that can't be reached and therefore we're not going to establish our business in Britain. It doesn't work like that. That's not how people think.

[B]

Well, it absolutely is how people think.

[A]

It isn't how people think.

[B]

People are not coming to this country now because they don't think that we're a business friendly country.

[A]

I don't know where you get that statistic from. I don't know.

[B]

Read the Economist. I suggest you do. You might actually learn something about how the real economy works. Because at the moment it's a one, it's one way. Everybody's going. Not everybody, of course not everybody is going. Gary Lynn, if you, if you don't, if you don't make it attractive to invest in the country and we used to be the biggest recipient of inward investment. We no longer are. Now you'll put that down to Brexit and there may well be an element of truth in that. But I will also put it down to the fact that business taxes are on the increase, personal taxes are on the increase, regulation is on the increase, and it means therefore that people will look for other countries domains where they can actually think they're going to make more money.

[A]

And I agree with you. Taxation is higher than it's ever been for every strata of society with the exception of the billionaires. That is fact. You just need to look at the escalating wealth, you need to look at where they place their assets.

[B]

That's not true.

[A]

And we can trust that.

[B]

Corporation tax has gone up to 25%.

[A]

But they're not paying corporation taxes.

[B]

You say they. I mean, I don't know how you can sit there and say all 157 billionaires and most of the 2.43 millionaires aren't paying tax. They clearly are.

[A]

Many of them are able to avoid tax, and that is a fact.

[B]

And the proposal is 30% of income tax revenues in this country come from the top 1% of earners.

[A]

Now, I don't know how of earners, but that's income. We're not talking about income. We know that it doesn't declare any income.

[B]

Fuck Jeff Bezos.

[A]

But we're talking about that million.

[B]

Well, there is Elon Musk. There's only one Jeff Bezos. There's only one Elon Musk. I mean, these people are the exception.

[A]

What's he called? Zuckerberg.

[B]

There's about four. If I said to you name me as many billionaires as you could, you'd probably come up with five.

[A]

But the point is that there are a very few individuals who make, have made money at an extraordinary rate. And not only have they done that, they've at the same time, it's not about to make money hollowed out. Much of our high street Amazon, for

[B]

example, impact our whole economy is there because of the profit motive. If people think they aren't going to be able to make a profit, they will go.

[A]

But nowadays, I get that. But nowadays because of these, these macro players and I think they need to be more urgently taxed in America than they are in Britain because most of them are seeded and grown in America. But they have this extraordinary global reach. If you look at a company like, like Amazon, what Amazon has done is hammered our high streets. It doesn't pay the tax that previously old school high street businesses did. We have a bunch of neets called teenagers who can't get work in their holidays because the high streets blame the government.

[B]

Then don't blame Amazon. Amazon is one of the most successful companies ever invented and it doesn't go by the rules. It plays by the rules because otherwise they would be going to prison. The rules may be wrong and you and I would probably agree on that.

[A]

And that's why I want to change the rules for billionaires. And what's really interesting is where America differs from Britain, a and this is a hangover from between the wars and Roosevelt, they actually tax assets and monies in these holding funds in a way that America, Britain and Europe don't. But also America continues to tax citizens that have left America. Whereas if you're British, you pay tax when you're here working and then you leave and you just go and become, I don't know if you live in Sweden or Iceland or Romania. You don't have to play by the British taxation Rules.

[B]

Why should you. If you're working in Sweden, why should you have to pay tax in Britain?

[A]

Well, Britain educated you, Britain birthed you. Britain gave you your good health, your. Your sense of identity.

[B]

So you think a doctor that leaves Britain to go to work in Australia should also pay not only income tax in Australia, but pay British income tax.

[A]

Have a look at the American model. Have a look at the American model. Where it's interesting is inheritance tax. You do still have to pay, even if you leave Britain. And so if you can do that with inheritance tax.

[B]

So if I think, gosh, you're just addicted to taxation.

[A]

No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm addicted to people who don't pay enough tax when I pay what enough

[B]

tax, in your view?

[A]

Do you think we've had enough of an argument? Can I just tell you that what's interesting historically, because people do.

[B]

When you've ever run a business, when you've ever started a business. I'll take what you say into account.

[A]

What's really interesting, Ian, is that there was a terribly unfair taxation system across the world, really, where the poor had an equivalent burden to those with broader shoulders. When did that change? And which country led the change? When did we introduce a progressive tax system? And which country introduced it first?

