0:00

Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently, I asked

0:02

Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless

0:04

companies are allowed to raise prices due

0:06

to inflation. They said yes. And then

0:09

when I asked if raising prices technically

0:11

violates those onerous two-year contracts, they said,

0:13

what the f*** are you talking about,

0:15

you insane Hollywood a*****e? So to

0:17

recap, we're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a

0:19

month to just $15 a month. Give

0:22

it a try at mintmobile.com/switch. $45

0:25

up front for three months plus taxes and fees. Promote for new

0:27

customers for limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes per month. Mint

0:29

Unlimited slows. This

0:33

episode of Politics Without the Boring Bits

0:35

is sponsored by BT because BT means

0:37

business. BT knows that businesses come in

0:39

many shapes, sizes and guises, from the

0:42

person just starting out at their kitchen

0:44

table to the biggest employer, which

0:46

is why no matter what line of work you're in,

0:49

they've got your back to help you succeed and do

0:51

what you do best. No doubt

0:53

connectivity is a must in Westminster, and it certainly

0:55

helped us to get this episode created and distributed

0:57

to you listening right now. BT

1:00

already connects more than 1 million businesses

1:02

and public sector organizations, offering secure

1:05

and reliable connectivity. Nearly three-quarters of

1:07

people running a business or side

1:09

hustle feel they couldn't do so

1:11

without reliable broadband and mobile connectivity.

1:14

That's why having connectivity you can count on is

1:17

a must for business. Whether

1:19

it be facilitating multiple devices being

1:21

connected at once or making team

1:23

calls or guest Wi-Fi access for

1:26

customers, BT's connectivity helps keep you

1:28

and your customers happy. Whatever your

1:30

business, BT's got your back. Search

1:32

BT's got your back. There's

1:55

a monitor where the Conservative Party slumped

1:57

to just two MPs and was replaced

1:59

by... Yes, reform. We've also got

2:01

some exclusive polling that shows one in

2:04

five voters Including one in

2:06

ten of those who voted for the conservatives

2:08

at the last election Hope that

2:10

they disappear completely before that in the

2:12

columnists man Veen Rana and Matthew Bell

2:14

on the power of Political nicknames and

2:16

don't forget if you like what you

2:18

hear on the podcast You can join

2:20

me for politics without the volume It's

2:22

live on times radio on your DAB

2:24

radio on your smart speaker or download

2:27

the times radio app That's politics without

2:29

the volume. It's weekdays from 10 Being

2:37

green the government has reached

2:40

a proposed cooperation agreement with

2:42

the Scottish greens having to

2:44

spend each day color

2:47

Public leaves this deal would see the

2:49

Greens entering government for the first time

2:51

ever in Scotland or anywhere in the

2:53

UK when I think It

2:56

could be nicer Being

2:58

red or yellow or gold

3:01

or something much more colorful That

3:03

the stakes simply could not be higher.

3:06

We are in a position to show

3:08

real leadership. That's not Being

3:12

green It's

3:15

all over it's all over Scottish

3:18

Greens what that the coalition but the SNP

3:20

first forged of course by Nicholas surgeon three

3:22

years ago The Buttes

3:24

house agreement is in the bin

3:27

I just hope they

3:29

make sure they put it in the right bin because otherwise I'll

3:31

be really embarrassing for the place man Veen Rana

3:33

and Someone called

3:35

Matthew on times

3:38

radio Man V. Brown is here in

3:40

the studio. How are you? Now

3:42

you sort of is a sort of halfway house.

3:44

You're here you have bought snacks. I

3:47

know but you failed I failed Not Literally

3:50

bought them and that's you in a hurry. So I

3:52

just got back by the station But they are good

3:55

though the little And

3:57

for the first time in the studio Matthew

4:00

Bell! Actually got a bell on your desk.

4:02

Yeah, an actual bell, yeah. Fantastic. How

4:05

are you? I'm very well into these. I'd

4:08

say about eight years ago. Yeah. I

4:10

mean, we haven't changed at all. I mean, neither of us have, because we

4:12

don't do a proper job. It works, actually. Well, I

4:15

think I used to work together at the independent on Sunday.

4:17

R.I.P. It's the proper union. Yeah. Yeah.

4:20

Those were the days. Those were the days.

4:22

We've got proper jobs. Not really. Let's not

4:24

get too bogged down in that. Now, so

4:26

we're talking about political nicknames. And

4:29

the power of them, if done well. So

4:31

all because of this was Angela Rayner standing

4:34

in for Kirsten O'odham at PMQ yesterday, where

4:37

she said this. She was up against Oliver Dowden,

4:39

who was obviously very close to British Inac and

4:41

resigned to try and get rid of Boris

4:44

Johnson and all of that. So this was her new

4:46

nickname for British Inac. Has he

4:48

finally realised that when he stabbed Boris

4:50

Johnson in the back to get his

4:53

name into number 10, he was pitching

4:55

their biggest election winner for a pint-sized

4:57

loser? Yeah.

5:00

Pint-sized losers. We like that. It's

5:02

pretty brutal. It's very brutal. I

5:05

mean, I think it'll kind of stick because

5:07

people are quite aware of

5:09

Rishi Sunak being quite

5:12

petite, I guess. And the

5:14

loser thing is slightly undeniable. You

5:16

know, you look at the polls. Yeah,

5:20

I think it would be hard to shake off, but it's so brutal that I'm not

5:22

sure it'll catch on in the way that it

5:25

might have done. Let's

5:27

have a listen to some other great political

5:30

nick- well, I was going to say great.

5:32

Just some other nicknames. This

5:34

was Rishi Sunak trying to, I

5:37

think, actually pinch this one from the sun. This

5:40

is Rishi Sunak with a nickname

5:42

for Keir Starmer. 20,000 more police

5:44

officers. We've given them

5:46

more powers and we've toughened up

5:48

sentencing, all opposed by Sosti over

5:50

there. Sosti.

