0:00

This is a Global Player original podcast.

0:02

So you are, you're, I can hear

0:04

your phone on the... Oh

0:07

shut up! Take

0:13

it up with HR! See

0:15

that's the way she used to treat her civil servants. And

0:19

keep this bit in Corey. But

0:23

people say I knew she had a nasty side to her.

0:25

People, I thought she was nice but

0:27

she really isn't. No. Anyway

0:30

welcome to For The Many Sloppy Seconds. I

0:44

do love saying that. Now

0:47

I've had quite a few emails in over

0:50

the course of the week and I know you put

0:52

a tweet out a few days ago.

0:56

So we'll do some Twitter questions too.

0:58

But shall we start on this

1:00

week's explainer? I've had so many different ideas

1:03

for these explainers. Good one,

1:05

you need to tell me about them so that I can write them on

1:07

me list. Amy Jones has had a good one as well.

1:09

Let me find her email. Right

1:11

I'm getting my list out, I'm going to write it down. We

1:16

should be clear that with the explainers as you

1:19

will see from this week's, sometimes

1:21

it will be very educational like it was

1:23

last week. I was so pleased that somebody

1:25

said I sounded like a teacher. And sometimes

1:27

it will be, I suspect today's might be

1:29

a teens a bit more gossipy. Could

1:31

be. Yeah okay. I

1:36

don't normally listen back to our episodes but I

1:38

did listen back to the one last week. And

1:41

I thought we were bloody brilliant. Good.

1:45

I mean obviously I agree with you. Right

1:49

Amy says I have an idea for

1:51

an explainer on the Tuesday pod episode.

1:54

What happens on election night for a candidate

1:56

running to be an MP? triggering

2:00

me Amy. Yeah me too. I've done

2:02

the election counting before and always wondered

2:04

what the candidates get up to on

2:06

the election evening. Well I

2:08

think that's a great one. That is a very good one. I

2:11

am thinking that next week we

2:16

should do a warm-up

2:19

for the local elections. Yeah.

2:21

Yep that would be good wouldn't it. We'll do that next

2:24

week. But do you want to tell people

2:26

what we're going to do this week because it's your idea.

2:28

I honestly can't

2:30

remember. Oh for goodness sake. Number

2:32

one you said it last

2:34

week until I reminded you about it. Only

2:38

on today. Well I've just remembered cross party

2:41

friendship. Okay good what did you have in mind

2:43

when you talked about that. Have you ever kissed

2:45

a Tory? Well

2:47

you see I think this is really interesting because I

2:49

think that Labour

2:52

and Conservative people I

2:55

think have a slightly different view of

2:57

cross party friendships and I've always thought that

3:00

the left is more tribal on

3:02

these things and the right is more human.

3:05

And I know it's a great generalisation.

3:08

You can be both human and tribal as

3:10

I was explaining. When you bring in the

3:12

Liberal Democrats into the conversation as well that

3:14

complicates it even more. And

3:17

I've always throughout my

3:20

time in politics I've always made a point

3:22

of trying to be friendly to people that

3:24

I disagree with. I mean I know some

3:27

people are going to rule with laughter when

3:29

they see some of my tweets. But

3:32

on interpersonal relationships I

3:34

always want to have a relationship

3:37

with the opposing candidate whether it's in

3:39

a parliamentary election. I mean I've done

3:41

quite a few local elections over the

3:43

years as well. There's absolutely no point

3:46

in having a really horrible relationship. You

3:48

don't have to be like best buddy

3:50

friends. But I remember back

3:52

in I think it was 1987 when I

3:54

was campaign

4:00

manager in Norwich North in the general election.

4:03

I did something which now I think I shouldn't have done

4:05

but at the time I couldn't see the harm of it.

4:09

We'd run into the Liberal candidate canvassing

4:12

one evening and he then

4:14

said, oh come for a drink. And

4:17

I did and I think actually I shouldn't

4:20

have done. Why do you think

4:22

you shouldn't have done? I mean I wouldn't have done

4:24

it. Well, no actual harm. I mean I was obviously

4:26

not the candidate but I was the campaign manager and I

4:28

suppose I did it partly. I don't

4:31

think remember thinking, oh well I'll pick

4:34

up some useful information. And

4:38

the guy was quite a reasonable person

4:43

but I remember Patrick Thompson who was the

4:45

MP that I was campaigning for. He

4:48

wasn't angry angry but

4:50

he clearly was pretty disjuffed that I'd

4:52

done that. And I now understand why

4:54

he was. And when I

4:57

was at university

4:59

as well, when I was the

5:02

main sort of Tory person

5:04

at the university, I had quite a high –

5:06

Was in the only? No, not at all. In

5:08

fact we had more members. Bear in mind this

5:10

is 83, 84, we had more members than the

5:13

Labour party did. And I

5:16

was quite visible but I was always

5:18

quite friendly with even some of the

5:20

real ultra lefties. Caroline was

5:22

one that I never cracked though. And

5:25

she certainly at that

5:27

point, I mean

5:29

she would never have – I wasn't trying to

5:31

kiss her but she would never have like preferably

5:33

kissed a Tory. And I never

5:35

became friends with her at university. That's Caroline Flint by

5:38

the way. Yes. Whereas

5:40

with Mark Seddon, Ian McKenzie who went on

5:42

to be Spad for Anne Taylor, there were

5:45

quite a few of them that I was quite friendly with

5:47

even though I did try and get a couple of them

5:49

arrested for sending money to Striking Minds. With

5:53

friends like that. I've never told you that. No!

5:57

Oh no, one Friday afternoon. I

6:00

think we'd done, there'd been some student union

6:02

debate where I'd really laid into them for

6:04

their support for striking minors. And

6:07

one Friday afternoon, I walked into, I think

6:09

it was Mark Seddon's office, he was head

6:11

of the student union, went on to edit

6:13

Tribune. And

6:17

they were, they

6:20

had all these sort of receipts

6:23

for money that they had sent

6:25

to Allerton or

6:27

wherever. And I

6:30

can't remember how much student union money they had

6:32

spent on all of this. Was it your student

6:34

union money then? It was student union money,

6:36

yeah. And it was against the law. And

6:39

I just remember scooping up these receipts

6:41

and running out of the building with

6:43

them and then

6:45

taking them to a solicitor in Norwich and saying,

6:47

well, here's the evidence. Were you still friends with

6:49

them after that? Yeah, I mean, we're

6:51

still friends now. And

6:56

they had to, I think

6:58

in the end, and I don't think I

7:00

misremembered this, but I think in the end,

7:03

they realized they were bank rights

7:05

and actually formally stopped

7:08

doing it. And

7:10

I mean, I didn't go after them for

7:14

court codes, but they would have lost it. And

7:19

then we tried to get Mark Seddon

7:21

sacked as student union president and came

7:23

within, very few

7:25

boats doing it as well. I think he thought

7:27

he was a goner. So this

7:29

is great fun. So this is what you get, by

7:31

the way, if you were a friend of you. Yeah,

7:34

quite. But

7:36

there are so many, I'm going

7:38

to switch back to MPs. I

7:41

mean, you've got the experience of this, but

7:43

there are, do you remember,

7:45

what was the name of that MP? Is

7:47

it Durham somewhere? She

7:50

was in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn for a time.