[B]

No idea.

[A]

1909 country introduced it. Famous budget.

[B]

People's Budget, Lloyd George.

[A]

Britain was the first.

[B]

Was that about income tax or was that. And they introduced national insurance, didn't they?

[A]

A progressive income tax, I. E. You paid more tax if you earned more. Who followed next? 1914. No, 1913, actually, America and 1914 France. We can lead on this, Ian. We can.

[B]

Well, you see, in my view, and you are going to hate this, I warn you right now, I think flat taxes are the way forward. If you look at Estonia, where they have a flat tax.

[A]

What do you mean, like vat?

[B]

No, a flat income tax. So everybody pays the same. There would be no incentive to avoid it. Then What?

[A]

So you pay people who earn 10 grand a year 32% and you pay really rich people 32%?

[B]

Well, it wouldn't be 32%. It would probably be about sort of 18%.

[A]

I really hate that idea.

[B]

I know. Of course you do, because you're a lefty.

[A]

I'm not a lefty, Ian. I'm actually not that lefty.

[B]

You always give a good impression of

[A]

it, though, and just occasionally I need to challenge the old dinosaur. Do you know what I felt like? I felt like it was a rugby analogy there. I was in a scrum And I was driving hard at you and I

[B]

was trying to pull the ball out.

[A]

You were really annoying. You and my little brother. God Almighty.

[B]

He and I have a lot in common. Apart from the fact he's a bloody Liberal Democrat.

[A]

Yeah, but you're a bit liberal, aren't you? Bit all yellow.

[B]

I'm a bit liberal on one or two things.

[A]

Curly custard.

[B]

Should we move on?

[A]

We'll go for a break.

[B]

Exhausted, this one.

[A]

We do Thatcher next.

[B]

Yeah, let's. We always like it when we have breaking news on this podcast, don't we?

[A]

Well, love it.

[B]

Corey has just broken news to us, which has left me flabbergasted, to be honest. Apparently, Angela Rayner, Lucy Powell and Louise Hague are all going to use number 10 north as their main base to work from.

[A]

From.

[B]

What's your reaction to that? Our political correspondent, Tessa Dunlop.

[A]

I have two trains of thought. We know that I struggle with schmoozing up to people, trying to make friends and influence folk, and Lucy Powell is in my crosshairs because I want my gcse. So well done, Lucy. That's a really good move. But if you're asking me genuinely what I think, I think they are being extraordinarily, and I've said this in a previous podcast, focused on one nation of the United Kingdom's four nations. How a bell Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff gonna feel about being governed from Manchester? It ain't gonna wash, telling you, because

[B]

they all have their devolved parliament. So I don't think that's your strongest argument.

[A]

These are ministers for the whole of the United Kingdom.

[B]

Of course they are.

[A]

This isn't about devolution.

[B]

I would say if you lived in Exeter, if you lived in Southampton, if you live in Canterbury, you're gonna think, well, why are they up north? I mean, would it be possibly. I mean, it's obviously complete coincidence that each of those three have Greater Manchester constituencies.

[A]

Yeah, Lucy Powell's in the central Manchester.

[B]

I mean, we now have effectively governance of the United Kingdom by Manchester.

[A]

I think that's over egging the pudding. Although one of our other guests yesterday at our esteemed gathering was a teacher from Leeds. And they're feeling very.

[B]

They're not very happy. No, I think this could really affect Burnham in the medium term, maybe not in the short term, because he's now got quite high popularity ratings, which, I mean, most new prime ministers always get those. But I wouldn't be surprised if within two or three months, there was a similar drop in support in the graph to what Keir Starmer had after the welfare payments and the free suits and glasses.

[A]

Do you know what? After yesterday's launch that was my most fascinating takeaway fact that Leeds is actually bigger than Manchester.

[B]

I didn't know that. I didn't know that until a few months ago. For some reason I had to google what the populations were of Birmingham and Manchester and Manchester is about half the size of Birmingham but Leeds is bigger. It's not as big as Birmingham but it's way bigger than Manchester.

[A]

It's got a big financial centre. Arguably Leeds would be a more sensible choice except the trains back take hours. He didn't get home till very early.

[B]

I think they've made a rod for their own backs on this.

[A]

Well, let's have a look. Are you trying to prevaricate over talking about Thatcher?

[B]

No, no, you go ahead.