5:54

Boris Johnson was probably better at these. In

5:57

fact, he had loads. Sydney Captain Hineside in

5:59

flesh- This

6:02

was the one that he called about Kierstama

6:04

at the height of Beer Gate, when

6:07

he was accused of breaking lockdown walls. It's

6:09

a beer corner! He

6:14

was quite good at them. Well, the thing is,

6:16

people like Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, you expect

6:18

them to make jokes, so when they make a

6:20

joke, it's just all part of what you want

6:22

from them. But when Kierstama or Rishi Sunak make

6:24

a joke, that's not really what we think of

6:27

them as doing. They're

6:29

actually quite serious politicians, so

6:32

it's less believable when people

6:34

with actual authority are making jokes. I

6:37

think Angela's one was quite good, although

6:39

pint size has been around for a long time. That's a

6:41

quite old joke. And really, the best people

6:44

who do them are newspapers in the end, the sub-editors. Most

6:46

of the best ones come from, I think, the Sun. You

6:49

think of two jags, you think of Patty

6:51

Pantstown, you think of all the ones that

6:53

actually mean something, the Mabos. They're sick, because

6:56

they're punchy, they actually do mean something,

6:58

and they get through to the electorate,

7:01

so they hang around for a reason, because

7:03

they actually sum up that person in one or

7:05

two words. I do agree, I do think the

7:07

newspapers are better at this, and a lot of politicians

7:09

who try and end up looking really awkward because they're

7:11

all flat. I think the reason Boris Johnson was so

7:13

good at it was because he went to the school

7:15

where this was normal. Good point! You

7:17

know what I mean? You've had a nickname for

7:20

everybody he's ever known from the age of

7:22

five. And Dobo, and all that.

7:25

That's just a skill that comes with the

7:28

education I've been in. I

7:31

think that's just how he operates with people. It's perfectly normal

7:33

for him. We've got the Donald Trump one. Donald

7:37

Trump is also naturally funny. And a bully.

7:40

And a bully. And almost a bully. Exactly.

7:43

That's so true. To coin this

7:45

one about Wanda Sanderson is just

7:47

beautiful. Wanda

7:49

Sanctimonius! It's just such

7:51

a... It's very good. I mean, it is good. How

7:54

many must he have gone through? He gets help on some

7:56

of those things. Do you think so? He

7:58

just...he pulls them off because he's such a bully. He just needs

8:00

to be fed the lines. I don't believe he

8:02

came up with sanctum It's just one of the sanctum owners

8:04

who just got a lovely sort of Well,

8:07

it's the same people who are going to become

8:09

sub-editors on tabla Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you know,

8:11

write speeches for atonian politician They've all been to

8:13

each themselves, they've had these awful names I've

8:16

thrown at them before I'm not going

8:19

to say what my nickname was Did

8:21

you have a nickname? Yeah, I did, but I can't

8:23

say it's on family radio, it's too appalling Are

8:25

you, well, I'm afraid so you can see where

8:27

it's going, as it were It doesn't end well

8:30

No Did

8:33

you have a nickname at school, Mandy? No,

8:35

I had lots at work, but the same because I've got such a

8:37

long name I used to get sort of

8:39

like Have you got a long name? Well, or just a, I

8:41

don't know, I worked in an

8:43

office where there were lots of people Everybody had a

8:45

nickname, so I got a lot there What was it?

8:48

I mean, it was most common, it was Mantis, which made

8:50

me sound like a butler Or worse

8:52

still, like a footmer who's trying to be a

8:54

butler Old school thing, because even when I

8:57

first started working in the press gallery Everyone

9:00

was chawless Yeah Or,

9:02

you know, it's not even, you're not speeding it

9:04

up, it's the same It's the same thing, it's

9:06

just, it's that thing of, you know, everybody you're

9:08

working with has been to a public school Wait,

9:10

if you don't have a nickname, it's

9:12

as if you have a nickname Yeah, yeah, yeah

9:15

Quentin Lutz, he was quite good at them, the squeaker, the

9:17

squeaker, he really tried to get that one Yeah, yeah, yeah

9:19

But no, I don't think anyone really picked it up, did

9:21

they? And he put it in his column every

9:23

week, but I'm not sure And I

9:25

have to say, to be fair to him, Vince Cable,

9:27

I think, is greatest moment Was when he came up

9:29

with I think we've got a clip, let's have

9:32

a listen, this is Vince Cable And God forget, Gordon

9:34

Brown The House has

9:36

noticed the Prime Minister's remarkable

9:38

transformation in the last few weeks

9:40

From Stalin to Mr Bean

9:46

Now, the reason that works is

9:48

because it's entirely authentic

9:51

Yeah Vince Cable, I mean, Mr Bean was

9:53

not a topical reference No Even

9:55

in 2007 when he said it Bet

9:57

it really stopped Yeah And perhaps there's

9:59

something about Gordon Brown that he is

10:01

he somehow he lends himself to it.

10:04

Remember, remember when David Cameron said he

10:06

was an analog politician in a digital

10:08

destination? It's exactly his problem

10:10

was that that he was seen by

10:12

someone from the past. And I suppose

10:14

the Stalin Mr. Bean thing physically also,

10:17

and don't forget, Aleister Campbell was very

10:19

good at these things. He

10:21

depicted John Major as tucking his shirt into

10:23

his underpants. Yeah, this is an image that

10:25

then stuck even though it wasn't true. I

10:28

think he admitted that he made it up.

10:30

But the if

10:32

it's a visual if you can't get it out of your

10:34

head, that's when they're really brilliant because that's how you see

10:37

it. But you've got to be a big of truth to

10:39

it. That's the point. It's gonna be like the

10:41

best political cartoon where it just punctures the image

10:43

and shows everybody the other side of the person.

10:45

Up until then Gordon Brown had sort of been

10:47

this sort of big, you know, the big chance

10:49

and he was in control of everything. Big

10:51

bulky figure. And then suddenly from that moment, all you could

10:53

see was the awkwardness of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah,

10:56

just totally turn the image was so not

10:58

for that. Yeah, it's cable coming up with that

11:00

in the bath. Did he? Yeah,

11:02

really? That's more than I ever wanted to know. Another

11:05

image we can't get out of it. I know. I

11:07

put it in my book. It's one of the 50

11:09

places that changed British politics, Vince cable's but because

11:12

it captured that moment. Yeah. And it came Yeah,

11:14

you used to do all of his best thinking

11:16

in the bath. Well,

11:19

what do you know? I should try it.

11:22

Um, I would be

11:24

interested to see if Richard soon

11:26

comes back with something next week.

11:28

I know. But the danger is if he does, it'll just be

11:31

painful. Yeah, well, also, I think

11:33

Winchester wasn't very good at nicknames.

11:36

No, you might be right. Maybe he

11:38

will come back with one and it'll

11:41

be painful. You either want eaten or

11:43

like a quite brutal private school. Yeah,

11:45

you know, cheaper fees.

11:48

You want you want to have Lloyd sub or

11:50

you want somebody who went to eat and yeah,

11:52

one or the other. Very

11:55

good. Well, we'll see. We'll see if he does come back. We'll see

11:57

if he does come back. Now, he's an interesting thought I had this

12:00

I don't know if you heard that, Darren Jones, who's

12:03

a Labour Centre Minister, was

12:05

on LBC and

12:08

they were taking calls. So he had

12:10

a question about voter IDs and he

12:12

didn't... well, this was his response.