7:52

And she said that she could never be

7:54

friends with Laura Pitcock. That's it. And she

7:57

said she could never be friends with the

7:59

Tory. And I remember when

8:01

she said that, I thought, well, you don't understand how Parliament

8:03

works. You see, I sort of slightly

8:05

disagree with you because I don't

8:11

think that... So

8:14

first of all, there's a sort of definition of friendship, isn't there? Let

8:16

me say, first of all, I think if you are running

8:19

against somebody in an election, you

8:21

do have a duty to

8:23

behave civilly to them. And of course,

8:26

I sort of thought that even before

8:29

I chaired the Joe Cox Foundation, and by the

8:31

way, if you are standing in the local elections

8:33

or if you subsequently stand in the general election,

8:35

I hope you will sign up to

8:38

the pledge, the

8:40

civility pledge for the way in which you fight the

8:42

election. You're sort of

8:44

in it together with somebody who you are

8:46

fighting in an election. And as

8:49

you say, I've always gone out of my way,

8:51

not to be friends with, but to be civil

8:54

to the people I'm fighting in an

8:56

election, because actually there will be times when

8:59

you're on a hustling and you're sort of

9:01

behind the scenes and just

9:04

being horrible to each other. One,

9:07

I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it, and two, I just think

9:09

it's not... It

9:11

doesn't recognise that you are all

9:13

engaged in something that is important,

9:15

and that's a sort of democratic

9:17

process. But up

9:20

until I stopped being an

9:22

MP, I cannot remember

9:24

a time when I could have genuinely said

9:26

that I had a friend who

9:29

was a Tory. And

9:31

I've said before, I think, I

9:33

was very tribal as both

9:36

a sort of student activist and

9:38

then whilst I was an MP. I

9:41

suspect that was partly because quite

9:45

early on I became a minister, of

9:47

course, and then if you're a minister,

9:49

you don't spend that much time in

9:51

parliament. Where I think you can make

9:53

cross-party friendships is, for

9:55

example, if you were on a select committee, because

9:59

then... And I was on the Treasury

10:01

Select Committee, we did go off for a trip

10:03

somewhere, I forget where, and I did have a

10:05

very good and friendly time with the Tories that

10:08

were on that Select Committee with me. And

10:10

one of the reasons why you can be French,

10:12

Lee, in those contexts, is that actually one of

10:15

the things you share, and this is part of

10:17

the reason why we can be good friends, I

10:19

think, is we share a real passion and interest

10:21

in politics. So you've got a shared thing before

10:23

you start. So I think you can

10:26

be friends on Selectivities. I

10:28

think if you're in

10:30

Parliament and not a Minister, you can

10:32

also make very strong alliances

10:35

if you're friendships on

10:37

issues that are really important to

10:39

you. So you can have cross-party

10:42

ways of working, as you suggested.

10:44

So Tom Tugenhart and Jo

10:46

Cox, for example, on Syria, was, you

10:49

know, I think they would probably have said they were, they

10:51

became friends as they worked on that. But

10:55

I still today

10:58

think I would find it

11:00

difficult, let's

11:02

say, to have a very, very close relationship

11:07

with somebody who was a Tory,

11:10

apart from with you. But you see, you

11:12

slightly destroy this, because I do think of

11:15

you as one of my very best mates.

11:18

But... You're

11:20

getting tearful. Ian,

11:23

I love you. You're

11:26

my best friend. You're my best

11:28

mate. No,

11:31

I wasn't getting tearful, I was getting

11:33

reflective. I

11:36

mean, friendship in politics is a weird thing, isn't

11:38

it? Because if I think how long I've been

11:40

involved in politics, let's say go back to 1983,

11:43

so nearly 40 years, then

11:47

more than, is it more than 40 years? It will be more than 40

11:49

years, you can involve there. How

11:52

many people could I honestly

11:54

say were friends in the

11:56

conventional meaning of the word?

12:00

And I would say fewer than five. Which

12:03

is appalling. Who are your political persuasion

12:05

as well? No, just generally people that

12:07

I would have sort

12:10

of. I

12:13

know. Gone to

12:15

their house for a meal or they've come to my house

12:17

for a meal that

12:19

I sort of go out with, that I would go for

12:21

a drink with. Very few.

12:24

I would say I've got lots of a

12:26

friend, lots of acquaintances, and I've got lots

12:28

of friends inverted commas.

12:30

Yes. But they're the people

12:32

who, effectively,

12:34

they're your friend because they want something from you.

12:37

I had loads of friends when I was the home secretary.

12:40

And guess what? I had considerably fewer when I

12:42

was on the front of the newspaper, Zimba's Grace.

12:44

And interestingly, last week when I

12:47

did Good Morning Britain with Quentin,

12:49

he had just written a piece in

12:52

the mail about Angela Rayner. And

12:56

I mean, you know, his claim was that he was trying to

12:58

be kind to her. I'm not sure it was totally that. But

13:00

actually, he genuinely, when he was

13:02

both talking on the programme and when he was talking

13:04

to me sort of in the green room, said he

13:07

felt that the way that her

13:10

colleagues were treating her was not sufficiently

13:13

friendly and supportive. And his argument was, you

13:15

know, that it was only John Healy and

13:17

Peter Kyle who, as she had

13:19

sat in Prime Minister's questions, had sort

13:21

of, you know, stopped to have a

13:23

word with her or put a hand on her

13:26

arm or whatever and shown public support. I

13:28

don't know if that's true or not, but

13:30

I think it is probably the case that

13:34

when the going gets tough, your

13:37

political friends do disappear.

13:40

And I think there are lots of people

13:42

that I think I'd quite

13:44

like to be your friend. I mean, actually, she's one

13:46

of them. When I when she

13:48

came to Edinburgh, not last year, the year

13:51

before, we got like a house on fire. And

13:54

there are plenty of other people that I

13:57

think in a normal life, you

13:59

can be friends with. But there's been like celebrities.

14:01

I mean, there are very few celebrities

14:03

that I would say who I would,

14:06

I mean, Charles Brandreth, I would say is a personal friend.

14:12

I mean, it's difficult, isn't it? You

14:14

see, I mean, we would both, I

14:16

think, regard Kate and Ben as

14:19

personal friends, but we don't socialise with

14:21

them. Yeah, no. Although

14:24

I'm playing golf with Ben. So

14:26

you do socialise with him, right? Yes.

14:31

So why are we friends then? Why

14:33

are we friends? Yeah. Are you going

14:35

to say you're not friends with me? No, I'm asking

14:38

a question which I'm now going to answer. I'm doing

14:40

that thing. OK. So why am I friends with Ian

14:42

Dell? Well, I'll tell you why I'm friends

14:44

with Ian Dell. One

14:47

because, I think there's several things.

14:49

One, because I genuinely think that

14:51

when things were shitty for me, now

14:54

I am going to get emotional out, when things were shitty

14:56

for me, after you'd finished writing horrible

14:58

blogs, you actually, Ben became

15:01

quite supportive. But actually

15:04

in the end, one of the things that makes us

15:06

friends is we're a similar sort of age, we've got

15:08

a similar sort of experience, we've got similar sort of

15:11

interests, not just politics,

15:13

but football, your

15:15

music, your music taste issue. But

15:17

we've got a similar sense of

15:19

humour. That's why we're friends,

15:21

isn't it? Yeah.

15:23

And we just sort of hit it

15:26

off from, I won't say the

15:28

first time we ever met, but by the way,

15:30

have I told you this, that one

15:32

of our listeners works in the Foreign Office and

15:35

is trying to engineer us to be able

15:37

to do our podcast live from the room,

15:39

the Lecarno room where we first met. I'm

15:43

sure there'll be someone in the Foreign Office that puts

15:45

the kibosh on that. That would be like,

15:47

do a For the Mini Live in

15:49

the Foreign Office. Yeah. That'd be fucking brilliant. I'll tell you

15:51

when we, oh no, because we'll be tied up with the

15:53

election. I was thinking perhaps we could do it in the

15:55

election campaign when all the politicians will have to go.

15:57

No, you can't. No, it would have to be next year. you

16:00

might need to get David Lammy to intervene on

16:02

this because there'll be somebody who's like

16:04

I don't think we can do that, not with those

16:06

two. Oh

16:09

going back to our... But

16:11

it's interesting what you

16:14

say about... I mean

16:16

I like to think that I have

16:18

quite a good track record of standing

16:20

up for friends in times

16:22

of adversity. Now you weren't

16:25

my friend when you went through all of

16:27

your stuff but

16:29

for example, I don't,

16:32

I'm not sure I have ever mentioned this on

16:34

the podcast, do you remember

16:36

when the Hamiltons were accused of rape?

16:39

It was about 2002, something like that, three, and

16:43

it was clearly preposterous and I'd become quite friendly with

16:45

them even though we got off to a very bad

16:48

start in that they threatened to see me. I've

16:52

been to their house in Cheshire,

16:58

we just got on. I mean

17:00

Neil is an... He's

17:04

an interesting character, he was really Christine I think

17:06

was more sort of my friend but I developed

17:08

a friendship with both of them and

17:10

I was sitting in Politicos one day and the news

17:13

came through on the sky that

17:15

they'd been arrested and Louis

17:18

Throug was with them, bizarrely as well.