[A]

It's just interesting because Burnham doesn't to go back to Thatcher. He wants to go back to a Labour as we used to know Labour before Thatcher and I was trying to think so he's jumping over Blair doesn't

[B]

obviously like even though he's a member of the Blair and Brown government.

[A]

Yeah, that's interesting because Blair was about steering public sectors, wasn't he? Wasn't about rowing and the heft. Well the thing he was about kind of giving it a gentle nudge the Thatcher was the deregulation that kick started this new regulation.

[B]

But did you notice that neither of those governments rode back on the Thatcherite legacy? They didn't change economic policy. Yes, they spent a bit more on the health service and one or two other things. They didn't reverse any of her trade union legislation. Not a single bit of it. They didn't reverse I think I'm right in saying any of the privatisations in fact they privatised themselves.

[A]

Yeah, but what's interesting is now there's a clear case water's a particular problem that actually we shouldn't have nationalised water and we should have drifted in sooner to correct the mistake that had been made.

[B]

I agree with that bit. I think that there was a case for privatizing water and I mean we needn't go into it now and it worked for about the first 10 years and then it didn't because these Australian asset strippers came in and we now have the legacy of that now that wasn't the fault of privatization, that was the fault of bad regulation and that could have changed. I mean Blair and Brad could have changed that but they didn't. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers could have changed that, but they didn't. So I think again, it's easy to say that it's all the fault of privatisation and I do understand why people say that, but I think it's a bit more complicated.

[A]

What's interesting about the Thatcher legacy, and I think it's something the likes of you and her acolytes don't flag up enough, mainly because you're not all exclusively, but many of you are based in the southeast, is the geographical impact of her policies. So there were winners and losers and even you would not disagree with that.

[B]

No, I wouldn't. And I did actually say this in my Thatcher book last year, that I think they did make an effort to regenerate parts of the north, I mean, particularly mining communities. I mean there were schemes to try and do that, there were schemes to provide alternative employment, there were lots of training schemes, but they didn't go far enough. And I don't think that was through ill will. But you're right, they didn't touch the sides. So that was an error. Era of the politicians of that era, what happens.

[A]

And if you look at the places that were worst affected. So when she applies her medicine, which is we've got to get inflation down at all costs and it doesn't matter if the employment numbers go up, if businesses go, you know, go bust and we're not going to support steel or mining etc, any of the sort of big old school industries. One in five people in Northern Ireland were unemployed. One in five is in the sort of height of the Thatcher era. At the same time as the troubles are pumping away like nobody's business. Likewise in Scotland, in the north of England, you're getting the hollowing out of these communities and I don't think Scotland's a bit of an exception subsequently just

[B]

on the mining front. I mean, let's not run away with the idea that it was Thatcher that closed all the mines. She actually didn't close as many as Harold Wilson did when he was Prime Minister. So this was a, this was a phenomenon that had been going on since the 1960s, but because by the time she came into power there were so many more minds that were uneconomic, they just couldn't pay their way and she wasn't willing to subsidize them. Inevitably they, they went. Now, from a climate change point of view, Tessa, you can say that that was a great thing.

[A]

I'm not going down the climate.

[B]

No, because it doesn't seem.

[A]

No, it's not that. It's just. I want to stay focused on why Thatcher kind of got away with it on so many levels and why the Conservative Party was able to hold on to power in her wake. There was the kind of the ownership brigade, the people, partly because of this extraordinary sale of the council houses with up to 70% discounts. So the numbers of people who'd bought into Britain, bought into owning their homes, massively increased. That base is therefore more likely to back a Conservative leaning government in the future, or at least one that protects, protects their assets. So you do have these very clear winners, winners who are more likely to be registered to vote, etc, but not enough account is made for losers who feel they've had their head pushed even further under. And I don't think we've ever fully come to terms with those people, how to reach them. We saw the spectre of that legacy, I think, coming up, rearing its head with Brexit. And it was the, the votes that it was, it were the people who felt they weren't spoken to. And we see it again now and it's the people who Burnham is trying to reach is why he's moving to up to number 10 north, sort of. Some of us might see it as tokenism. Maybe you'd consider it as something else if you actually were one of those people who's been unseen for the last four decades.