12:15

Will you repeal this in government? I

12:17

don't know, actually. It's a good question. I only

12:19

see economic policy, so I don't know what our position is

12:21

on it. Well, it's refreshing for you to say that, actually.

12:23

Well, I like to say I don't know. When I don't

12:25

know, I get told off sometimes of doing it. But I

12:27

think... come back to me when we publish our manifesto and

12:29

I'll let you know. I've got my line. Have you? I've

12:32

got quite extensive top lines, which I'm not going

12:34

to read through. Okay. We're

12:37

out of time. The question, will Labour scrap voter

12:39

ID? We say, we have

12:41

seen multiple problems emerge with photo voter

12:43

ID in the May elections, last month,

12:45

and we've raised these issues time and

12:47

time again with ministers. Every

12:49

legitimate voter should be able to vote in our democracy.

12:51

Agree with that. We're still waiting for the government's review

12:54

of the impact of the voter ID in the May

12:56

elections. We need to know when it's coming. Ministers

12:58

are required to hold a review into this

13:00

discredited policy and there must be no more

13:02

dither and lay. I'm

13:06

all in favour of showing the sausage, going

13:08

into the sausage. I think we really get out quite

13:11

a lot. But I thought, is there something actually

13:14

refreshing about a politician who says, I

13:17

don't know? Well,

13:20

I love a don't know because I often don't

13:22

know. So you can relate to that. But I

13:24

have to say I'm more impressed by politicians when

13:26

they're completely on top of their brief and when

13:28

you get someone who can read out the facts

13:30

and figures and they really know what they're talking

13:32

about, you think, okay, I'm impressed. And

13:34

I think the difference here with Darren Jones is that

13:36

he's not in government. And I think that is the

13:38

difference. He's waiting for an election. So to be fair

13:41

to him, the difference

13:43

that he doesn't need to know at the moment, because he's

13:45

waiting for the party to announce what their policy is going

13:47

to be. If he's been in government, then it's a big

13:49

problem because you can't have government ministers standing up

13:51

saying, I don't know, it just looks terrible and

13:53

weak, even if they don't know they

13:55

have to say something. But I think if

13:58

you're not in office, it kind of it's it's If

14:01

you're in a position where that manifesto is still being

14:03

written, you're not quite sure which side they've come down

14:05

on, it probably makes sense. But at the same time,

14:07

I do think that... Even once he'd read out

14:09

the lines, I'm still unclear as to whether or

14:11

not Labour are going to abolish voter ID. There's

14:14

lots of concerns that we've written and

14:17

we've... I

14:19

thought, I mean, I think people like the authenticity.

14:21

They like being told that actually sometimes they don't

14:23

know because they're across a different brief and they

14:25

will find out, and all of that's fine. I

14:27

just thought the way he read it out, I

14:30

mean, I quite liked that he was reading out for the first time and

14:32

then giving his own commentary. He was like, well, I

14:34

agree with that. Yeah, that's okay. I

14:36

agree with that. I'm not bored with that. But

14:38

the bits where he sort of says, we've done it time and time

14:41

again, and the bit at the end where he's like, my

14:44

things are all of this. It just sounds really

14:46

unconvincing, obviously. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But

14:48

I actually think it also highlights a

14:51

flaw, I think, in the media generally,

14:54

which we've got into... It is part of the morning round's fault.

14:56

We've got into this habit of, let's

14:58

get the chanceful section on and just shout at

15:00

him about a load of things which I didn't

15:02

do with the chanceful. So it's

15:04

like, what's the million people talk about inflation

15:06

and we'll talk about the latest

15:08

scandal and we'll talk about... And

15:10

then they end up sort of flailing about a bit

15:13

and then they get on the next interview in 10

15:15

minutes, they have to correct themselves. And sort of, we

15:17

actually want them to know their stuff. Exactly. And

15:19

also, it's the point that often they've only just been

15:22

put onto this that morning, so they haven't had

15:24

time to read the brief or they might even

15:26

be new to the position and they're expected to

15:28

know everything about that brief in seconds and

15:30

then go on national radio or television and they

15:32

cannot set a foot wrong because then that clip

15:34

will be repeated everywhere and it's either

15:37

the end of their career or they're going to be

15:39

downgraded. And so they're petrified

15:41

and what you really want is them to

15:43

be well-informed, relaxed and authoritative and that can't

15:45

happen, as you say, in that situation. So

15:47

yeah, I think, I mean, there's a point

15:49

about giving people more time to get on top

15:51

of their briefs before they're allowed to speak about it.

15:53

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a good idea. It's a minimum

15:55

six-month period. I mean, that's too much, but six weeks

15:58

even just to read everything. So they've got to read.

16:00

before they're allowed to give an opinion or

16:02

speak on behalf of the party because... Yeah,

16:04

I mean, but I also think, you know,

16:06

the reason we end up putting questions to

16:08

them that they're not qualified to answer is

16:10

because there is now such a controlled party

16:12

system about who they put up to talk.

16:14

They're trying to change or lead the news

16:16

agenda by deciding today is Education

16:19

Day, the only person you can talk to is

16:21

the education secretary, but you know, we're a democracy,

16:23

lots of things have happened, you've probably had a

16:25

scandal overnight, you've got to be able to ask

16:27

somebody those questions and if that's the best they're

16:29

going to do, then that's the person

16:31

they've put up. It's sort of

16:33

their problem too, it's the party management. But it's all

16:35

Jeremy Paxman's fault, isn't it? Because he admitted that, you

16:37

know, all he wanted to do was to establish

16:39

them and he would think, why is this bastard

16:41

lying to me when he was interviewing them? And

16:43

often they were. But after your starting point. But after

16:46

your starting point, then you're never going to get

16:48

a good dialogue going. But I think you're completely

16:50

right. Then when they think the education secretary is making

16:52

an announcement, they can do the morning work, they

16:54

can talk about their announcement and then they're going,

16:56

well, that's the last thing we're going to do. What

16:58

we're going to do is talk to them about

17:00

Gaza and inflation

17:02

and why the trains aren't running. But

17:05

they know that we want to talk about these

17:07

things. It is a democracy, there's got to be

17:09

accountability, but they won't put up people to talk

17:11

about those subjects alone. So you

17:13

never actually get the expert answer because actually

17:15

there are awful things they don't want to

17:17

talk about. So you end up with sort

17:20

of asking the wrong person the right questions

17:22

and that's party management

17:24

as much as it is media.

17:26

Lots of people have got in

17:29

touch about nicknames. Claire says, all

17:31

the nicknames you've mentioned are about people's behaviour,

17:33

not physical attributes, which is why

17:35

they're funny and acceptable. Pint size is

17:37

not acceptable. Imagine if Sunak called Reina

17:40

a ginger. Interesting

17:42

point, that. And then Monica says, what

17:44

I'm getting from this conversation is OK for some politicians,

17:46

namely toys, to get away with name college. But as

17:48

soon as Angela stands on the ground, it becomes questionable.