17:21

And people knew because they'd been at book launches at

17:23

Politicos that I was friendly with them so of course

17:25

I then started getting calls from the media saying will

17:27

you come on and talk about this? And

17:30

I sort of thought well what can I say? But

17:32

then I thought well it's

17:35

clearly preposterous. So I went,

17:37

I think I did Channel 4 News and

17:40

then News Night rang and then

17:42

I remember some one of my

17:44

friends said to me I don't think you should

17:46

be doing this, you're trying to get on the

17:48

Tory candidates list, it wouldn't look good for you

17:51

to be defending the Hamiltons. And

17:53

my instant response was well

17:55

they're either friends of mine or they're not and

17:57

if they're friends I stick up for my friends. And

18:01

I think over the

18:03

years I've been in quite a few

18:05

situations where I've had people who have hit

18:08

on hard times and I've gone out of

18:10

my way to try and

18:12

support them even if it would mean that

18:16

it wasn't necessarily to my advantage. Yeah.

18:20

Because, yeah, that's what friends are,

18:22

isn't it? Yes,

18:25

but didn't you start by saying, essentially,

18:28

politicians are quite bad at being friends

18:30

to people? Well, I think they are.

18:32

I mean, talk to Christine Hamilton about

18:34

this. Like you just said, the number

18:36

of people that she regarded as

18:38

good friends who dropped them like a stone when

18:40

all of the sort of scandal

18:42

happened in, what was it, 1997. And

18:47

she said quite a few of them have come back on

18:49

the scene over the years, but I'll

18:51

never forget. Who

18:55

do you think, can you think of

18:57

any examples of people who

19:00

genuinely are

19:03

good, who you know of, who are sort

19:06

of cross party friends? And actually,

19:08

would they want you to say it if

19:11

you thought that they were? Because interestingly,

19:14

if you are a politician and you are

19:16

friends with somebody of another

19:18

party, you get a bit flack for it. So

19:21

I get flack for being friends with you. Who

19:23

from? People on Twitter, left-wing

19:25

people. Oh yeah, but on Twitter you can't judge

19:28

things by Twitter. But have you ever

19:30

had anybody say to your face, why

19:32

are you even? No, actually, quite a

19:34

lot of my Labour friends say, we

19:37

really like Ian. We can see why

19:39

you're friends with him. So,

19:42

but what about, let's think about

19:44

that bromance in the Rose

19:47

Garden of number 10. Do you

19:49

think David Cameron and Nick Clegg

19:51

were friends? They

19:53

must have worked incredibly closely. I think in as

19:56

much as they ever could be, yes. And I

19:58

think they have met socially since. I mean

20:03

you kind of need a word that

20:06

where you've got acquaintance there and you've

20:08

got friends there and you need something

20:10

halfway in between I think. I

20:15

mean to my mind, see

20:17

I mean David Davis is obviously I

20:19

regard as a friend but

20:24

he's a different type of friend than

20:26

somebody I went to school with or to

20:28

university with. This

20:31

is an interesting point. One of the things

20:33

that I would recommend anybody

20:36

who gets into a political career

20:38

to do is to maintain

20:40

some friends who aren't engaged in politics. That's

20:42

not that easy because if you're somebody like

20:44

me or you who've been doing politics for

20:46

as long as we can remember, lots

20:49

of your friends or your acquaintances

20:51

or whatever this new word is we're coming

20:53

up with are going to be political but

20:56

when they go and get stuff or even

20:58

just to enable you to talk about

21:00

something else because it does tend to be all-encompassing,

21:03

you need people who sort of go,

21:05

not really who's the Prime Minister, I'm not really all that

21:08

interested but let's go and have a drink together that type

21:10

of thing. Yeah I mean Aaron

21:12

my personal trainer he fits into it. I mean

21:14

I wouldn't say he's a friend because I've only

21:16

known him a few months but he would fit

21:18

into that category because on the other day he

21:20

says now Margaret Thatcher, now I've heard of her,

21:22

who was she? He's 25. Why should he

21:24

know? It's like when we were that age or

21:30

say in

21:32

1924 it would

21:34

have meant that we at the

21:36

age of 25 would have known a lot about Disraeli

21:38

or Gladstone. Well why would we? Well we would have

21:40

done. We probably would have done. We'd

21:44

have known all about Lord Roseberry as well. But actually

21:46

he has. That's the other reason why you need

21:50

to have friends who are political.

21:52

But does it annoy you sometimes

21:54

when your non-political friends want

21:56

to talk to you about politics? Yes.

21:59

I hate it. Yes. And I don't

22:01

ever say, oh for God's sake I

22:03

deal with this all week, but I sort of

22:05

try and steer the conversation away from it. I

22:09

will have a little conversation. So at the moment almost everybody

22:11

I know wants to know what I think about when the

22:13

accent is going to be etc. And

22:15

of course, I mean people pay me

22:18

to talk about it, so I feel a bit mean

22:20

if I don't then talk about it to my friends.

22:22

So we will have a bit of a conversation, but

22:24

actually then I do want to talk about my

22:26

dog or my running or my

22:29

TV watching

22:31

or something else. As you can

22:33

see I haven't got very many interests about their

22:36

life. I think we both have a bit of

22:38

a hinterland and people listening to the podcast know

22:40

the things that we like talking about or that

22:42

we're interested in. I think that's a good thing.

22:44

But in terms of like MPs, I

22:48

mean for example, David Davis has a huge

22:50

amount of cross party friends

22:52

in inverted commas. How many of them

22:54

does he actually socialize with outside the

22:56

political world? I'd say a reasonable

22:59

number. Andrew Mitchell and Charlie

23:01

Faulkner are really really good friends for

23:03

example, mainly because they live near each other.

23:07

So I don't think

23:09

it's unusual at all. I think

23:12

the public would be genuinely surprised at how

23:14

many MPs from different

23:16

parties do socialize together or even

23:18

go on holiday together. Oh,

23:21

who goes on holiday together? I don't know.

23:23

All right. Well, we're all intrigued that way who goes

23:26

on holiday with each other. But

23:28

do you think that that is

23:30

partly because David

23:33

Davis, I would not call a

23:35

very loyal stroke tribal

23:37

conservative. He's a bit of a

23:39

free thinker, isn't he? That's why he's

23:41

built alliances with people across

23:43

political boundaries in order to

23:46

cause trouble for people. Whereas

23:49

I am a very, when I was in

23:51

parliament, I was a very straight down the

23:53

line loyalist. And therefore, one way I didn't

23:55

need to and another way I didn't want

23:57

to form alliances with...

24:01

because that wasn't how I was achieving what

24:03

you know it was it was hard enough

24:05

keeping your own side on but if you if

24:07

you went back into the House of Commons now I think

24:10

you would be very different I would be

24:12

different I'd be different because you know

24:15

you are much more tribal than I

24:17

am still yeah

24:20

I am yeah and as I say

24:22

I couldn't you know I most

24:25

of my friends actually

24:28

I don't know because I don't ask them which way they're gonna vote

24:30

because I don't think they don't tend to tell me

24:32

but I I can I can you know Brexit

24:35

was an interesting thing of course

24:37

because actually people that I thought

24:39

the people I had as very

24:42

old friends and in fact husbands

24:46

took a very different approach to Brexit

24:48

than I have taken and

24:52

it didn't stop me being friends with them and that wasn't

24:54

the reason why I was forced to be there anyway let's

24:59

not go there so um would

25:02

I I think I would

25:04

because I tell you what I've learned I'm

25:07

lost tribal now because

25:09

I've had the experience of

25:12

having I don't mean this in

25:14

a sort of purvey way of having relationships with

25:17

people who don't share all of

25:19

my political views you are a

25:21

perfect example but there are lots of other

25:23

people as well whereas I I

25:25

always previously thought what would I have to talk

25:27

to a Tory about I wouldn't you know I

25:29

we would have nothing in

25:31

common whereas now I know that we might do you

25:42

guys questions let's go to question we should

25:45

we fall out then we've done a

25:47

bit too much cross-party friendship this is

25:49

from Ian who says with

25:52

the election getting closer many people including myself would

25:54

like to know the view of their local candidate

25:56

on a range of issues before making a final

25:58

decision Without this we may

26:00

as well simply pick a box for a party

26:03

with no candidate mentioned. My current

26:05

MP is a member of the Shadow Opposition

26:07

team, a bit of a clue there

26:09

on party. I understand that if

26:12

it's a major policy issue they perhaps have

26:14

to tow the collective responsibility line, but on

26:16

other matters it would be good to get

26:18

an opinion. I very rarely get

26:20

a reply, not just me, many others I

26:23

know, and when I do

26:25

this is simply a cut and

26:27

paste from the party playbook with

26:29

no personal opinion or local relevance.

