WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:05.860 Hello and welcome to an extra special festive edition of the News Agents 00:05.940 --> 00:09.880 Why are you looking at me like that? It just sounds like we're sitting down for a story with Mother. No 00:10.340 --> 00:14.700 Hello children. Shall we begin? No, we're building up. This is welcoming the audience 00:14.880 --> 00:19.480 I don't like doing that. What is wrong with you? How long have you got 00:19.840 --> 00:24.220 Why do you always have to insult our audience? Well, you're the one who swears at them 00:24.360 --> 00:30.540 No, I'm bringing them in. And actually, appropriately enough, in our final show before Christmas 00:30.740 --> 00:37.160 we've got a particularly festive question from John in Essex, who says, famously, Emily was told to, apologies to my mother 00:37.560 --> 00:43.820 f*** off by Marjorie Taylor Greene. If Lewis and John could tell one person to f*** off, who would it be and why 00:43.900 --> 00:47.520 Well, she already did it. Definitely made this. Too late. Too late. Marjorie did it 00:47.660 --> 00:52.480 And she did it with such gusto. Also, Emily's not here to answer back. So, frankly, that would be quite good. Perfect 00:52.600 --> 01:04.379 Good. Perfect. Because we'd be in a lot of trouble. Indeed. And this year, I suppose the person who has made me want to say f*** off more than anyone else is J.D. Vance 01:04.379 --> 01:14.640 You know, coming over, lecturing Europe on free speech, then piling into what a hellhole London is and how it's, you know, become a sewer and all the rest of it 01:14.900 --> 01:22.100 We do not have a homicide rate in the UK anywhere that compares with every city in America 01:22.560 --> 01:26.740 You do not fear for you're going to be shot dead in London, frankly 01:27.140 --> 01:32.560 You do not have a huge problem with free speech. You have people who are civil to one another 01:33.040 --> 01:36.540 a far cry from what you see a lot of the time in America 01:36.760 --> 01:45.020 So bugger off. Stop telling us that Europe is rotten when you don't have exactly the most perfect place yourself to live in 01:45.020 --> 01:50.980 But you just didn't avail yourself of your own opportunity. You asked, say, who you would tell to f*** off 01:50.980 --> 01:54.940 you just told him to bugger off which is very which is very World War II I must confess 01:54.940 --> 01:58.680 I changed it I said f*** off at the top and bugger off at the bottom okay fine 01:58.680 --> 02:02.580 well that's you that's pretty fair I would never say that to anyone John 02:02.580 --> 02:06.460 no of course not I'm not that offensive I'm far too polite 02:06.460 --> 02:09.960 far too civil and no I mean what I'm more intrigued by 02:09.960 --> 02:13.960 to learn is of course with Marjorie's great conversion to be one of sort of 02:13.960 --> 02:17.680 liberalism's great folk heroes I just wonder what she'd say to Emily now 02:17.680 --> 02:22.960 can you imagine come for dinner Oh, I love you, darling. I love you. I love you 02:22.960 --> 02:27.820 They'd be all over each other like a rash, a Christmas rash. Welcome to the News Agents 02:29.540 --> 02:35.340 It's Rudolph. It's Comet. Where's Mrs Claus? Yeah, where is she? Not here 02:35.520 --> 02:41.220 Weird that. And the elves. Right. We're going to start with a question from Amanda 02:41.960 --> 02:47.700 Hello, News Agents. I really enjoy your show and the way you tackle political issues with energy and insight 02:47.700 --> 02:52.840 Should we just leave the question there and just kind of dwell on that bit of it? Or should I carry on? Dwell on it? You want to dwell on it 02:52.900 --> 02:57.000 I want to dwell on the insight and the wit and the wisdom that we bring. And the modesty 02:57.300 --> 03:02.140 Yeah, and honesty. But I wanted to offer a listener's perspective on your coverage of the current Prime Minister 03:02.720 --> 03:07.480 I completely understand that scrutiny and criticism are essential. That's the role of good journalism 03:07.980 --> 03:12.860 At the same time, I sometimes feel the tone leans heavily towards derision 03:13.280 --> 03:21.600 especially around his personality or presentation. What a show. Derision. No way. Rather than the substance of what he's trying to do 03:21.900 --> 03:32.100 I'd love to hear at least one segment where you look at his achievements or the challenges he's working through with some depth that you don't always apply to your critiques 03:32.580 --> 03:40.100 Thanks for your work put into the podcast each week, Amanda. That's such a good question. I mean, in essence, the case for Keir Starmer 03:40.100 --> 03:47.800 I think that if you were one of the Starm troopers as they were nicknamed for about 10 seconds 03:47.800 --> 03:53.820 weird that that didn't stick if you were one of his acolytes and I think it's very telling that there aren't many of these people 03:53.820 --> 03:58.920 I don't just think it's about the substance I think there aren't that many Keir Starm are big friends in politics 03:58.920 --> 04:03.560 he's never had a faction of his own really he's been adopted by different ones at different times 04:03.560 --> 04:08.980 but he's not got a long pedigree in politics, he doesn't have that he hasn't got lots of outriders out there 04:08.980 --> 04:13.440 Tom Baldwin, his biographer, is probably one of the only ones. The sort of people that Corbyn had a lot of, for example 04:13.520 --> 04:17.860 because he needed to go into the media day after day and just argue the case 04:18.040 --> 