17:50

I don't know if that's what we were saying. It's

17:52

cable with Lib Dem. I

17:54

did think some of his it was almost

17:57

physical, you know, the Mr Bean thing. Yeah,

17:59

it was that. in Eptitude but it was also

18:01

just that slight awkwardness with Robert Gordon Brown

18:03

that he just totally nailed. Now the

18:06

post office inquiry grinds on with

18:08

more and more post office bosses

18:10

giving evidence and lots more

18:12

people are watching it because of Mr Bates

18:14

versus the post office extraordinary drama that aired

18:16

at the beginning of the year. But

18:19

now the boss of ITV

18:22

Kevin Ligot has said that

18:25

it lost a million pounds on making it

18:27

even though the actors took a pay cut

18:29

in order to make it and it's one

18:31

of the biggest shows of

18:34

the year. How is that possible? Rebecca

18:36

Cooney is insights editor at broadcast magazine

18:38

has hopefully got to explain it. Hi

18:40

Rebecca. Hello, how's it going? Oh,

18:42

good. Oh, good. Now with

18:44

this, because it's not like a

18:46

blockbuster movie. I mean, it's a lot of people walking

18:48

in and out of post offices and

18:51

it got big viewers at the time and

18:53

hasn't it had like millions and millions of

18:55

views on the ITVX hub thing

18:57

which you have to sit through the average for.

18:59

How on earth have they lost money? Well,

19:02

because it costs more and more to make TV

19:04

shows than it used to. You're right. It's had

19:07

this huge viewership which obviously kind of they weren't

19:09

really expecting. They thought it was going to do

19:11

well and obviously, you know, people in the TV

19:13

industry were watching this and they thought, yeah, that's

19:15

going to be a hit. Nobody was quite expecting.

19:17

So I think the finale with a consolidated audience

19:19

of almost 10 million, I think after 28 days

19:22

we were looking at 13 million which is huge.

19:24

TV shows, yeah, they don't get those kind of

19:26

numbers now. But the problem is that, you know,

19:28

ITV makes this money primarily through

19:30

advertising. It's a commercial TV

19:32

station. You know, the economy is doing badly

19:35

and then when the economy does badly, the

19:37

first thing that companies cut is the advertising. So

19:39

advertising spans falls which means you have less money

19:41

available. At the same time, it costs more

19:44

and more to make these shows because we're in

19:46

a cost of living crisis that also translate to

19:48

the costs of goods, literally just, you know, providing

19:50

stuff for the set, providing hotels for people to

19:52

sleep in while they're on set. Just any cost

19:55

you've petrol, any sort of cost you can think

19:57

that might be associated with making a TV show.

20:00

been increasing. So it's costing more and more money at the

20:02

same time, there's kind of less and less money available. So,

20:05

you know, the industry, the UK industry is

20:07

becoming increasingly sort of dependent on international sales

20:09

to make sort of make ends meet. And

20:11

whether that's getting kind of, you know, international

20:13

distributors on before the show is made to

20:15

come on and say, yes, we will give

20:18

you some of the money to physically make

20:20

the show or afterwards going, okay, well, we'll

20:22

recoup some of our losses by selling the

20:24

rights to screen it internationally. And,

20:27

you know, the thing with Mr. Bates in the post offices,

20:29

it is there is that really emotive

20:31

universal story of Oh my God, I can't

20:33

believe that's happening to somebody. What if that

20:35

would happen to me? What if I were

20:37

to be unjustly convicted of something and the

20:39

computer says no, but at the same time,

20:42

there's a particular as you say, people walking

20:44

in and out of post offices, and there

20:46

was there is a particular grab emotional grab

20:48

for us in the UK, right? Because the

20:51

body that was behaving in this awful

20:53

Machiavellian way and ruining these people's lives

20:56

was this really well loved national institution, right?

20:58

And that probably doesn't translate quite so well to

21:00

somebody else that doesn't have that sense. We do

21:02

think fondly of the post office and that was

21:04

part of the shock about it was my God,

21:06

can you believe they're behaving like this? The

21:08

amount of it I read somewhere that the only country

21:10

that picked it up was Japan because I've got particular

21:13

interest is it's a Fujitsu, it's a Japanese company. They're

21:15

saying it in a very different way. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

21:17

So I think it has it has sold

21:19

to about 12 territories. Yes,

21:22

sort of PBS masterpiece and New Zealand

21:24

as well, but it's just it didn't

21:26

get any international pre sales. It's

21:29

just not it's not taken

21:31

off in the way we would expect. And also, like I said,

21:33

they didn't expect to get those numbers. So it's not like they

21:35

can say to advertisers, well, we're going to get you know,

21:37

skewers, so that's money. And there

21:39

isn't really any other mechanism for them to make

21:41

money after a show has been successful. It's not

21:44

like back in the old days when people would rush

21:46

out and buy DVDs, right? Like we don't have that

21:48

mechanism anymore. So what can

21:50

we do about this? I mean, good

21:52

question. My real fear with this is that sort of

21:54

dramas like that, which has such

21:56

a huge public service value, you

21:59

know, completely reopen the political debate

22:01

in this country, it's

22:03

changed the news agenda, it

22:06

wouldn't get made again by a commercial

22:08

outfit if they, you know, if they

22:10

realize that they made a million in losses. And,

22:13

you know, part of the same piece, you've

22:15

got the head of ITV criticizing the BBC

22:17

for buying sort of purely commercial stuff from

22:19

America. Who's going to make this stuff? You

22:21

know, you'll only make the really safe bets,

22:24

which will translate to 50 different countries, even

22:26

though, you know, with this post office scandal, at the heart of

22:28

it, you've got this sort of casket

22:31

esque ordinary people and society

22:33

sort of all the systems they expect to

22:35

help them turning on them. You know, it's

22:37

a very universal story, but

22:40

for its matter to people and to be able to sell

22:42

it abroad is really difficult. Yeah. And my fear is that

22:45

those dramas just won't be made. Yeah. I mean, there

22:47

is an argument for taking the profit out of

22:49

television of that sort, because as you say, welcome

22:51

to the BBC, but that's not working. No, you're

22:53

quite right. But really, actually, the thing that Kerry

22:55

Ligo was talking about, he's in the same thing.

22:57

Yeah. He's complaining about the BBC spending. But that's

22:59

what I mean, why are they waiting for me?

23:02

Outviding the ITV for suits. Which is clearly wrong.

23:04

It's absurd. It's a complete waste of money. Yeah.