26:32

Their social media feed is primarily the

26:34

reposting of national issues as well as

26:36

pictures touring around the country, very little

26:38

of interest to ordinary voters, with the

26:41

exception of a nice picture with Miss

26:43

Smith, and constituents. I've always

26:45

been supportive of the constituency link, but

26:47

it would seem to be becoming less

26:50

relevant. Any thoughts?

26:54

Well, I'd have to know

26:56

what you had emailed the

26:59

person about. People

27:01

in the run-up to a general election on all

27:03

sides will be enormously careful about

27:07

not saying things that

27:09

could then be used against them. So,

27:12

if you emailed me,

27:14

for example, as a candidate about

27:16

something that was very specifically a

27:18

constituency issue, what did I

27:21

think about this planning or this development or this

27:24

thing that was happening in the constituency?

27:26

I would have given you a constituency-specific

27:29

response. If you'd emailed me about anything

27:31

that related to a policy on which

27:33

the Labour Party had a position, I

27:36

would have given you a Labour Party position,

27:39

because had I not done that,

27:41

and let's say I had suggested

27:43

something that might have cost money, you,

27:45

because you might have

27:47

been in cahoots with somebody, might well have

27:50

taken it away and used it against me

27:52

as a sort of pledge of money that

27:54

I hadn't. But do you think that's, I mean,

27:57

the candidate Jackie Smith in 1995? would

28:00

give a much less

28:02

guarded response than Minister Jackie Smith

28:04

in 2004. No, no,

28:07

interestingly, candidate Jackie Smith in

28:09

1995 would have given an

28:11

incredibly disciplined response. But that's

28:14

because of the enormously disciplined

28:16

way in which we approached that, that

28:19

Labour approached that general election. Because

28:21

I, I mean, I used to get a lot

28:23

of letters and emails from people wanting

28:25

to know my views on all sorts of things in

28:27

North Norfolk. And I

28:30

would sometimes write back to them or email them back,

28:32

but often I would pick up the phone or I'd

28:34

go and visit them, unannounced,

28:37

which they were incredibly impressed with. Not

28:40

impressed enough to vote for me. And

28:45

I, Eric Forth was always very good

28:48

at that, because you fought him once,

28:50

didn't you? No,

28:52

he did chicken run. I

28:54

didn't, right? Well, he, I

28:56

certainly, to be fair, I did fight him

28:59

in that he didn't hold constituency surgeries, but you

29:01

got a lot of flack for from outside his

29:03

constituency. But he got a lot

29:05

of flack inside the constituency because I he

29:08

did hold them. And then before

29:10

the general about 18 months before the general

29:12

election, he stopped holding them and I took

29:14

over and held them and

29:17

made a big meal of it. Needless to say. Certainly,

29:21

when he was in old Bexley and

29:23

Soodcup, he didn't hold any, but

29:27

he would go and visit people all the time. If anyone wanted

29:29

to see him, he would go and visit them. And

29:32

his majority went up every single election that he

29:34

was there. So there are

29:36

different ways of doing things. And I think

29:38

I think a personal touch is important if

29:40

you're a candidate, whether you're sitting MP or

29:43

whether you're not. And the

29:45

more because effectively, if you are

29:47

the MP and you're reasonably well known, and you

29:50

go and turn up at someone's house, yeah,

29:52

on an hour, they go until 20 of

29:54

their neighbours. I knocked on an enormous number

29:56

of doors as an MP and I would have

29:58

engaged in more in personal conversation

30:00

in that type of environment. That's true.

30:03

But the nature of my constituency, I

30:05

mean, I did go and call on

30:07

people, but on the whole I had surgeries and

30:11

then I had door-knocking opportunities.

30:16

And one of

30:18

the things that, and there's a

30:21

touch of it in that email, you

30:24

can't say it when you're a candidate, but I'll tell you

30:26

what fucking irritates me and I got a little bit of

30:28

it on Sunday in Redditch, was the, yeah,

30:30

well, we never see you lot, do we?

30:33

By definition, I am

30:35

here now. You only

30:37

ever come, I mean, it is an election campaign now, you

30:40

only ever come around the elections. Mate,

30:42

it's the middle of November and there's not

30:44

an election until next April. I'm here on

30:46

your doorstep. Oh yeah, but you're all the

30:48

same, aren't you? Well, no, because I'm here

30:50

and I've done excellent and so on. Anyway,

30:53

people... You can't win on that. It's

30:55

not really bothering to get cross about it because one,

30:58

you would never say it to somebody's face and

31:00

two, you're right, you can't win on it. See,

31:02

I haven't knocked on a door since the 2010

31:04

election. And I

31:06

have to say, I used to love canvassing, but

31:09

I don't miss it at all. And the thought of

31:11

doing it now just fills me with horror.

31:13

See, I had quite a nice time on Sunday. I'll

31:15

tell you what, I got a hard time from some of

31:17

the activists. Is this

31:19

right? Did I say, did

31:22

you say, let's go and do a fundraiser in

31:24

Redditch? And I said, no, let's no, you don't

31:26

want to do that. Yeah, but

31:29

I didn't mean don't go to Redditch and do

31:31

a labour fundraiser. I think I meant don't go

31:33

and do a... No,

31:38

I do remember you saying something along those

31:40

lines. Oh, well, somebody had a very good

31:42

memory and I was in the dog house.

31:45

Oh, well. You see, I

31:48

couldn't now go and do a fundraiser because I've met Rachel

31:50

McLean. It's so much easier if you don't know the people.

31:54

But still, still nothing from

31:57

this was treating. Correct.

32:00

I need to drop to her a message. Right,

32:05

do you have a question? Yes I did.

32:07

I do rather. Sorry. Although,

32:10

as I'm not allowed to have my phone in you, you

32:13

hear me. Tom Weisman says, why

32:15

are there so many ministers? Apart

32:18

from having a bigger voting bloc, is it

32:20

beneficial to just have more government and what

32:22

do most of them do? Well,

32:25

there are... The number of ministers hasn't changed.

32:27

No, it hasn't. Ninety-five?

32:29

No. Well, you can pay 109

32:31

ministers. There are currently more than 109 because there

32:41

are some of them who are unpaid. Is it something like 145? No.

32:45

Well, if you include PPSs, but you can't

32:47

really do that. No, no, no, but PPSs aren't

32:49

ministers. No, there is something like 123 or

32:51

something like that

32:54

because 109 can be paid and then there

32:56

are some that are unpaid. They exist, of

32:58

course, both in the House of Commons and in

33:01

the House of Lords. And

33:05

they do all sorts of different things. So

33:07

obviously you've got your secretaries of state who

33:09

are the cabinet ministers, and then

33:11

you've got your junior ministers, so the next

33:14

level down who are called ministers of

33:16

state. And they... I have to say,

33:19

minister of state was in many ways

33:21

the best fun job that

33:23

I did because minister of state

33:25

does quite a lot of the

33:27

detailed policy development, most of the

33:29

legislation, and lots

33:31

of the sort of

33:33

negotiating and meeting with different

33:36

people. So in my minister

33:39

of state roles, I really enjoyed that.