04:22.760 And you don't hear that very much. And I think that's partly particular to Starmer and his trajectory into politics 04:22.760 --> 04:29.420 and the sort of politics he has, which is highly ideological. I think, though, part of it is, I'm already getting to the criticism 04:29.560 --> 04:35.240 I think part of it is about him. And I think if you were putting the case for him, you would say that, look 04:35.240 --> 04:42.360 here is a man who I think has restored we talk a lot about like sort of 04:42.360 --> 04:47.400 the idea that the chaos hasn't stopped I don't think that's totally true I think that things are more stable 04:47.400 --> 04:52.320 than they were at the sort of end of the Tory period that's partly about the parliamentary majority 04:52.320 --> 04:56.340 I think he is a man who and some people will object to me saying this 04:56.340 --> 05:01.520 because some people believe and I can see the case that's been made some people believe that he's deeply mendacious 05:01.520 --> 05:08.540 and dishonest and cynical I think that he's, I actually think he does care about integrity in politics 05:09.160 --> 05:14.900 I think he is someone who does want to, I think standards in politics do matter to him 05:14.960 --> 05:21.000 That doesn't mean he doesn't duck and dive. I think that he isn't a politician. The thing that I would say most about him actually if I was making the case for him 05:21.000 --> 05:25.380 the biggest thing I think that's different about this government and the last government 05:26.500 --> 05:32.740 not so much on the Sunat but certainly what came before, is this is not a government that wakes up every single morning thinking about 05:33.080 --> 05:37.660 how it can use its bully pulpit of politics to create division 05:37.660 --> 05:46.580 and to exploit division for political purposes. I think it genuinely believes in its members to not adhere and subscribe to that mode of politics 05:46.700 --> 05:50.860 which is a politics we saw a lot of, particularly in the Johnson years 05:51.400 --> 05:59.420 And I think that if you were making a case for this government, and more generally, the character of that, for all of its other problems, is what I would say 05:59.420 --> 06:12.820 I suppose if I was doing the case for Keir Starmer, your starting point would be to look at, you know, the inheritance that he had when he came into power in July 2024 06:13.620 --> 06:24.940 And the enormous kind of problems with the budget and the fact that there was a deficit that hadn't really been clear and that there would be the need to raise taxes in a way that, you know, he probably 06:24.940 --> 06:29.320 I mean I think they knew they would have to raise taxes and I think that there was an element in 06:29.320 --> 06:34.820 which there was wishful thinking or dishonesty over the level of the problems that Britain faced 06:34.820 --> 06:40.280 but it was a pretty awful inheritance the black hole that Rachel Reeves had to deal with so you 06:40.280 --> 06:44.400 start from that point of view which was completely different from Tony Blair which is the obvious 06:44.400 --> 06:50.740 point of comparison in 1997 when you know the economy was absolutely humming after various 06:50.740 --> 06:55.500 humiliations that the Tories had been through, but was nevertheless in a very good place when Blair 06:55.500 --> 07:03.460 took over power. So he started from a very bad place. He has tried to do the things that he said 07:03.460 --> 07:09.800 he would do about, you know, cutting waiting lists in the health service, you know, increasing the 07:09.800 --> 07:15.160 number of operations that are happening and all the rest of it. So, you know, in public services 07:15.160 --> 07:21.160 you can see what they're trying to do. Positioning in terms of a closer 07:21.160 --> 07:36.004 relationship with Europe but not going back into the European Union I think you say that a bit of an achievement I think overseas the way he played Trump which is an incredibly difficult hand to play He played that adroitly 07:36.184 --> 07:41.544 I think in the relations with Europe and lobbying on behalf of Ukraine, he has done well 07:41.544 --> 07:49.584 I think the trade deal with India, again, a significant achievement. So I think on all those sort of fronts, you would say that he's done well 07:49.984 --> 07:54.864 I think what I also liked about Keir Starmer when he was running for government 07:55.004 --> 08:00.264 was to be honest enough to say, you know what, it's complicated 08:00.784 --> 08:07.884 You can't just pull a lever and press a button and something happens instantly to re-deliver economic growth 08:07.964 --> 08:12.644 These things take a long time. I think that would have been so much more effective 08:12.644 --> 08:16.584 if he'd been able to keep telling the story of we're doing the right things 08:16.584 --> 08:22.384 It's just going to take a bit of time to get there. I think the telling of the story of what this government is doing has really let him down 08:22.384 --> 08:37.404 But him saying, you know what, governing is complicated and it's hard and it's tough and it's hard yards, all the rest of it, I think is the right thing to be saying after we had the ludicrous populism of Johnson when, you know, Brexit was going to be magnificent 08:37.664 --> 08:43.464 It was going to solve all our problems. We were going to be free. All this thing. And it turned out to be absolute bullshit 08:43.604 --> 08:50.164 I think that feeds populism when you get people who make simple yses of problems