23:07

And as you say, had the ITV not made that

23:09

drama, then probably we wouldn't be having the inquiry right

23:11

now. It's the power of television. We wouldn't have been.

23:13

But it was burbling off and it wouldn't be running

23:16

on every like, rolling news channel and. And it

23:18

wouldn't have got the sort of news agenda

23:20

where every political interview was being asked about

23:23

the post office. I mean, it really grabbed public. And they all just kept saying,

23:25

I don't know. He just probably

23:27

said we wanted. Man vin, Varna and Matthew

23:29

Bannon. Of course, you can catch man vin

23:32

on the story podcast, wherever you're listening to

23:34

this, but not before you've listened to Could

23:36

the Tourists Disappear? Rising

23:47

sea levels, extreme weather patterns,

23:49

extinctions of species. Our

23:51

planet needs protecting. I'm

23:54

Adam Vaughan, the environment editor for the times. And this

23:56

is Planet Hope from the times in

23:58

partnership with Rolex and its. Perpetual

24:00

Planet Initiative. In this

24:02

podcast, we hear from leading experts from around

24:04

the world who are committed to finding solutions.

24:07

These explorers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and citizens are

24:09

committed to a common goal, to

24:12

protect our home. Earth. Listen

24:14

now wherever you get your podcasts. The

24:24

big thing. Founded

24:27

190 years ago, the

24:29

Conservative Party boasts of being

24:32

the world's most successful political

24:34

force in history. It

24:36

saw off the Liberals in the 19th century, dominated the 20th

24:38

century, and has been in

24:40

power for 14 of the first 24 years

24:44

of this century. And yet, all

24:46

that could be coming to an end. The

24:48

latest Ugov polls at the time, they're on just

24:50

20% on course

24:52

to be thrown out of office as and

24:55

when a general election happens. And then what?

24:57

A few years in opposition to them back in power? Or

25:00

maybe the party is over. Exclusive

25:02

Ugov politics for this programme shows

25:04

two in 10 voters, including

25:07

one in 10 of those who voted Tory in

25:09

2019, would

25:11

like the Conservative Party to

25:13

disappear completely. And some

25:16

other party become the main right-wing

25:18

party in Britain. That

25:20

couldn't happen, could it? It

25:23

can. It did two decades ago in

25:26

Canada. Under nine years,

25:28

under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, the

25:30

Canadian Conservatives were played by scandal, buffeted

25:32

by the failure of two attempts to

25:35

revise the constitution to turn

25:37

the swage Quebec nationalists. And

25:39

bluntly, they were out of

25:41

ideas. While their rivals, the Liberal Party, were on

25:44

the up. So,

25:46

just six months before an election

25:48

had to be called, the Conservatives

25:50

changed. Leader Brian Mulroney made way

25:52

for the inexperienced but sparky Kim

25:54

Campbell. I think Canadians want their

25:57

people and government to be business-like

25:59

and straightforward, be down to earth and

26:01

you have to walk your talk you have to behave

26:03

in a way that's consistent with

26:05

what you're saying. She was the first woman

26:07

to be Canada's Prime Minister

26:10

but when the election came round

26:12

on October the 25th 1993 the

26:15

Canadian conservatives weren't just thrown out

26:17

of office they were

26:20

destroyed slumping from a hundred and

26:22

fifty six seats to

26:24

just two it was the worst

26:26

ever defeat by governing party in

26:29

the Western democratic world celebrated

26:31

here by the Liberal leader

26:33

Jean Cretien. The people of

26:35

Canada have spoken and

26:38

the time has come to

26:40

bring the nation together. The

26:43

collapse of the conservatives came as

26:45

the Reform Party rose replacing it

26:48

as the rising force on the right. Sound

26:51

familiar? Well Bob Plamondo is

26:53

the author of Full Circle

26:55

Death and Resurrection in Canadian

26:57

conservative politics. I wanted

26:59

to know whether what happened in Canada

27:01

could happen here. He explains what went

27:03

wrong for Kim Campbell's conservatives. She was

27:06

actually in the lead in the polls

27:08

but Campbell herself ran a

27:11

disastrous election campaign she had

27:13

no response to the

27:16

small-c conservatives who were

27:18

looking for a smaller

27:20

government balanced books. She

27:22

said things like election periods were

27:24

the worst time to discuss important

27:27

matters of public policy. She

27:29

said that we wouldn't really

27:31

expect an economic recovery for you

27:34

know another five or ten

27:36

years so she offered you know

27:39

thin gruel and you know essentially

27:41

no hope and had

27:43

a completely inadequate political skills

27:46

and in that vacuum the

27:48

Reform Party in the West filled the

27:50

void and they picked up you know

27:52

50 seats in in Western Canada and

27:55

the Bloc Quebecois swept the

27:57

province of Quebec and in fact the

27:59

Bloc Quebecois Qua, whose mandate

28:01

was essentially for Quebec separation, one

28:03

and a half seats that they

28:06

became the official opposition in the

28:08

House of Commons, and the progressive

28:10

Conservative Party was reduced to two

28:13

seats. And

28:15

the question was whether they would even remain

28:17

as a political party and a political force,

28:20

or whether they had effectively

28:22

committed suicide, and the entire

28:24

political infrastructure of Canada was

28:26

about to change. And

28:29

so the reason that people in Britain are

28:31

now looking to that is there are clearly

28:33

broadbrushes, and there are lots of differences, but

28:36

there are broadbrush similarities. You've got

28:38

a Conservative Party which has been in power for

28:40

around a decade, during which time there's been

28:42

lots of turmoil. A big constitutional question, clearly

28:45

we've had Brexit and the argument about whether

28:47

or not that's been delivered

28:49

on or not, and an insurgent party

28:52

on the right, whereas the reform in

28:54

Canada we've got, reform UK has literally

28:56

got the same name in the UK.

29:00

And Nigel Farage in particular has

29:02

posited Canada as being the example

29:04

of that. Reform

29:07

UK takes so many seats, it destroys

29:09

the Conservative Party, and it disappears from

29:12

the political scene. What critics

29:14

of that say, but reform then only got

29:16

to win by moving back to the centre.

29:19

That actually you can't win

29:21

from an extreme position.

29:23

Is that your reading of what happened in

29:25

Canada? So your thesis says you

29:27

presented it as 100% correct. The

29:30

result of the splintering of the

29:33

Conservative movement into different political parties,

29:36

which effectively became a civil

29:38

war, guaranteed only one

29:40

thing. That was

29:43

electoral irrelevance. When

29:45

it first passed the post system, when

29:48

those votes were being split, it meant

29:50

that the Liberal Party of Canada was

29:52

able to win three successive majorities without

29:55

breaking a sweat. We

29:57

had three elections in Canada.