33:41

Obviously, if you're in the cabinet, you're then part

33:43

of the overall political discussions of

33:45

the government, and that's brilliant. And I

33:47

liked being in charge. The

33:49

most difficult ministerial job is the

33:51

first one you have, which is

33:54

called parliamentary secretary of state, parliamentary

33:56

undersecretary of state. So they quite

33:58

often are called pussies. That

34:01

is, especially if you're somewhere like

34:03

the Department of Health or

34:06

the Department of Education, that's hardcore

34:08

because you're doing all of the

34:10

adjournment debates, you're signing loads of

34:12

letters, you're doing the meetings with

34:14

people that nobody else wants to

34:16

have, you're going

34:18

to the events that the Secretary of State and the

34:20

Minister of State didn't want to go to. I

34:24

mean, you're obviously incredibly proud that you are

34:27

a minister, but one, nobody knows you're a

34:29

minister and two, it's hardcore work. And

34:31

I think the key thing for a parliamentary and the

34:33

Secretary of State is to decide

34:35

on one thing you want to achieve

34:38

in that job and then gain relentlessly

34:40

for it, otherwise you can sink. That's

34:42

completely true, but that doesn't mean you don't also

34:44

have to do all of the other work. No,

34:47

absolutely. That's why you know, shed loads of paper

34:49

to take home in your red box. Right,

34:51

Graham from Bushees says, if you were home

34:53

secretary, and I don't know if either of

34:55

you were, would you make the IRGC a

34:57

prescribed organisation? Which other organisations

34:59

on the list would you also include? Well,

35:02

if I were a home secretary, I would

35:05

understand that there are some quite strict

35:07

criteria about what can and can't

35:09

be prescribed. I would certainly

35:11

be going to my officials and saying,

35:14

can we have another go round this? Because I

35:16

think they've been round it a few times already.

35:18

Can we have another go round this and can

35:20

we absolutely test to the nth degree whether or

35:22

not we have now met the criteria that

35:24

means we can prescribe this

35:26

organisation? And

35:28

I would have thought they might well get to the position

35:31

where they decide that they can. Would

35:33

you? Well, it

35:35

would depend on the criteria. That's my point,

35:37

Ian. No, I wouldn't. I

35:39

wouldn't simply say, because

35:42

I don't think it's a good way to run government, this

35:45

is the flavour of

35:47

the day and I want to get a

35:50

headline, so I'm demanding that we prescribe this

35:52

organisation. But we know they fund Hezbollah, we know

35:54

that they are behind everything that is terrible in

35:58

the Middle East. Well, wait a minute. I'm

36:01

sure I suspect and pretty certain that

36:03

that is the case, but you do

36:05

have a process that you need to go through. And

36:07

if you're going to be a home secretary, it's a

36:09

good idea if you actually stick

36:11

to the rules that you have set out

36:13

or your department has set out. What

36:16

do you make of David Cameron's defense of not

36:19

doing it? But he says, well, it's

36:21

useful that we can actually talk to

36:23

the Iranian regime directly, as

36:26

if prescribing the IRGC means that you

36:28

have to break off diplomatic relations with

36:30

the Iranian government. It's

36:33

interesting actually, because of course in

36:36

Lebanon, for example, there

36:39

are elements of people who are in

36:41

government who strictly speaking, you couldn't

36:44

talk to because they're prescribed. So

36:47

there is an issue about

36:49

that. It does become more complex. I don't

36:51

think, I mean, on the whole, you're right. It

36:53

doesn't stop you talking to the government, although it would do

36:55

if they if people

36:58

could turn around and say, well, actually, that

37:01

government is largely formed of

37:03

organizations that you have prescribed and

37:06

you would be in diplomatic trouble. That's what I'm saying.

37:08

I think it's a good idea to have

37:10

a process and a set of criteria

37:13

that you follow. Call

37:15

me boring and old fashioned. Okay. Next.

37:20

So we just we are some very intellectual

37:22

questions. I think we've got a

37:24

better quality of question for sloppy seconds.

37:29

Oh, no, I've actually I'm getting confused

37:31

because I took photos of them. Let's

37:35

have Mackie. Hi, lovely

37:37

JNI. What are your thoughts on the chilling

37:39

warning from former heads of the British Army

37:42

and others that we are in

37:44

the modern day equivalent of 1938 Europe? And

37:47

how do you see the 2020 is looking in

37:49

terms of world peace? Are

37:51

you both loads? Was

37:55

that question from about four months ago when the when

37:57

the head of the army said something similar? Well,

38:01

I think it's right. I

38:04

think that the

38:06

second half of this decade and probably the whole of

38:08

the 2030s could be reliving the 1920s and 1930s

38:11

in terms of security policy. And I

38:19

think the whole argument about defence

38:21

spending is going to dominate our

38:23

politics. Maybe not this year, but

38:25

it certainly will very, very soon.

38:28

And I hope that Kia Stama has

38:30

really got a handle on this and

38:32

really wants to put

38:34

a lot of effort into effectively

38:37

war gaming the next 15 years

38:39

and then sort

38:41

of tailoring your defence budget to that. Well,

38:44

I think there will need

38:46

to be a... Apologies for my cough.

38:49

I think there will need to be some really

38:51

careful thinking around the commitment that Kia Stama has

38:53

already made to increase the

38:55

proportion of our GDP spent on

38:57

defence. Because

39:01

one, I think it's necessary, but

39:04

two, unless

39:06

there is more public funding, more

39:09

public finance found in whatever way,

39:11

and clearly at the moment, Labour

39:13

is being very careful about not

39:15

saying where that money might be

39:17

found from. You're not going to

39:19

be able to make the steps

39:21

change that many people in all parties

39:23

now think that you should be making.

39:25

So we're

39:27

in a period of enormous

39:30

geopolitical challenge.

39:34

It's going to be, for the first time,

39:36

I think in my political life, whichever

39:39

party wins the next general election,

39:42

the situation in the world

39:44

is going to be a major issue

39:46

and constraint on their ability to

39:49

be able to act. And not all of

39:51

that requires defence spending. It's things like

39:53

the relationship with A, President

39:55

Trump, for example, or the relationship

39:57

with China and how you... you

40:00

think about that but that's why

40:02

we need a policy of

40:04

progressive realism as I was talking about last

40:06

week Ian.

40:12

Richard says,

40:15

dear Ian and Jackie as you embark on your

40:17

twice weekly format I wish you all the best

40:19

with that my question is this taking

40:22

into account the scenes played out on

40:24

the streets of our cities and the

40:26

fear of many of us feel especially

40:28

the Jewish community and taking into

40:30

account a recent poll that even Nigel Farage

40:32

was shocked by showing that a

40:34

high percentage of Muslims support Hamath

40:38

and would support Sharia law in the UK

40:40

is it now time for you both to

40:42

admit that Sorella Braverman was right and

40:45

multiculturalism has failed.

40:50

It's a non-secretary. The answer

40:52

is no. Yes, the

40:55

answer is no. I mean

40:58

I would never countenance

41:03

a situation in which

41:05

religious groups could use

41:08

their own law as opposed to the

41:11

democratically determined law of the country whoever

41:14

they were. I

41:17

whole-heartedly condemn the actions of Hamath and

41:19

think they are preventing the Palestinian people

41:21

from having a peaceful life

41:24

but but you might add I

41:26

am clearly not from a Muslim community I'm not

41:28

so I mean of course there are

41:31

strong views about the the

41:34

future of the Palestinian people

41:38

in Muslim

41:41

communities I don't think that necessarily

41:44

follows that they take the quite

41:46

extreme positions that you've outlined

41:48

there I think it's a sort of bit

41:51

of a caricature of

41:54

Muslim people and their political views actually. Well

41:57

I'm quite happy to accept that it is

42:00

if only five percent of Muslims think that

42:02

Sharia law should be introduced into this country,

42:04

I think that's a terrible thing. And I

42:06

mean, have you looked at it? It isn't

42:09

going to be, is it? No, of course.