and they're really complex 08:50.164 --> 08:54.384 So I think in Keir Starmer's favour, he's done all of that 08:55.504 --> 08:59.244 Those are the positives if you want to make a case for Keir Starmer 08:59.324 --> 09:03.684 But what also feeds populism is failure, political failure, particularly from mainstream forces 09:03.884 --> 09:15.204 And I fear that despite all of those things, and in particular, I would just add as well, I think he does approach the job clearly with a certain level of seriousness, which is important 09:15.304 --> 09:23.444 I think he loves the job. I think he loves the job and takes it very seriously. I know you might say that's a low bar, but I don't think every prime minister of recent history actually can be said for 09:23.944 --> 09:29.664 And I think that does matter. And I think that and often when people are almost demanding him to, you know, we do it on the show and I've done it 09:29.724 --> 09:34.064 You know, you want to create more content, sort of like try and dominate the media conversation more 09:34.404 --> 09:41.684 I can understand people's frustration sometimes. We're like, he's not bloody circus entertainer. You know, he's supposed to be the prime minister. Unfortunately, he governs in the era in which he finds himself governing 09:42.204 --> 09:46.624 And, you know, successful politicians bend themselves around that media and political environment 09:46.624 --> 09:54.784 I fear that Stahmer's demerits is that he is unwilling or incapable of so doing 09:55.004 --> 10:04.564 And that matters because you could argue that what we're going through now is a sort of last chance saloon for more mainstream political forces to succeed and be seen to succeed 10:04.684 --> 10:10.144 That's how high the stakes are. And in their place, replace them, we know not 10:10.144 --> 10:20.024 I would say from my own interactions with Keir Starmer, from the people I know who know Keir Starmer much better than I do, that broadly speaking, I think he is a decent man 10:20.724 --> 10:31.284 He is a decent, honourable man. Whether that is enough and as exactly as you say, Lewis, you know, the circumstances which you find yourself, you've got to be able to adapt yourself to them 10:31.284 --> 10:37.064 I think that's where his problem is. He struggles to adapt to the circumstances that he's in 10:37.364 --> 10:42.884 And basic sort of decency is not going to get you that far 10:43.064 --> 10:50.264 Well, you are correct to say that, I mean, if you think about the inheritance, they were unusual in the sense that most governments 10:50.264 --> 10:53.864 if you think about difficult inheritances, government have had over the past 30 years 10:53.864 --> 10:57.804 last couple of times we've changed party. In 1997, Blair had broken public services 10:58.244 --> 11:05.344 But an economy, as you say, which was in reasonably robust health, Cameron in 2010 had a broken economy, but public services, which were in robust health 11:05.624 --> 11:13.164 this government came in with public services being completely broken. And the economy being, you know, whatever the Tories say now, you know, pretty difficult in all sorts of ways 11:13.244 --> 11:18.224 particularly in terms of levels of debt and so on. So all of that is there. And Starmer recognised that 11:18.464 --> 11:23.624 And he talked in the language of that big diagnosis. He talked in the language of saying this is we have got terrible inheritance 11:23.624 --> 11:31.484 We need to take radical, drastic action. And I think his undoing is recognising that diagnosis, but not having been seen to have much of a prescription 11:31.764 --> 11:44.704 Yeah. And just to amplify the point about Europe, I remember being in Paris at a conference and there were people from Macron's inner circle there who were talking about how they just didn't trust Boris Johnson 11:45.084 --> 11:49.464 They didn't believe him. They thought he was a liar. They thought he was completely untrustworthy 11:49.464 --> 11:55.384 And it was impossible to do any kind of business with him because of his duplicitousness 11:55.704 --> 11:59.524 And I don't think you would hear that at all in the councils of Europe 11:59.644 --> 12:03.664 Well, I don't feel embarrassed by him as prime minister. I mean, I didn't feel embarrassed by Sunak either 12:03.784 --> 12:08.504 And I didn't feel embarrassed by David Cameron or Theresa May. So, you know, again, these are low bars, but there have been moments over the.. 12:09.124 --> 12:16.784 And I don't feel embarrassed of our politics right now. But there have been times over the past 10 years where you weren't able to say that, or I wasn't anyway 12:16.944 --> 12:22.284 Well, let's go to this question from James Kimber, which is kind of related to what we've just talked about 12:23.324 --> 12:27.344 Let me just... Starmer's horrible popularity rating. have been top of the news for weeks 12:27.344 --> 12:33.924 and his robotic appearances don't land well with the public. However, I've heard that he can go to Arsenal 12:34.264 --> 12:42.204 sink six pints, is known as six beer kia, returning home for dinner with his family like he's drunk nothing 12:42.584 --> 12:49.244 Does Starman need to show his human side more to claw back any semblance of popularity with the general public 12:49.244 --> 12:53.344 My booze doesn't touch the sides with me. I can drink with the best of them 12:53.504 --> 12:58.824 I'm basically an alcoholic. I find it hard to believe that he's drinking six pints at Arsenal 12:59.144 --> 13:04.244 Yeah. I don't