30:00

succession where the outcome was

30:02

never in doubt. And

30:04

that the real battle

30:06

was for survival and supremacy

30:09

between the progressive Conservative Party

30:11

on one hand, which maintained

30:14

itself as a political institution, you know,

30:16

in large measure because it still held

30:18

seats in the Senate, and

30:21

it had a long legacy in

30:23

Canadian history, and the Reform

30:25

Party, which was a regionally based party

30:27

in the West, which over the 1993

30:29

elections and 97 elections and even into

30:31

2000, could gain no

30:36

support in Central Canada

30:38

or in Eastern Canada. And

30:40

what was inevitable in

30:42

order to be relevant in the 2004

30:45

election, the fractions would have to

30:47

come back together again, the civil

30:49

war would have to end. And

30:52

the Reform Party, which had become the Canadian

30:54

Alliance Party, merged with the

30:56

Progressive Conservative Party, and they

30:59

became the Conservative Party of Canada. Essentially,

31:02

they had come back to what

31:04

they once were, which was the

31:06

only configuration in which they had

31:08

a chance at winning another election

31:10

campaign. So based on

31:12

having seen all of that play out, Bob,

31:14

is the answer to trying

31:17

to save the Conservative Party

31:20

in the UK to try to keep

31:22

that coalition together and see off the

31:25

threat from the right? Or is there

31:27

a tipping point from which there is

31:29

no way back? So, you

31:31

know, the tipping point would have been,

31:33

had the Reform Party

31:36

in 1993 very

31:39

quickly morphed itself

31:41

from being a Western-based,

31:44

highly ideological, far-right

31:46

party, had they very quickly

31:49

institutionalized themselves to become a

31:52

more centrist or moderate party,

31:54

to be essentially another version

31:56

of the Progressive Conservative Party

31:58

under a different direction. different

32:00

name. That's what they would have had to

32:02

have done very quickly, but they didn't. They

32:04

maintained their roots and their populism and so

32:09

the Civil War endured. So the

32:11

only way, you know, if you're looking at the

32:14

British example, is if the Reform

32:16

Party in Britain tries to model

32:18

itself very much like the traditional

32:21

Conservative Party in Britain, but just

32:23

under a different name. Otherwise,

32:26

you know, it's too big of a leap

32:28

to go from a protest party to a

32:31

governance party in short order. And

32:33

I suppose as a reminder, you know, we're separated

32:35

by a huge amount of

32:37

water, but we have the same political

32:39

system. It's first-past-the-post and the

32:41

way to win in first-past-the-post is

32:44

to present to the country an

32:46

election the broadest coalition possible. You

32:48

need to, whether you're a centre-left

32:50

or centre-right, actually the party that

32:52

wins by and large is

32:55

the one closest to the centre

32:57

straddling as much as possible to bring as

32:59

many people into your tent. And if you

33:01

take out a narrower position, then ultimately

33:04

you lose. Yeah, so and

33:06

I would say this, it doesn't have

33:08

to be dead centre. You don't have

33:10

to be exactly in the middle, but

33:13

you do have to build a coalition. And

33:15

the coalition is not just a,

33:17

you know, ideological interest, but it's

33:19

also of regional interest. So you

33:21

have to find the

33:24

collection of policies that

33:27

have appeal across the country. And

33:29

so that no one faction and

33:31

a coalition gets everything that

33:34

they want. There is a

33:36

sort of putting some water in

33:38

your wine, but you get some

33:40

things that you won't get from

33:42

the Liberal Party in our case

33:44

or the Labour Party as in

33:46

the UK. So you get some

33:48

things, but not everything. So there's

33:50

a need for compromise. No political

33:52

party succeeds based on

33:55

ideological purity tests. I

33:57

think that is not unique to

33:59

Canada. I think that's worldwide

34:01

in democracies. And that's particularly the case

34:04

in the first past, the post system,

34:07

where the compromises necessarily have

34:09

to happen before the election

34:11

rather than than after, because

34:13

it's the party that used to the to

34:16

the middle. It's not either too far right

34:18

or too far left that is

34:20

going to attract, you know, the most votes and

34:23

be the one most likely to be given

34:25

a chance to govern. Paul

34:27

Plamandot, the author of Full

34:29

Circle Death and Resurrection in

34:31

Canadian Conservative Politics, taking

34:34

a look at what happened in Canada in

34:36

1993. Well, let's

34:38

look now at some polling that you,

34:40

Gov, have done for this program, asking

34:42

what is your preference for the

34:45

Conservative Party? Twenty two percent of

34:47

people say they want

34:49

the Conservative Party to disappear completely and

34:51

be replaced by another party

34:53

on the right. Twenty one

34:55

percent want them to remain as the main

34:58

right right wing party, but never win another

35:00

election. Eleven percent want them

35:02

to lose the next election, but win again

35:04

later is a better leader in policies. Just

35:07

14 percent of people want

35:09

the Conservatives to win

35:12

the next election. In fact, of

35:14

the people who say they are

35:16

going to vote Conservative, only

35:18

84 percent of them

35:21

actually want them to win. Perhaps

35:24

we're worrying for the Conservatives. Thirteen

35:26

percent of those who voted Conservative

35:28

at the last election want

35:30

them to disappear completely.

35:33

How realistic is that? How

35:35

worried are people in

35:37

and around the Conservative Party about exactly

35:39

that? Katie Baughals watches these things closer,

35:42

more closely than most. There's political edge

35:44

of the spectator. Hi, Katie. Hi.

35:47

And Andrew Cooper, Baron Cooper Windrush,

35:49

with David Cameron's pollster when he was in number

35:52

10. Morning, Andrew. Morning. Katie,

35:56

let's start with you. The same question

35:58

then. Could the Conservatives. disappear?