[B]

Well, I completely accept there are people that think the political system, the political classes, left and right, have let them down. Completely agree with that. And I don't think that, I mean, Boris Johnson had the kernel of an idea in the leveling up agenda. And I think that was designed to help people who have been in that situation for decades. But it all got sidetracked by Covid and certainly never really had a chance to implement it. And now when Pete, who was I listening to the other day? Somebody really sort of decrying the idea of leveling up. And I'm thinking, on what planet are you? There are so many areas in this country that do feel, and particularly like coastal communities, not just like former mining communities.

[A]

Who cares about them?

[B]

Burnham. There are plenty of other areas that need to be tackled. And Burnham's problem is it's all very well the rhetoric and he's very, very good at the rhetoric. Where's the beef? He's come out with various initiatives in his first three or four days which have got a lot of headlines, but you do wonder if the work has been done behind the scenes to think, well, okay, well, how are we going to implement this? How are we going to Pay for it. Where's that money going to come from? Is it going to have to come from another department? And it all seems to be a little bit on the hoof and I hope I'm wrong. I hope they have actually worked it through. But some of them, I mean, like the bus fare thing, which was completely performative, it's going to cost about 400 million. And as Darren Jones pointed out with the digital ID card scheme, if that

[A]

please you, secretly, please you.

[B]

I was against the previous government's, Labour government's ID card scheme, but I do think there is more of a case for something like that now. So I'm not going to say I was pleased or displeased. I was slightly on the fence on it, but I mean, they hadn't even worked out how they were going to pay for that. So to say, well, we're going to cancel the ID card scheme and the money for that will pay for the bus fares, that clearly is not true. And it was interesting that Darren Jones, like the day after he was effectively removed from office, says publicly, I mean, basically criticizes his new Prime Minister.

[A]

Sour grapes, isn't it?

[B]

It is sour grapes, but Andy Burnham has created a lot of sour grapes over the past few days with the ministers that he's not kept on. And there's a lot of discontent among those ministers.

[A]

I'm just thinking, I'm really glad I'm getting on a ferry to France tomorrow and I'm gonna get a break from this burn.

[B]

You're not gonna be here next week, are you?

[A]

How are you gonna cope? It's okay. Do you know what's gonna happen on Monday, Corey?

[B]

I'll get a word in.

[A]

Yeah. And he's gonna do extensive, long, prolonged 3D sound effect promotions for his Edinburgh Fringe shows.

[B]

No, I'm gonna do that at the end of this.

[A]

To which I wasn't invited. But that's what he's gonna do, by the way, everyone. Okay? He's gonna really go long, hard and deep.

[B]

Well, you see, that'll teach you to. You didn't last year.

[A]

You are a wanker. Right? Please, please. I don't like any of them rough love. It's just rough. There's no love.

[B]

But I mean, just to finish off this thing about Burnham and Thatcher. Do you think it is a vote winner for him to go down this road? Because if he wants the older generation to vote for him. We remember what Britain was like in the 1970s. And even labor voters of my generation remember what Britain was like in the 1970s. And they. They won't want to go back to that.

[A]

I've got a friend who runs a. In Langdidno in. In northern Wales and they're like, it's been awful since. It's just. They keep us think it gets worse and worse. We're having to employ locals because they can't get any more eu.

[B]

Good.

[A]

Tell you the only place that's had leveling off is the east of Europe. They don't want to come over. They don't need to come over.

[B]

So maybe.

[A]

And they say we have to employ the whole family and there's always somebody sick. I'm like, this sounds terrible. Service with no smile. The only difference now is from the 70s, it doesn't fucking rain. Hi, welcome to the local wildfire. Now here's your fucking coffee.

[B]

If you. You've. You've been to Buxton, haven't you, in Derbyshire?

[A]

No, I think there might have been a book fair or something there.

[B]

I want to. Yeah, well, that's. That's where I'm going tomorrow. And I. I was agonizing this morning over, should I take some sort of coat or sort of like protection from the rain because it has a sort of unique climate, Buxton. And in the end I thought, sod it. No, I won't bother. And I know exactly what's gon. Now, it's just going to piss down the whole time.

[A]

Well, they'd be really grateful if you

[B]

bought rain if you live in Derbyshire, anywhere near Buxton tomorrow. Which is what today? You'll be listening to this on Friday. It's a bit late, Ian, for.

[A]

Don't bother.