know. It doesn't... I'm sure it's a nickname that he probably quite enjoys 13:04.424 --> 13:11.704 Last time he sank six pints. I don't know. But I think it's always dangerous when a politician comes before you and says 13:11.864 --> 13:17.024 you know, my favourite band is X, and then they can't name a single hit that the band have had 13:17.024 --> 13:22.724 or whatever it happens to be, where you try and show, look at me, I'm an ordinary bloke 13:22.724 --> 13:27.604 I'm just like everybody else. You know, I mean, it's great if you can pull that off 13:27.804 --> 13:37.624 And, you know, for God's sake, Farage does manage to pull that off with the Hale fellow, well met, bloke down the pint with the Rothmans in one hand and a pint of beer in the other at hand 13:38.084 --> 13:46.724 You know, Farage can do that. I think Keir Starmer, if he was to suddenly show us inside the house and him cooking scrambled eggs for his kids for breakfast 13:46.864 --> 13:52.504 I don't know. Whatever it happens to be. I just think we think confection. Don't believe it. I'm not buying it 13:52.504 --> 14:02.064 Yeah, I think that one of the intriguing things about Starmer is that there are genuinely authentic things about him 14:02.744 --> 14:11.304 And yet when he's being authentic, no one believes him. And I'm sure we've spoken about it before on the show, but, you know, I think there is no greater embodiment of that than him and football 14:11.624 --> 14:19.424 You know, something about which he is genuinely authoritative and passionate. One of the few prime ministers, along with Gordon Brown, probably, who genuinely love football 14:19.424 --> 14:24.384 and clearly it's a big part of their leisure life. It's a big part of their wider cultural life 14:25.404 --> 14:28.904 And yet when he speaks about it, it somehow doesn't ring true 14:29.084 --> 14:32.724 He starts to descend into slightly weird things, talking about the halftime orange 14:32.724 --> 14:38.004 or sort of romanticising it, talking about it in a nostalgic way, which somehow doesn't seem authentic 14:38.164 --> 14:41.744 even though he really is very authentic. I think that might just be because 14:41.744 --> 14:47.664 he sounds like a politician when he's talking about football. And then you can have people who know way less 14:47.664 --> 14:52.704 politicians who know way less about football sounding like, sounding less like a politician 14:52.704 --> 15:09.109 and therefore, ironically enough, sounding more authoritative even when they not There is just something about Starmer that these things sort of bounce off He a man also I think of his generation who doesn find it necessarily that easy to reveal his inner life He once said that he never dreams you know and he doesn remember any of his dreams 15:09.249 --> 15:16.449 You know, I don't think he has got. I remember once speaking to someone who worked for him asking, I think for this show, I think 15:16.449 --> 15:23.029 so, like asking whether, you know, whether we could do a sort of couple of episode profile 15:23.029 --> 15:28.149 of him, spend a load of time with him. and they said, you know, yeah, Lewis, in theory, would love to 15:28.229 --> 15:33.269 but, you know, you should know, as I think you probably do know by now, you know, what you see is kind of what you get with it 15:33.389 --> 15:38.629 There ain't loads else going on, right? He is who he is, ironically enough 15:38.629 --> 15:44.049 And it's almost like the irony of this is, I often write, is that we're a public or the voters are demanding authenticity 15:44.489 --> 15:51.049 demanding more, when actually he is authentically himself. It's just that the reality is, ironically enough, we don't like it 15:51.049 --> 15:56.329 we in some ways are demanding more inauthenticity from him at the same time as demanding his 15:56.329 --> 16:00.469 authentic self, which is actually basically what we've got. He's not a stand up comic 16:00.949 --> 16:05.489 I think that's fair. He's not going to do well as, you know, at the Edinburgh Fringe 16:05.889 --> 16:14.569 That's not he's not an extrovert in that sense. I remember when Emily and I interviewed him when he was, you know, opposition leader and 16:14.569 --> 16:19.849 he was going to the sort of World Economic Forum in Davos. And we were in this room set up where we were waiting 16:19.849 --> 16:24.029 and he pokes his head around the door and says, oh, shall I come back later 16:24.509 --> 16:28.669 Like, you know, he come on, you're the alpha male. You're the you're the big beast here 16:28.669 --> 16:35.789 You're the leader of the opposition who wants to be our next prime minister. You walk in and command the room. And I don't think he quite does that 16:36.009 --> 16:45.289 And that's just not who he is. He's not a kind of assertive personality where when they talk or when they walk in 16:45.289 --> 16:52.029 the room hushes. I don't think he has that effect on people. And that is who he is. I don't know 16:52.029 --> 16:57.589 about whether you can be less robotic as as you know, you put it in the question, James 16:58.649 --> 17:05.429 I don't know how you do that. If broadly speaking, that is who you are, a rather shy person 17:05.649 --> 17:13.349 thoughtful person, considerate, you know, loyally. I mean, he is loyally. He does choose his words 17:13.349 --> 17:17.129 with care. He does speak slowly. He's not a natural kind of 17:17.129 --> 17:22.949 funny man in that sense. Again, I think that's fair. John Sopel in the pub until closing, of course 17:23.329 --> 17:29.229 