36:02

I mean anything is possible. I think

36:04

the Canadian example that we've been hearing about

36:07

was obviously a reduction to two seats and

36:09

I think even on the absolute worst

36:11

horror polls or for example electoral calculus

36:13

which doesn't really do which

36:15

is quite a blunt instrument we're talking

36:18

about perhaps 90 below 100

36:20

I think there's maybe one or

36:23

two polls just around 60 so you would

36:25

expect there to be a ramp of Tory

36:27

MPs whatever I think the question

36:29

is more are they reduced to such a

36:31

point that they stop being a force

36:34

in politics or a you know major

36:36

force and could they fall to the

36:38

point that they're not their official opposition

36:40

now I think that most MPs worry

36:42

but they believe things will tighten a

36:45

bit in an election campaign maybe that's

36:47

a false hope but figures in Labour

36:49

also think they might and therefore you

36:52

know I would probably say most of you think they will

36:54

get over a hundred MPs but

36:56

there might not be much over that and that's

36:58

the current thinking. What's your current

37:00

thinking Andrew? Sadly

37:03

I don't think it's very likely that they're going to

37:06

be wiped out entirely. I think

37:08

most people agree that you've got politics just an

37:10

awful lot of people think they deserve it but

37:12

I think there's

37:14

a sense in the investment still that there's a

37:16

little expectation we're heading to this massive landslide place

37:19

majority and the question is sort of did the

37:21

Tories get up just over 100 just under I

37:24

tend to think that's an overly

37:26

pessimistic scenario for the Tories because

37:29

the average of the polls that people look at

37:31

is an average of two different clusters of voting

37:33

polls so just in the last week we've

37:36

had a couple of polls saying that the Labour's League is

37:38

23 or 24 points and three

37:40

polls saying it's 16 or 17 and there's

37:43

a big difference in terms of

37:45

the outcome. I'm not sure those are more likely to

37:47

be right. As Katie just said the expectation

37:49

in normal times you would expect that the lead

37:51

whatever the lead is now that

37:54

it will narrow a bit between now and the election and

37:56

the other thing which is often forgotten when we look at

37:58

these huge leads and the discussion without it. about

38:00

the school that would be wiped out,

38:02

it's easy to forget that devastating

38:04

Labour's defeat was under Corbyn in

38:06

2019, which means that the baseline

38:08

for Labour from the last

38:11

election is extremely challenging. They have to win a

38:13

huge number of seats just to get a majority. They

38:16

need a bigger swing than Tony Blair got in 1997,

38:20

just to get a majority of one. They

38:22

have to win more seats in one election

38:25

to get to a majority of just one than

38:27

has ever been won in just one election since

38:30

the war, apart from by Tony Blair in 1997.

38:33

So, the challenge is, you know, I

38:35

think we'd all bet that KSI will be prime

38:37

to spike Christmas, probably with a fairly decent majority,

38:39

but I think the disaster scenarios

38:41

for the Tories are unlikely to happen. I

38:45

mean, you've lived through several of those disasters

38:48

yourself, Andrew, having... Well,

38:52

you were in the SDP, and we

38:54

know what happened with them, and

38:56

then you worked with

38:58

the Conservative Research Department, you

39:00

were there for the 1997 election defeat,

39:03

which there were lots of conversations

39:05

then about will the Tories ever win again. You

39:08

worked for William Hague as director of

39:10

strategy. You know, we know what

39:12

then happened in 2001. Are we too quick to

39:15

write off political parties? What is it

39:17

about the Conservative Party that means that

39:20

it somehow keeps surviving despite often the

39:22

best attempts of the people leading it? I

39:25

think the conventional analysis on that

39:27

is that the Conservative Party has

39:29

been very, very skilful at adapting,

39:31

very quick to adapt

39:33

to changing situations, changing democratic

39:35

factors, to changing trends. I

39:38

remember sitting there, I did the private polling

39:40

for the Conservatives in 1997, and they say

39:43

we've been there through

39:45

the first couple of years at the Blair Cabinet, and

39:48

the question was, we were very clear in the United

39:50

States, and the question was, how long would it take

39:52

for the Conservative Party to change enough in

39:55

order to be presentable in the election to something

39:57

different, to be electable again? And

40:00

the answer turned out to be three

40:02

election defeats. So

40:05

that, I think, is the question. The question really

40:08

is, they seem to do lose. And they seem

40:10

to say, I don't think they're going to be

40:12

wiped out, but they'll probably lose fairly heavily. What

40:15

do they do? What conclusion do they draw? How do

40:17

they resolve that question of how

40:19

much they need to change anymore, do you want traction? David

40:22

from Canadian-born, in

40:25

contrast to the Canadian conversation with American

40:27

commentator, always

40:29

says that the

40:31

natural habit of parties that lose is that if

40:33

a party goes into an election promising ham and

40:35

eggs and loses, its

40:38

first impulse is to go back and say, OK, how

40:40

about double ham and double eggs? And

40:44

Katie, we're talking to MPs, Tory MPs right

40:46

now. And they have got one not, you

40:48

know, those who are still standing again, they

40:51

have got an eye on what happens after

40:53

the election. And all

40:55

of the conversations around sort of how

40:57

much further to the right might they

40:59

go under sort of Robert

41:03

Genryk, rather than perhaps learning the lessons

41:05

of previous elections that you learned from the

41:08

centre. Yes,

41:10

I think the Canadian example is interesting

41:12

in the sense that obviously the reform

41:15

party, which means that we don't even

41:17

have to change it for the parallels

41:19

in Canada, clearly did very well, had

41:21

a social conservative platform which brought over

41:24

lots of their supporters and

41:26

ultimately pitched themselves as the real right

41:28

wing option, which you can see reform

41:30

in the UK doing now. But

41:33

as we heard, they then end up, in

41:36

total, the outcome of this was to have the

41:38

right in Canada out for 13 years, but

41:40

then as a minority government, and 17

41:43

years as a majority again. But

41:45

while they get different names, they do eventually

41:47

join. So therefore, is

41:49

the lesson, I know reform has to change to a

41:51

degree and it changes its name and moves in, but

41:54

you do want to if perhaps

41:56

what the Canadian example is telling

41:58

us is that between. all

42:00

those potential Tory candidates who

42:02

think that reform should be brought closer. So

42:05

that's Sue Ella Braven. I don't think

42:07

Liz trusts a candidate, but you think

42:09

about popcorn, her outfit, she's trying to

42:12

use that to shape the debate. Robert

42:14

Jenner could probably be in that camp.

42:16

It does make you wonder if a potentially

42:19

heading to a place where they try and

42:21

bring reform, Nigel Farage, Lee Anderson, whatever position

42:23

he is in after the election, into

42:26

it to make a broader Conservative party. You can argue

42:28

it would not be broader because it would be more

42:30

to the right and you would lose voters in

42:32

the centre. But I don't think

42:34

it's a clean cut example of why

42:36

you never move one way. I think

42:39

there is an argument that

42:42

often elections are one from the centre,

42:44

but I think that if Rishi

42:47

Sinek loses this election badly, it will

42:49

quickly be cited by figures in the party as a

42:51

reason they have to move to the right and they

42:53

will try and say the problem was that they did

42:56

not do enough of that. And that is why from

42:58

the beginning of the year, the reform vote has been

43:00

going up as David Cameron came back and Sue Ella

43:02

Braven left. So Andrew,

43:04

you've been there with

43:07

John Major in 1997, with

43:10

William Hague in 2001, but also with

43:12

David Cameron, he was in Downing Street. So

43:15

what would be your advice to Rishi

43:17

Sinek to

43:19

make sure that the Conservatives don't

43:21

disappear completely? I

43:24

think the Cameron experience is

43:26

really interesting and it often

43:29

forgotten. In the middle of the

43:31

2010-2015 Parliament, when I was working for David

43:33

Cameron, people in the Conservative

43:35

party were freaking out because UCAP

43:39

was surging in the polls. UCAP had got 3% I

43:41

think from memory in the

43:43

2010 election. They risen

43:45

up into double figures. Most of that vote was coming from

43:47

the Conservatives, not all of it, but more than half of

43:49

it, and people were freaking out.