42:11

Well, you say that. But

42:13

I mean, when Theresa May was the same

42:15

secretary, that wasn't there some big scandal where

42:17

she sort of tolerated Sharia law being introduced

42:20

in some parts of the north of England

42:22

in some way. I think that sounds to

42:24

me like a Tommy Robinson allegation. Just

42:37

to say, Gus Paul, I think your

42:39

idea of an explainer on the mechanics of the Whips office

42:41

is a very good one. And we and I put it

42:43

on my list. I might not have

42:45

a lot to contribute to that, but I'll be very happy to

42:47

look at it. You'll man.

42:50

Our five year parliament's too long. At

42:52

the time of the last election, very

42:54

few people had heard of Rishi Sunak

42:56

or Covid. And I feel this parliament

42:58

has had excessive length with a distinct

43:00

lack of girl. Yeah,

43:04

but that's not a problem with the

43:06

length, is it? That's as we explained

43:08

in last week's explainer

43:12

on the whole, although in theory you can

43:14

have a five year parliament, often

43:17

when the prime minister is making a decision, they

43:20

don't want to go all the way to five

43:22

years. So you tend to have sort of four

43:24

year parliament. The fact that loads of stuff has

43:26

happened in the last five years is because you've

43:28

got a government that is all over the bloody

43:30

shop and can't decide and keep a prime minister

43:33

for any period of time. It's not a problem

43:36

with the system as such, I don't think. I

43:39

could easily argue that it should be seven

43:41

years, which it used to be. I mean,

43:43

back in the 18th century, I think it

43:45

was seven years. Maybe

43:48

even part of the 19th century and

43:50

French presidential elections were every seven years

43:52

until comparatively recently. They changed it to

43:54

five. Because if you think about it,

43:57

when a new government comes in, they

43:59

say spend the first year 18

44:01

months sort of bedding in, learning how

44:03

things work, not doing anything

44:06

particularly radical generally and then... I'm

44:08

not so sure about that but I do agree

44:10

it takes a bit of time to really get going. And

44:12

then before long you're having to think

44:15

about the next election so

44:17

I don't think five years is too long and

44:19

I think you could make an argument for it

44:21

to be longer. I'm

44:24

not saying I would necessarily

44:27

but it's not something I would be

44:29

automatically against. Do you want a bit

44:31

more ritchie? I

44:37

want competent government. I

44:39

read in a newspaper last week Evening

44:42

Standard poll saying the majority of people

44:44

want a summer election. Well

44:48

if you're against the Conservatives you want them out as

44:50

soon as possible. And actually more people are against the

44:52

Conservatives than aren't you right? Yeah. I

44:55

still can't see you. Well

44:57

the only way I can see a summer election is

45:00

if the local

45:03

elections go terribly, there's

45:05

a move to get rid of Rishi Sunak and he

45:07

says fuck with a lot of you I'll call the

45:09

election then. I said almost exactly the same thing

45:11

to somebody today. Well there you are. Great

45:14

mind. Jeff

45:16

says I'm a

45:18

relative newbie to your show, a regular

45:21

listener to LBC for about three years. I'm

45:23

an insomniac so I find listening

45:26

to LBC soothing. It

45:28

does help the stupid o'clock washing

45:30

machine head. I don't

45:34

really understand what a washing machine head is. Is that

45:37

when it's all wearing around? Maybe.

45:40

You've got lots of thoughts going around in

45:42

your head. Nick Abbott and Steve Allen. Before

45:48

Steve abruptly left I listened to the podcast you

45:50

did with him and it was simply the best

45:52

thing I've listened to in years. It took me

45:54

a while to get used to you. But

45:57

a broken back in January. in

46:00

2023 gave me time to explore. I love

46:03

your sense of humor and not

46:05

suffering fools gladly attitude

46:08

and and the global

46:10

download introduced me to the massive back

46:12

catalog of your various shows which I've

46:15

I thought this is a podcast rather

46:17

than my show but anyway nearly nearly

46:20

well no it is about the podcast in

46:22

a second and you'll like what he's got to say

46:24

about you as well all right good you'll crack onto

46:27

that for the many

46:29

doesn't show up on your page doesn't me and

46:31

when I tried it out starting with the Edinburgh

46:33

Fringe shows I'm 62 years old and I love

46:37

for the many in a way that once upon a time

46:39

I would be following a band

46:42

oh my god I love the chemistry

46:44

between you and Jackie love

46:46

is a silly word I know the politics

46:48

and the ooh mate I love the politics

46:50

and the ooh mate and smart now I

46:52

play catch-up on TV with GMB

46:55

and get to see the pair of you mind

46:57

you seeing you both in bed the other week

46:59

on TV is something you can't unsee still there's

47:02

always therapy I'm not gay heck I'm

47:04

not anything any large prostate put paid

47:06

to all that nonsense but

47:08

you have the best eyes I've ever

47:10

seen they didn't say whether it means me or

47:13

you I think he means you doesn't he isn't it

47:15

sort of like a total fan mail thing

47:17

um back in the day I

47:19

would have dot dot dot as

47:21

for Jackie she's surprisingly fit again

47:25

would have you should put

47:27

the image of the pair of you in bed on one

47:29

of your mugs and yes this sad

47:31

bastard has bought a couple I don't

47:33

wish to offend but I want to let you

47:35

know that being house man now has given me

47:38

a reason to forget about the broken back and

47:40

life is better for having the pair of you

47:42

to look forward to listening to and if I

47:44

do crash out listening to you global player allows

47:46

me to catch up with the catch

47:48

up thank you sincerely for what you

47:50

do oh that's a nice one isn't it

47:53

glad I didn't stop halfway through aren't you you

47:56

said that to me before as well I

48:01

haven't everybody. David

48:03

Bernand this sort of follows on from the

48:05

from the discussion about whether or not we

48:07

need longer periods

48:10

of time in government. He says loving

48:13

the two additions thank you why has

48:15

the UK become so poor at infrastructure

48:17

projects when we used to be able

48:19

to build huge projects all over like

48:22

the Mersey Tunnel Olympic Park even Milton

48:24

Keynes is it just the culture of

48:26

short-term government or something else? I

48:31

don't know the answer to that question I wish

48:33

I did because it slummat's is me I don't

48:35

understand how it costs four times in

48:37

this country to build a mild railway track than

48:39

it does in France I just don't understand why

48:41

that would be and there are

48:43

so many procurement issues I

48:45

think on these projects which again

48:49

you sort of think well how can that

48:51

cost that amount but

48:53

you must have this in the NHS all the time. Isn't

48:56

it a combination of two things? It

48:59

is a short-termism that is

49:01

sort of inevitable in any

49:04

democratically elected government that you

49:07

if you're building something like HS2

49:09

let's say it's unlikely that you

49:12

will still be around to see

49:14

its conclusion and

49:16

it's quite difficult and therefore you need to sort of

49:18

build a bit of cross-party support in order to do a

49:21

big project like that but secondly it's

49:23

because we are so bad at

49:25

recognizing the value of capital spending

49:27

and when the going gets tough

49:30

as it has done over the last 13

49:32

years in terms of austerity what people do

49:34

of course is that they raid the capital

49:36

budget in order to prop up the revenue

49:38

budget and then you end up not

49:41

being able to even maintain your

49:43

infrastructure let alone build major

49:45

new projects. But

49:48

I mean there have been successes we

49:50

always concentrate on the failures but the

49:52

Elizabeth line for example I mean massive

49:54

success but

49:57

the Channel tunnel

50:00

which we forget about, comparatively recent, again, massive

50:02

success. And you can't just say, oh, that's

50:04

because the French were involved. Um,

50:07

the marvel is they actually met in

50:09

the middle with the drill. Um,

50:13

so it can be done. You

50:16

look at the 2012 Olympics,

50:18

which I know is not

50:21

an infrastructure project, but it was in a way. I

50:23

mean, the Olympic park in most countries

50:25

after the Olympics, it's just like tumbleweed.

50:27

I mean, our Olympic park is absolutely

50:30

thriving. Indeed. I was in meetings about

50:33

some of the preparations of the ground

50:35

way back when I was in, I think even when

50:38

I was in the DTI. So it had been a

50:40

long time in the planning. And,

50:43

um, obviously every West Ham fan would like to

50:45

thank the taxpayer for the stadium. Right.