Maga Taylor via Instagram says, politics has never felt more divisive. And there's another three years of Trump. What election 17:29.229 --> 17:33.469 should we be looking out for? Oh, this is right. I love this. What election should we be looking out for 17:33.469 --> 17:40.249 in 2026? And how might they impact the political landscape? Bread and butter, of course, is 17:40.249 --> 17:44.849 UK and US. And obviously, people will know already about the elections 17:44.849 --> 17:48.729 here in May, they're going to be really big probably big for Keir Starmer's future 17:48.729 --> 17:54.969 in Scotland, in Wales and in English local councils as well the midterms of course, already back 17:54.969 --> 17:59.029 round again in November third of the Senate up, all of the House 17:59.029 --> 18:02.709 up, clutch of other races around the country as well, basically the last 18:02.709 --> 18:06.869 referendum on Trump that there's going to be in the United States, his name won't 18:06.869 --> 18:10.649 be on the ballot but clearly as they always are they are sort of plebiscites on the 18:10.649 --> 18:14.909 administrations exist now and it would have real consequences because if the Dems 18:14.909 --> 18:18.749 were to retake both houses or either house, house is easy, the Senate 18:18.749 --> 18:23.029 is harder, but if they would retake either, once again they get the power of impeachment 18:23.209 --> 18:26.809 they get the power of subpoena, they can start launching all sorts of investigations 18:26.809 --> 18:30.789 just like they did last time when Trump was there. That's why Trump has been trying 18:30.789 --> 18:34.829 to gerrymander it as much as possible because he knows how damaging that will be. And then in other 18:34.829 --> 18:38.789 places in Europe, some very interesting elections coming up, I think in the spring 18:38.789 --> 18:43.929 in Hungary, which again will be considered a real kind of bellwether on where populism is 18:44.029 --> 18:49.589 Obviously, Orban has been there now since 2010. And the Israeli Knesset elections in October 18:49.589 --> 18:54.269 which again will be a referendum on Netanyahu, which could have huge consequences in terms of 18:54.269 --> 18:58.329 what happens next in the Middle East and beyond. Yeah, I mean, just picking on a couple of those 18:58.429 --> 19:03.189 I mean, the Israeli elections, which you mentioned last, I mean, this dreadful government have just 19:03.189 --> 19:08.709 announced 19 new settlements to be built in the West Bank. Further evidence of how they 19:08.709 --> 19:16.309 want to scupper any possibility of a two-state solution. If Israeli public opinion moves against 19:16.309 --> 19:22.569 Netanyahu and the ghastly people who are part of his coalition, then that has significant effects 19:22.809 --> 19:28.469 not only for Israel, but also for the Palestinians as well, and potentially for the region, because 19:28.469 --> 19:35.569 one of the reasons that Saudi Arabia, for example, gives why it won't establish diplomatic relations 19:35.569 --> 19:41.229 with Israel is because Israel won't do anything towards a two-state solution. And so if you get 19:41.229 --> 19:49.389 any sizable change there, that will be significant. Orban, of course, is the big holdout in the EU 19:49.389 --> 19:56.449 about taking tough action on Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. And can you imagine in 19:56.449 --> 20:02.469 America, as you say, Lewis, if the Democrats have control of the House, I mean, if you look at the 20:02.469 --> 20:08.049 money raising that has gone on and the corruption that has gone on and the enriching of the Trump 20:08.049 --> 20:13.449 family that has gone on in the past year. Where to begin? I mean, where to begin? I mean, those 20:13.449 --> 20:18.189 investigations by the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee and all the rest of it 20:18.189 --> 20:23.969 over how pardons were given and granted and what was given in return for those pardons 20:24.429 --> 20:29.689 the money that has gone into building the White House ballroom, the trade deals where there were 20:29.689 --> 20:33.389 side deals for the Trump family. It goes on and on. Bitcoin 20:33.709 --> 20:37.669 Crypto. It just goes on. Yeah, I mean, think about just the 20:37.669 --> 20:43.409 impact. You know, one House committee, admittedly on a very, very high profile subject in the form of 20:43.409 --> 20:49.629 Jeffrey Epstein, has had on world news throughout the course of the year. And, you know, US House 20:49.629 --> 20:53.629 committees, they sound boring and so tedious, but they can because they have this extraordinary 20:53.629 --> 20:57.569 power under the US Constitution. And that's why Trump, as I said, has been gerrymandering 20:57.689 --> 21:01.769 Of course, I'm most looking forward to, Josh. I'm sure you will be. Oh, come on, come on. Well, we've got the 21:01.769 --> 21:06.249 Cook Islands general election coming up. Oh, I knew it. I was thinking the Solomon Islands must be 21:06.249 --> 21:10.409 doing an election. No, we've got the Cook Islands coming up. Big rematch, I think, between the Cook Islands 21:10.409 --> 21:14.909 party, imaginatively named, and the Democratic Party, and of course, Cook Islands 21:14.909 --> 21:18.509 United, who probably beat them 3-2. Yeah, yeah, yeah, beat them 3-2 21:18.609 --> 21:22.989 Do you want to have a little bit of trivia, John? The Cook Islands party, which, of course, you'll be aware, emerged 21:22.989 --> 21:27.529 victorious in the 2022 Cook Islands general election, winning 12 seats plus two 21:28.269 --> 21:33.209 They got 44% of the vote. How many votes do you think that was? Oh, 44% of the vote 21:33.209 --> 21:39.209 on the Cook Islands. 