43:53

One of the reasons we ended

43:55

up having a Brexit referendum was because the only

43:57

thing the Tory party could think of that might

44:00

stem the tide towards UKIP with the

44:02

promise to have a referendum. Ironically,

44:05

obviously we did commit to a referendum, and we

44:08

had a referendum. It

44:10

didn't stem the flow of votes to UKIP, and UKIP ended

44:12

up getting 13% of the votes in

44:14

the 2015 general election. And

44:17

the Conservative Party won a majority anyway, because

44:21

David Cameron was able to build

44:23

an electoral coalition that led more

44:25

to the centre and won

44:27

the election by winning over a lot

44:30

of people who'd reputed Liberal Democrat in

44:32

particular. So the leaders

44:34

choose the shape of the political

44:36

coalition they want, and

44:39

Rishi Sunak has actually chosen to

44:41

try to have a coalition which embraces

44:43

more of those with all the UK-minded

44:46

voters. He's

44:48

chosen to try to have a coalition.

44:50

He's explicitly said he would welcome Nigel

44:52

Farage back into the Conservative Party

44:55

family. He's chosen to have a coalition tilted in

44:57

that direction rather than a coalition the other way

44:59

which includes people like me. And

45:02

so would you, I know you bat

45:04

publicly about the Lib Dems in the last election in

45:07

2019 over what was happening over Brexit, would

45:10

you back in, would you back

45:12

Rishi Sunak at the next election? I

45:14

got kicked out of the Conservative

45:16

Party because I voted Liberal Democrat

45:18

in the local election. That's right,

45:20

sorry, yeah. But then that's more like I don't

45:22

have a vote in the general election. If

45:25

I did have a vote, I certainly wouldn't vote Conservative.

45:27

If I had a vote, I would vote for whichever

45:29

party request back to fee because of where I

45:32

live. Where I live is a very, very safe tool. It

45:34

probably wouldn't make any difference. But it's interesting,

45:36

for someone who's not just being a Tory voter for

45:38

a long time, you worked for them in the highs

45:41

and the lows trying to get them into power,

45:43

trying to keep them into power. How

45:45

difficult is that decision then to vote

45:48

or to do anything you can to

45:50

get them out? I

45:54

think the Conservative Party has lost

45:56

entirely its sort of unifying purpose.

46:00

and I think the election

46:02

share as well, it's very hard to make sense of

46:04

what the Conservative Party believes in or stands for anymore.

46:07

It seems to me to dissolve into a

46:09

series of unruly factions,

46:13

each of which has a very different view of

46:15

what the Conservative Party should be

46:18

and how the Conservative Party should win. And

46:20

it needs to resolve that question.

46:22

I think it's

46:26

extraordinary rapidly after

46:29

the Brexit referendum, it basically turned into

46:31

an English Nationalist Party. And

46:36

it's preoccupation with immigration.

46:39

As recent before, it's passion with Brexit

46:41

is the ability to accept the trade

46:43

which is evident in most people's countries.

46:45

In Brexit, it was a mistake. It's

46:48

got a track of that. And now

46:51

I'm a bit of a structure of what we have as well,

46:53

which is the coalition,

46:57

one of the big majority in

46:59

2019, is

47:01

unstable in terms of economic issues

47:04

because it's binding together

47:06

of traditional working

47:08

class, labour bloc

47:10

of voters who are pro-Brexit and a traditional

47:15

Conservative heartland which is

47:17

pro-Brexit. And those two

47:19

parts of their coalition have very different views

47:21

on economic issues. So

47:23

it's very hard to put an economic policy

47:25

which holds that coalition together. And

47:28

that's why they keep going back to cultural dividing lines

47:30

to try to hold it together. You

47:32

move away from the economics because you can't

47:35

be a low tax, high spend party as

47:37

you move off to culture issues and talk

47:39

about something else. That's absolutely fascinating and slightly

47:41

alarming for the Conservatives. Andrew

47:43

Cooper, Baron Cooper of Windrush. And Casey Bowles,

47:46

the spectators, please go to thanks very much

47:49

for joining us. If you want to see

47:51

more of the polling, just

47:53

take a look at my account on

47:55

social media. want

48:02

the Conservative Party to disappear completely,

48:05

only 14% of people want them to win the next general

48:08

election. Let us know what you think

48:10

about the prospect of the Conservatives disappearing

48:12

altogether. You can email me mattattimes.radio or

48:14

whatsappme. Send me a voicemail. O3330032353.

48:18

That's enough for me, Matt jolly,

48:20

it's good night. I'm

48:33

Manvi Rana from The Story, a

48:35

daily news podcast from The Times.

48:37

Join me and my co-host Luke

48:39

Jones for deep dive into the

48:41

big stories and investigations. Thus

48:44

each month, Gwynym Haye hosts an

48:46

agenda-setting interview with a key newsmaker

48:48

or big thinker. That's

48:50

The Story, The Times daily

48:52

podcast that brings you one remarkable

48:54

story told in depth. Listen

48:57

every weekday on The Times Radio app

48:59

or wherever you get your podcasts. ACAS

49:04

powers the world's best podcast.

49:07

Here's the show that we recommend. Want

49:11

to join a film club that has

49:14

real Frank discussions? Talking about

49:16

films that you actually want to watch? Well,

49:18

then look no further because we are Frank

49:20

Film Club with me, Maisie Williams. And each

49:22

week we watch a film and then come

49:25

together and obsess over it or sometimes absolutely

49:27

slate it. Either way, there's

49:30

always a lot to say. And

49:32

the films that we pick range all the way from

49:34

like 90s and noughties classics all

49:36

the way up to new releases that are coming

49:39

out every single week. And sometimes we get our

49:41

listeners to pick for us. And

49:43

we all work in the film industry,

49:45

don't we ladies? Indeed. So

49:47

we really love to look at specifically how a

49:50

film was made. So if this

49:52

sounds like your bag, then come and

49:54

have a listen to Frank Film Club

49:56

and remember absolutely everyone is welcome in this club.

50:00

ACAST helps creators launch,

50:02

grow, and monetize their

50:05

podcast everywhere. acast.com