50:51

Um, let's now this one's

50:54

nudes and young people brackets,

50:56

anonymous. Oh yeah. Um,

51:01

probably best for me to stay anonymous on this one.

51:03

I'm not particularly embarrassed by the argument, but I probably

51:05

wouldn't want this to come up in a job interview.

51:08

I'm writing in about the discussion you

51:10

two and many other people on the

51:12

media had last week regarding the sending

51:14

of explicit photos. I'm 24. And

51:17

while it's not particular a sender or receiver

51:19

of nudes myself, I'm in

51:22

a long-term relationship and I live with my

51:24

partner. I find the discussion

51:26

for older people, as in even

51:28

just very slightly older regarding it

51:30

really perplexing. You two

51:32

were both quite balanced in your discussion.

51:34

So I don't by any means mean

51:37

this as a criticism. Nevertheless, I

51:39

wanted to make a comment regarding the bizarre way.

51:41

A lot of people who didn't grow up with

51:43

smartphones seem to treat the issue. You're

51:45

absolutely right for people my age is

51:48

totally normal practice. And like anything

51:50

to do with sex and relationships and the element

51:52

of risk. And that risk is

51:54

tempered by the environment. It's more risky for

51:56

sure to send a naked photo to someone

51:58

who you don't know. you've just met.

52:01

Ultimately sending someone a naked photo is a

52:03

lot less risky than going round to the

52:05

flat of someone you don't know that well,

52:08

someone that most older people no doubt

52:10

did in their youth. You can't actually

52:12

be assaulted for sending someone a nude.

52:14

Well you can be, that's a sorry

52:17

carry on. And where

52:19

someone engages in a slightly riskier

52:21

activity, for example sending a solicited

52:23

photo to a stranger, I

52:26

find the response of people in the

52:28

media baffling. The level of sanctimonious judgement

52:30

from people, even the thought that someone

52:32

else might have taken an explicit photo

52:34

is incomprehensible for me. Would

52:37

these people have the same reaction if

52:39

I went home with a stranger and

52:41

they took a photo of me without

52:43

my knowledge? It's a violation of consent

52:46

to share an explicit photo without someone's

52:48

permission. Why isn't the entire condemnation level

52:50

that the person's sharing rather than the

52:52

person whose photo is being shared? It

52:55

seems to me that a big part of

52:57

the risk is that older people are so

52:59

horrified by the idea that someone might

53:02

send a naked picture themselves that they

53:04

shame the victim. Right,

53:06

well number one, when we were talking about William

53:08

Ragg, I said I thought there was quite a

53:10

lot of victim blaming going on

53:12

and I felt sorry for him. What I

53:14

was cross with him about was then sharing

53:18

other people's phone numbers,

53:20

but actually of course the reason why he did

53:23

that was the result of him sending a

53:25

dick pic to somebody was that

53:27

he was essentially blackmailed to get information out

53:29

of him which was then used against other

53:31

people. This is my argument, listen you can

53:33

take as many, and by the way I

53:35

don't, nor do I necessarily think it's

53:38

a particularly good idea to go round to somebody flat

53:40

who you don't know very well because you

53:42

might be putting yourself in danger there. I'm not

53:44

being prudish or sanctimonious.

53:47

I'm concerned about safeguarding people

53:50

and actually don't we see quite a lot

53:52

of evidence now that even, sadly even if

53:55

you are in a relationship with somebody, the

53:57

point about sending them a picture

53:59

of your pulse. is that

54:01

they can keep it possibly

54:03

for very nice things, but

54:05

possibly to then use against you in

54:08

some sort of revenge porn scenario

54:11

or if you don't know the person

54:13

to blackmail you with. So that's the

54:15

reason why I think people,

54:17

you know, all these prudish older people

54:19

who you're going on about, actually

54:22

a bit worried about the

54:24

safety of that kid. I'm worried

54:26

about the safety of my kids, you

54:29

know, so I jokingly say to them, don't send a

54:31

picture of your dick to anybody. And

54:33

they say, Ma! They say, oh shut

54:35

up. What they really,

54:42

what they really wouldn't want you to say is, but

54:44

if you have to send one, send it to me.

54:47

Oh no, that's just

54:49

downright wrong. Anthony

54:52

says, I'm sat with my wife or should it

54:54

be I'm sitting with my wife. I never quite

54:57

know the answer to that one. I

54:59

think it's sitting. I think it's sitting. Chatting

55:01

away and we have to ask, would you

55:03

ever or have you ever been asked to

55:05

guest host, have I got news for you?

55:08

We think you'd be epic. Stick

55:10

Jackie on one of the team's award-winning

55:13

TV. Oh sorry, am I,

55:15

so I'm like the afterthought yet again. You're

55:17

my appendage. You're reading all these emails. Ian,

55:19

Ian, you're so lovely, you're so wonderful. I think

55:22

you're so amazing. Oh, and by the way, Jackie's

55:24

all right. That's the general theme of the fucking

55:26

emails that you're reading out. I have

55:28

been asked on lots of occasions to go

55:30

on. Have I got news for you? And I've always said

55:33

no. I've never been asked to you on how I

55:35

got any for you. That's a loan to host this and I

55:37

don't see that changing anytime soon. It has

55:40

to be said. Next. John

55:43

Gittings recently, an article in the mail

55:45

said there were far too many podcasts

55:47

springing up. There is only so many

55:49

hours in a day. Discuss. Oh,

55:52

just don't listen to the shit once, only listen to us.

55:55

Well, I've never understood this idea

55:57

that there's too many of anything. It

56:00

is that you fellas. Too many television

56:02

channels nine now not of isn't you.

56:04

Just choose what he wants wants you

56:06

to the program he wants wants and.

56:09

Have. Look. There are so many

56:11

podcast have I fallen behind with

56:13

him wanting to listen to Am.

56:16

But. I have three or four the I'd

56:18

listen to every single way up. so this

56:20

losses when I am. But.

56:22

You're right, there are only so many

56:24

hours in the day I have to

56:26

adjust. Our latest you have isn't some

56:29

contest earn Thirty seven Soames this year

56:31

site so that's that's reduce my podcast

56:33

this in time because I'm going through

56:35

those Failure isn't as the bottoms. I.

56:38

Can both enough? idiot idiot that I

56:40

am a boat to week off to

56:42

Go Sustain in May and the day

56:45

with going is your visions. Which means

56:47

that the flight lands like Granada Airport

56:49

at seven o'clock in the evening. Just

56:52

as it starts coming through. think about

56:54

an hour and a half drive to

56:56

the Wanted he named his knuckles. And

57:00

and apparently I checked of my

57:02

friends. Don't once you have isn't.

57:04

Oh no, so we wouldn't have your

57:07

life. While I'm here to do the life threatening

57:09

sing. Or maybe I will

57:11

maybe channel be driving so maybe to be

57:13

on Spanish radio. That.

57:15

You need to have. No, You need to get.

57:17

Everybody's voice though, And exactly. So

57:20

you need to get his sole. Owner

57:22

The East need a Vpn elite needed when

57:24

his spiel to. Watch. It in style is out

57:26

of those out though. Get mail know. Or.

57:29

Do they so. It's on

57:31

Spanish t they. Need. A of us have a

57:33

Tv in the car is that you sign. Up

57:37

a level of your any of these a

57:39

lot certain allow have enough to break said

57:41

tom is not good in my right you

57:43

to be fine before an eye on another

57:46

thing cited for fucking breakfast. Well honestly. Country

57:49

Betty. But

57:52

I took back control each other

57:55

apart from movement so I started

57:57

sleeping serious on that. I genuinely.

58:00

didn't think because

58:02

the all the different networks they

58:04

haven't had to change it at all they've

58:06

chosen to. Now to

58:10

be fair when I go to Europe

58:13

I have the same conditions as I have

58:16

in the UK. Who are you with? Oh,

58:19

I think

58:21

there is one network that hasn't changed maybe it's

58:24

that but certainly on Vodafone you get a

58:26

daily allowance but before it was like... Oh well

58:28

perhaps I've only got a daily allowance and I just

58:30

don't get to the end of it because I've got

58:32

unlimited data in this country.