2,742. Oh, you've just lost out on a free deployment to the Cook Islands 21:39.329 --> 21:42.949 which I'm surprised, frankly, you have not already pitched for at some point over the course of this year 21:43.169 --> 21:47.249 No, it was 3,890. So the Cook Islands party will obviously be doing 21:47.249 --> 21:53.009 their best. Nationalist Party, of course. They'll be looking to try and defend as many of those votes as possible. You know how there's that 21:53.009 --> 21:57.269 description of journalists as wide, shallow pools who know a little bit 21:57.269 --> 22:01.329 about a huge number of subjects? And as soon as you said the Cook Islands, I thought Cook Islands 22:01.549 --> 22:05.049 I know absolutely sod all about anything to do with the Cook Islands 22:05.249 --> 22:09.629 Well, if you're listening from the Cook Islands, do send John a note with some interesting tidbits 22:09.629 --> 22:15.489 And who knows, some stories that he may or may not be able to cover from the Cook Islands through the course of 2026 22:15.609 --> 22:19.489 We'll be back just after this. Let's have this voice note from Paul in Cambridge 22:20.029 --> 22:38.454 Hello, Emily, John and Lewis. Paul from Cambridge here. My question is a simple one Has Britain become ungovernable Has the rise of rage social media algorithms coupled with what is probably a genuine seemingly inexorable national decline 22:38.994 --> 22:44.194 ensured that no government will ever command the support of the majority of the electorate again 22:44.554 --> 22:51.514 Have we essentially moved into a post-governance era? I'd be fascinated to know your thoughts. Many thanks 22:51.514 --> 23:10.514 So I kind of think that obviously governing has become immensely more difficult because I think you've alluded to it, Paul, in your question about some of the sort of toxic currents that are there that make it so difficult to govern 23:11.414 --> 23:16.474 But I still think that there is respect for law and order in this country 23:16.894 --> 23:25.994 It's not an anarcho state where you can't get anything done. And I still think that there is a process by which laws are being made 23:26.314 --> 23:31.014 I agree with you. I think governing has become immeasurably more difficult 23:31.194 --> 23:38.094 And I think the level of cynicism and the lack of trust that we have in politics and politicians 23:38.094 --> 23:45.174 And that's kind of not just new to Keir Starmer. It was there during the Johnson years, made worse during the Johnson years 23:45.654 --> 23:52.914 You know, arguably goes back to 2008 and the financial crash and people feeling that, God, politics is not working for me 23:53.374 --> 23:57.614 So I think it's got a long history. And I do think it's getting worse 23:58.554 --> 24:04.874 But I'm not ready for the Council of Despair yet. Yeah, I think it's a really intriguing question 24:04.874 --> 24:14.954 And I think one that we should grapple with more because particularly the way that we do journalism in this country and anywhere, really, it's natural that we get distracted by the day to day 24:15.374 --> 24:20.294 There's a sort of vein or sort of strain of thought, which is like, God, our politicians are so useless 24:20.394 --> 24:28.734 Why are they so useless? And we just go from personality to personality. And we hope we'll just get new personalities in different departments or in different bits of government 24:28.734 --> 24:38.314 And we'll think, oh, well, that will solve it. And yet it doesn't. And I think we have had too many, quote unquote, failed prime ministers now to just sort of go, God, these were just really useless people 24:38.614 --> 24:44.574 Right. Or we've had so many sort of, quote unquote, useless ministers to just go, right, this is supposed to be about the quality of our politicians 24:44.774 --> 24:53.814 Something must have happened either with the British state itself or with which is finding itself incapable of dealing with the problems that we've got for whatever reason 24:54.754 --> 24:59.894 And perhaps something more systemic. And I do think that there are systemic factors at work here 24:59.894 --> 25:15.434 Quite interesting. When Boris Johnson resigned, he basically said a sort of quite throwaway remark, but I think he probably is right. If we're just thinking about the personal authority of prime ministers and the fact that so few of them seem to have much authority over their parties anymore, which is a problem in a parliamentary system 25:15.434 --> 25:21.614 He said, they all need to get off Twitter and they all need to get off WhatsApp. And I think there is some truth to that, right 25:21.754 --> 25:27.854 Which is that particularly the WhatsAppification of politics and Parliament, you can overdo this stuff 25:28.094 --> 25:39.894 But I think it does add to a certain level of fever within British politics, both on the journalistic side and the relationship we have with politicians and with each other 25:39.894 --> 25:49.214 I mean, you know, between the years of, what, say, 1979 and 2010, we had four prime ministers 25:49.914 --> 25:58.614 That seems, even just between 1979 and 1997, this huge long period of conservative domination, we had two prime ministers, just Thatcher and Major 25:58.834 --> 26:06.094 That feels difficult to reckon with. I don't think it would be impossible, but I think changes in technology