[B]

A few late punters might be good. Just very briefly, without any interruption from Tessa. 4 o'. Clock, Steve Richards and I are going to be talking about my Thatcher book and his Blair book. And then Steve's going to interview me about my autobiography. And then on Saturday lunchtime in the opera house, the one where I fell off the stage. Maybe history might repeat itself, seeing as I can't see we're talking about generals and the world military situation with General Sir Richard Barrons, General Lord Dannett and Major General Tim Cross and Colleen Graffey. Who wouldn't want to come to that? Tickets are still available, I'm sure.

[A]

I'm going to be in Dieppe and I've never felt more grateful.

[B]

Where are you actually going?

[A]

We're going for a break.

[B]

No, where are you actually going? In France?

[A]

If you're very good, I'll tell you after that.

[B]

Okay, So where are you going Dieppe? Well, just Dieppe.

[A]

No, we're driving around in the little

[B]

yonder Harris, I was going to say, because that's not very far into France, is it?

[A]

No, we're not doing too much Frenchness.

[B]

Are you going to any of the Normandy beaches and the cemeteries?

[A]

I think I'll avoid that. We're going with a friend and we. He's got a Mini and we've got a little Yaris and we're going to stay in a few places, we're going to swim in the sea, we're going to make sure that our girls play well together and then we're going to hop back across the Channel. Having ticked that box. Ian. Bien sur, me oui.

[B]

Are you going on the Eurotunnel or the Mercy Buckets?

[A]

We're going on the ferry, which I like.

[B]

A ferry.

[A]

She's very, very excited about going on the ferry.

[B]

Yeah, no, she's right too.

[A]

Seven year old is a really good age. She'll be horribly sick and it'll all begin badly.

[B]

Right, now we've had a glut of questions.

[A]

Go on.

[B]

Right, this is from Connor who says, Dear Ian and Dr. Tessa. My question is to do with repeated Ian repeatedly saying that Tessa is doing down Britain every time she mentions our imperial history. Isn't it important to have the knowledge of what has went before? I mean, honestly, Connor English what has gone before to judge political actions? Yes, of course it is. The abolition of the slave trade, then slavery, the Race Relations Act. All of these things that we rightfully celebrate mean nothing if people don't fully understand the context in which they were achieved. Thanks for all you do, says Connor. Well, I don't disagree with any of that. Of course you've got to learn about what happened in history, but you've also got to learn about the good things as well as the bad things. And my only point is that whenever anybody mentions the empire, it's always in the most negative way possible.

[A]

Actually, no, I brought it to the table of this podcast that we intrust introduced the abolition of the slave trade. We were absolute outliers in pushing for the abolition of the slave trade. And today I also flagged up that we were the first nation to introduce a progressive income tax system.

[B]

And my great, great, great uncle was chairman of the anti slave trade movement in Glasgow. He founded it in 1790. So look, I totally recognize that some things that went on in the empire were bad, but they were of their time and every other country was doing the same thing.

[A]

So nevertheless, justification no, of course it's

[B]

not justification, but we can't look at these things through the prism of 2026 all the time. We have moved on, we've progressed in all sorts of different ways. Mostly for the better. Not always, but I think sometimes there ought to be. I mean, Nigel Bigger has written a brilliant book on the sort of positive side of the Empire because everybody else just writes about the negative side. So urge people to read that.

[A]

Next question. Phil.

[B]

Hi both. I've listened from the very beginning and love the pod. I agree with both of you in equal measures on the variety of topics discussed and the genuine disagreements make this POD stand out from the rest. The reason I've been inspired to write is something Ian said in the most recent POD around Robert Genrick. I've long thought him to be a self serving, unprincipled sort, but his media interventions recently have taken him to the next level. He simply can't be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power. My question is as follows. If he is the worst sort of self serving politician, who do you both believe to be someone making a genuine difference but under the radar, eg a backbencher. Thanks and keep up the good work. Well, thanks for that, Phil.

[A]

I wanted to say the Robert genre moment of the week was when he was caught on a hot mic moment on the GMB not sofa. He was doing it by Zoom and he went, well, that was a waste of time. It was absolutely brilliant.

[B]

And then Ed Balls and Susanna Reid had they heard him say it. So they then had to address it and it was all a bit hashtag orcs, wasn't it?

[A]

It was brilliant. It was such an end goal. It reminded me of the Gordon Brown moment. Do you remember when he said, oh, that was a waste of time talking to that voter.

[B]

I totally agree with you, Phil. To be honest, I'm not a fan of Robert Jenrick. I've made that very clear publicly on many occasions.