58:35

Yeah it's

58:37

all very complicated isn't it? I think we

58:39

are nearly

58:41

at the end of your interest. How could you say

58:44

that? I'm watching Tom Swalbeck's

58:51

text come in. Greg in Cardiff.

58:54

Nice to hear Stella Greasy not

58:56

being constantly drowned out by a

58:58

Tory like on Ian's cross question

59:00

last night. That's about Rachel McLean.

59:03

That was last week. Oh

59:06

yeah. That

59:09

didn't last long did it? That

59:14

said last night I meant approximately five

59:17

days ago. Ian,

59:22

what are your predictions for the

59:24

US presidential election in November? Ask

59:27

Peter Anderson. I'm predicting

59:29

that Donald Trump will win. Do you

59:32

know I fear so am I. Although

59:34

the polls have narrowed in the last

59:36

couple of weeks so I don't think

59:39

it's necessarily a foregone conclusion but

59:42

that's what I feel in my water. I

59:44

think we might come back to this at some

59:46

point or other in the future because I need

59:48

to do this question as well from 50 cents

59:51

know your menopause she

59:53

says after Ian's

59:55

laughter my username brackets

59:57

once more Even when

59:59

I let him. Get a plug for

1:00:01

the Broadstairs show. I might never

1:00:03

listen again, which makes me wonder

1:00:05

how do some stuff and it's

1:00:08

so Wife. Will

1:00:11

move he asked that question must be

1:00:13

or alert for movement is sound He.

1:00:15

Smells of Gmb if he sensed of anything

1:00:17

else. Never. Sensed of

1:00:20

me and so despised be a provocation

1:00:22

that times. Know.

1:00:25

Must. Immediately and some of the sound.

1:00:28

Of anything. Because

1:00:30

you I lowered I did a

1:00:32

sense to to callaway say once

1:00:34

did. Have some mustard.

1:00:36

On The point is, he's a much

1:00:38

better sense of than I am. I

1:00:40

alone. Bloody Diva. Oh

1:00:43

is to stance us now. That

1:00:48

wasn't of clowns of this it

1:00:50

would right? Well we will have

1:00:53

no this week's normal episode Probe:

1:00:55

You probably won't go until Saturday

1:00:57

morning because I couldn't do it

1:00:59

on Friday with Rising virtually. Yes,

1:01:02

What? You have to have to

1:01:04

goof the next week. I.

1:01:08

Mean the worst thing. Sorry.

1:01:10

Very balloon. Of. Cool to

1:01:12

go to a variety of event.

1:01:14

Black Tie next southernmost Sunday evening

1:01:16

as Eastman. Oh

1:01:18

what is like a show? What it

1:01:20

is or was it is the London

1:01:22

a hotel that some stupid global part

1:01:24

cynical civilians really work out exactly what

1:01:26

it is. To. Have of do you have your own? A Would

1:01:28

you hire. I have my own. Whatever

1:01:32

tends to fit into status quo loose

1:01:34

of the my moon. It.

1:01:36

Is not possible for a man not to

1:01:38

look handsome in black tie in my opinion.

1:01:41

So. I'm. Sorry. Boss disagree with us

1:01:43

to L A you know of does it not

1:01:45

or did a wearing black tie know that What

1:01:47

you think when you look at other men wearing

1:01:50

that time to the as ten years to the

1:01:52

rage really. Oh. Oh

1:01:55

nothing to look quite good. Him: when. he

1:01:58

thought that she for it Short

1:02:01

people don't look good in black tears. I

1:02:03

mean everybody does but you're right, it's better if you're sort

1:02:05

of statuesque like you are. Do

1:02:07

you know what I'm doing on Monday? Doing

1:02:10

an all talk interview. Let me see

1:02:13

if I can give you a clue.

1:02:15

Children's TV programme hosts from the 1970s

1:02:18

who knew how to do things.

1:02:20

Peter Purvis? No. Do you

1:02:23

remember? How? Fred Dyehood. I

1:02:32

interviewed him a few weeks ago about the

1:02:34

craze because he wrote the official biography of

1:02:36

the craze. Really? Yeah, which I had

1:02:38

no clue about. It's absolutely fascinating. So

1:02:41

I'm really looking forward to that. So we've got that next week. I'm

1:02:44

doing Helen Lederer as well. Oh

1:02:47

yeah, I do remember. Do you

1:02:49

remember naked videos? Yeah, funny. Oh,

1:02:51

Matthew Said I'm doing. He's a really

1:02:53

interesting man I think. Very, very

1:02:55

intellectual and intelligent for

1:02:58

a table tennis player. And

1:03:02

then I'm doing a school visit next Friday

1:03:05

in Newborough. Like

1:03:07

talking about your life or something?

1:03:10

Yes. So I'll report back when we speak

1:03:13

next Friday. Right, I've got 25 minutes to prepare

1:03:15

for my show so I'll go and do that

1:03:17

now. And you get that fucking phone

1:03:19

away from the microphone. What are we doing? What

1:03:23

am I supposed to be looking at? Oh dear. In

1:03:25

the huge... There's Cory there.

1:03:27

No, he hasn't appeared yet, has he? Lazy

1:03:30

bugger. Right. Goodbye. Hope

1:03:33

you've enjoyed this. I think people are

1:03:35

going to like this, the explainer one.

1:03:38

Do you think... So what we're going to try and do

1:03:40

is sometimes we'll do sort of

1:03:43

technically type things that we did

1:03:45

last week. Sometimes we'll do personal

1:03:48

recollection-y type things that we've done

1:03:50

today. Sometimes we'll do sort of

1:03:52

prophesied political situation type things

1:03:54

like we're going to do next week when we're going

1:03:56

to do the forecast.

1:04:00

being a of the significance of the second

1:04:02

to play elections. We

1:04:06

me some listeners I also use of

1:04:08

he goes you whipping their see them

1:04:10

know we can do no at a

1:04:12

just central banks new decks when I

1:04:14

also I was clearly distracted because Chris

1:04:17

My produces we have a running joke

1:04:19

the I say never ever both me

1:04:21

sir Alistair Graham because he's completely relevant

1:04:23

to today's politics and from his to

1:04:26

some is crucial Sky with most of

1:04:28

them and for others to grave sites

1:04:30

they thought it was on Sky to

1:04:32

censor laziest guestbook kings have any bought

1:04:34

me about. It say hi corey.

1:04:37

By. This is kind of on but time

1:04:39

what were we will sit with with with

1:04:42

strings but that people like how wittering as

1:04:44

saying that we were going to stop what's

1:04:46

going Now I'm going to say Cheerios to

1:04:48

die soon. As. He

1:04:51

has. He.

1:04:57

Been listening to for the many a

1:04:59

global player of original podcast. I.

1:05:02

Also have some other puts us for you. The.

1:05:04

Entire all top patasse much is an

1:05:06

hour long conversation with someone I find

1:05:08

interesting usually a personality from the world

1:05:11

of politics, the media's fault or entertainment.

1:05:13

I also have any fifteen Pop Hotel

1:05:15

series coup the Irish T shirt which

1:05:17

covers the and political careers of all

1:05:19

of the Sistine people he served in

1:05:21

the office of T Sick of the

1:05:24

Republic of Ireland. And. If

1:05:26

you like that, you'll definitely enjoy

1:05:28

my Presidents and Prime Minister's Podcast

1:05:30

which covers fifty five British Prime

1:05:32

ministers and forty five Us Presidents.

1:05:35

Cross. Question Is L B C Thrice weekly

1:05:38

panel debate show and appears on your

1:05:40

device each Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday at

1:05:42

eleven Pm. And of course, you can

1:05:44

listen back to all my radio shows

1:05:46

on the Into a Whole Show podcast

1:05:48

four days a week. and

1:05:51

cheap they're all available on global player

1:05:53

but most important of all do join

1:05:56

me for my eating radio show on

1:05:58

lbc seven to ten pm me day

1:06:00

to Thursday. It'd be great to have you

1:06:02

along. And please do give

1:06:04

our podcast five stars and review on

1:06:06

your podcast app. Word of

1:06:08

mouth is the most powerful marketing tool

1:06:10

for my podcast, especially yours.