mean that political time have basically sped up 26:06.194 --> 26:12.994 It's like dog years now. That's one of the reasons when we're talking about the Starmer government, sometimes feel like we're talking about a government that's been in for four or five or six or seven years 26:13.214 --> 26:28.374 It's only been in for 18 months. But so much now takes place. There are so many events which take place and the speed of politics is so fast that I think that politics itself, the speed of politics has accelerated, which means that it is difficult to govern 26:28.374 --> 26:45.154 I suppose if you were to take a deterministic argument about it and say, was the Labour rebellion over welfare reform set to happen irrespective of what Keir Starmer did because the Labour Party has become ungovernable 26:45.614 --> 26:57.114 I'd say no, it didn't have to happen like that. I think there were things that the Labour government could have done that Number 10 could have been much more adroit in selling the policy and preparing the ground for it 26:57.114 --> 27:12.874 So I don't think it was inherently, you know, because we've become ungovernable that the policy failed. I think it failed because Keir Starmer didn't handle the whole selling of that policy particularly well 27:12.874 --> 27:17.194 And that was the and therefore, you know, is governing more difficult? Yes 27:18.014 --> 27:24.094 Is it impossible? No. And I just think that, you know, if the whip's office had been kind of really doing well 27:24.094 --> 27:28.534 you've still got the power as the prime minister to hire and fire ministers 27:28.534 --> 27:34.134 which keeps a certain number of people on board because they're ambitious and therefore they want preferment 27:34.134 --> 27:39.874 or they want to be sent on interesting fact finding trips to the Cook Islands or wherever it happens 27:39.874 --> 27:47.314 Oh, wait. See you in 2026. Yeah, or wherever it happens to be. So the power of patronage is still enormous on the part of the Prime Minister 27:47.874 --> 27:52.474 It's just that I don't think the operation of this particular government 27:52.474 --> 27:56.474 has been that good in dealing with the things that can upend you 27:56.894 --> 28:02.474 I fully accept it's become more difficult, but I don't think it's inherent that it's impossible 28:02.814 --> 28:07.994 I think there are clearly structural factors at work which make governing harder than it used to 28:07.994 --> 28:19.194 although it's always been hard. If you've been sat here with Jim Callahan or Clement Attlee or Ramsey MacDonald, and by the way, I really wish I were, then, you know, they would tell you governing is really, really, really difficult 28:19.314 --> 28:23.234 Every prime minister finds that. I think it's true to say, partly things are just referred to 28:23.534 --> 28:30.434 Technology, speed of events, the expectation on the modern state and modern government to have answers about everything and to have it now 28:30.734 --> 28:35.294 People's own, the electorate's own patience with the pace of political change makes things harder 28:35.294 --> 28:46.874 The economic situation is difficult because we're now a country with 100% of debt to GDP, which we haven't been for a long time, which puts constraints on the choices that are available to you as a government 28:47.074 --> 28:56.934 Parliaments and parties have become more disputatious, more rebellious. People often say they like that, but the net consequence is it actually makes it harder to govern in our parliamentary system 28:57.274 --> 29:06.034 All of that is going on. I also think we have had, in general, fewer people of quality go into politics and more buffoons, for various reasons, go into politics 29:06.154 --> 29:09.914 I think the quality of our MPs probably has come down a bit. You can overdo it, but I think that's true 29:10.694 --> 29:18.714 I think what it means is two things can be true at once, which is to say that it is not all the fault of individuals within the system 29:19.074 --> 29:23.974 But I think there are real systemic factors which lead to the appearance of ungovernability in our politics 29:24.094 --> 29:32.714 Add into that, foreign policy and geopolitical events are really difficult as well, by the way. But I think what it means is, is that the individuals, because of those systemic problems, have to be even better 29:33.274 --> 29:40.194 They have to have even more quality leadership. Your leadership has to be world class almost at any given moment, at any given time 29:40.274 --> 29:45.054 And we probably haven't had that. So the systemic problems have got harder. The individuals have got worse 29:45.114 --> 29:53.734 But in terms of the fundamental governability of Britain, as you say, John, there are other countries in the world you could point to and say that, structurally speaking, they have got bigger problems structurally than we have 29:53.734 --> 29:57.494 the United States with all of its disagreements in terms of the difference between federal 29:57.494 --> 30:02.740 and local polarisation that has taken place there, makes it very, very difficult to govern 30:02.860 --> 30:07.500 The sort of legitimacy of the state in many ways in America is under question in a way that it isn't in Britain 30:07.680 --> 30:12.960 France, we see the problems of the Fifth Republic, with Parliament that can't deliver a majority for anything 30:13.080 --> 30:17.960 that relationship with the President, the unions and so on. Britain has got its problems, particularly around devolution in