[A]

For me personally, I like Gareth Thomas because he is the Labour MP for Harrow who has consistently beaten the drum for his large Romanian constituency. And he does actually. He chats to me. He gets back to my texts. He said, I'm keeping an eye on who the new Education Minister is. He hasn't got back to me on a verdict with Lucy Powell. I'm not sure they're best of friends,

[B]

but we'll find out. Aren't you glad that I know Lucy Powell? A bit.

[A]

I am glad.

[B]

Matthew says, is Wes Streeting's appointment as Defense Secretary a sign that the country is about to get a. A fireside chat over the threats this country is facing from the likes of Russia and other foreign enemies, which the previous government promised it would do but never got around to do. So, I think that's absolutely incisive of you, Matthew. I think that's exactly why he's been appointed. He is one of their best communicators. And this is what Richard Barrons was saying at this thing I did on Saturday in Richmond, that the electorate are just nowhere near understanding what the threats are to this country at the moment. And Wes Streeting is probably in about as good a position as anyone to explain it. Now, Lord Dannett criticised his appointment and said, well, he knows the square of sod all about defence. That's never a winning argument, in my view. You don't have to be a doctor to have run the health service. I'm sure a little bit of knowledge on defence might be a good thing, but you can actually learn and pick it up reasonably quickly.

[A]

I think you make a valid point where he is going to be explaining to the nation where all the money's going to go, because we've got a Chancellor who can't possibly not give the Ministry of Defence loads and loads a dosh that otherwise we don't have. So watch this space, because the problem with investing heavily in your security is it's in effect an invisible asset and people don't feel the win, they feel the negative. If actually a terror attack or there's a threat that materializes, but we don't feel it when we're winning the security game. And I think that always makes it a hard sell in tight times.

[B]

So when you're on holiday, do you sort of relax, switch off or.

[A]

I've got a little bit of hangover, a work hangover that I've got to take with me across the Channel. But I am going to go and visit Diet because it's that really interesting failed invasion in 1942, which was actually a bit of a cover for trying to do a pinch of. Of, if I remember this rightly, the story from World War II, they needed to cover trying to steal material, so they pretended they were trying to do a land invasion, but in fact they were just trying to get. Get the necessary Enigma info from the port and it all went horribly wrong and loads of predominantly, but not exclusively Canadians died. So I would like to see the layout of the harbour. I've talked enough about it without actually ever visiting it, and there's something always good about that.

[B]

Right now, here's A plug coming up, which you've promised to be silent during.

[A]

Cut this bit, Corey. If we just keep it clean, it'll be cut.

[B]

It's not going to be long because we do have to finish. I've just looked at the time. The Edinburgh fringe starts on the 7th of August. My shows run from the 8th to the 12th of August, three shows a day. And then also we've got another day on the 22nd with Kemi Badenok and Stephen Flynn. But on the 8th to the 11th, I've got the likes of Nicola Sturgeon, Jackie Smith, who's going to be interviewing me, not the other way around. Zach Polanski, Wes Streeting, Joanna Cherry, Jess Phillips, Cami Bates. I've already mentioned her. Kieran McGuire and Kevin Day. You don't know who they are, do you? They're from the Price Of Football podcast. Podcast. Sarah vine and Andrew Pearce. Nazanine Zagari Ratcliffe and her husband Richard. Matt Ford, Rosie Holt and Susie McCabe. Three comedians in one show. Baroness Gillian shepherd and Lord Robin Butler. And closing it will be Sir John Curtis, Brian Taylor and Michael Crick. So if you want to book for that, just go to the Edinburgh Fringe website and I'd love to see you there. And if you do come, as a listener to the podcast, you get a special audience with me. I afterwards. What's not to like, Tessa?

[A]

The fact I'm not there, but otherwise I think it'll all be great.

[B]

Right, you have a lovely holiday. Are you back next Thursday?

[A]

I am back next Thursday.

[B]

We will see you then. Goodbye. At Where Politics Meets History.

[A]

Questions.

[B]

Where politics meets history. @global.com.

[A]

lots of love. Thanks for listening. We appreciate you and I love you. Rough love and all.

[B]

Just shut up.

[A]

No rough love. I love my little brother. I really love him. And my podcast partner, Ian Dale.

[B]

Press stop, Corey.

[A]

This has been a global production.