Scotland 30:17.960 --> 30:21.920 in the long term, what happens there. But actually, I think one of the disappointments about Starmer 30:21.920 --> 30:25.500 has been that for the first time we had a government with a big majority 30:25.660 --> 30:29.400 which on paper you would think would be able to govern as it saw fit 30:29.400 --> 30:33.480 and have the strength of that system and they haven't been able to do so 30:33.560 --> 30:38.160 But I don't think structurally you could easily have a government and a prime minister 30:38.540 --> 30:42.440 not easily, but you could have a government and a prime minister who could govern 30:42.440 --> 30:46.780 and this one just appears not to be able to do so. Yeah, I heard Tony Blair the other day 30:46.780 --> 30:50.680 framing it in a rather similar way to you, not the same way 30:51.200 --> 30:56.860 He used his starting point, 2010, and he held this up. He's held up a smartphone 30:56.860 --> 31:04.640 and he said the invention of the smartphone and suddenly, you know, access to WhatsApp, access to social media 31:04.640 --> 31:11.860 meant that suddenly you've had six prime ministers since 2010 in the 15 intervening years 31:12.060 --> 31:15.940 Whereas, you know, look at the sort of stability that you had before that 31:15.940 --> 31:19.440 And he says that, you know, exactly that, I suppose, the point that you are making 31:19.560 --> 31:24.800 that, you know, you just look at what's happened to our politics since the smartphone came along 31:24.800 --> 31:31.540 and you suddenly see the chaos that it has brought and the difficulty that it has led to in terms of governing 31:31.640 --> 31:37.900 Well, it's probably no surprise that as we've entered the kind of attention deficit era of our lives culturally 31:38.440 --> 31:42.980 that that would feed into politics. No surprise that as our own attention spans have lessened 31:43.280 --> 31:49.520 that suddenly within politics the churn has increased. And we've seen that in other places as well 31:49.640 --> 31:57.060 particularly in a system like ours, which is parliamentary rather than presidential. So you can't say that that's a definite sort of cause of it 31:57.060 --> 32:00.600 But I think that it is clear technology is having a factor 32:00.680 --> 32:10.260 But as I say, I think you could compete with that. I think you could beat it. But I just think you need even better leadership, even better quality of political vision than you did even in the past where it was essential 32:10.360 --> 32:18.920 I wonder how the Thatchers or the Blairs, you know, kind of master politicians who commanded, you know, had their flaws 32:19.040 --> 32:25.780 but they were pretty effective political leaders in their own ways, would have managed in the social media age 32:25.780 --> 32:31.520 I think it's very interesting. Obviously, it's so hard to know. But I think also you can look at a slightly different argument, right 32:31.520 --> 32:36.060 And you can say, in a way, and I do think that Blair and Thatcher 32:36.120 --> 32:40.080 because they're the ones that we talk about as the most commanding, the sort of titanic political figures, right 32:40.300 --> 32:45.540 Certainly the maybe post-war overall. Certainly big election winners, but certainly since the 1970s 32:45.860 --> 32:50.840 You know, they dominated politics. They were both colossus-like in their period. They defined their eras in so many ways 32:50.840 --> 32:54.580 You could make an argument to say that, you know, that is the unusual thing 32:54.580 --> 33:05.080 You know, we were quite unusual in Britain having two clearly, whatever you think about them personally, exceptional political leaders who dominated politics in their own ways, in the ways that they did 33:05.400 --> 33:09.840 Some of that was contingent and some of it was clearly down to them and the sort of people they were 33:10.080 --> 33:14.740 That's quite unusual. If you go back to the period before, you do have more of a churn of prime ministers 33:14.840 --> 33:21.620 You do have prime ministers. I think the average prime minister since the war has lasted for, I think this might have been before the trust period, so she might bring down the average 33:21.620 --> 33:29.580 but let's exclude her. I think it's three years and 11 months or three years and 10 months. You know, this is not, it's not unusual to have reasonably, in the grand sweep of 33:29.580 --> 33:33.560 British political history, to have a churn of prime ministers, to have no one who dominates 33:33.740 --> 33:49.649 I think we slightly conditioned by the Thatcher examples of thinking that the normal And actually in British historical terms it not the normal Right another question now from Urza I hope I saying this correctly Bajkoli you all asked some of the toughest questions 33:49.649 --> 33:53.529 on television. When was the last time you were truly caught off guard 33:53.529 --> 33:57.589 by an answer? Oh, that's good. It's a great question, but we were discussing it 33:57.589 --> 34:02.189 before we started the record. And we were both scratching our heads thinking 34:02.389 --> 34:14.089 well, when was that? Because it's so rare that politicians, say something, you think, bloody hell, I can't believe they've just said that. I mean, I suppose 34:14.089 --> 34:21.509 I had a slight sense of that when we interviewed Lammy in his office at the Justice Department 34:22.429 --> 34:26.949 And he started talking, you know, we had kind of tried to war game the interview and we thought 34:26.949 --> 34:32.889 he would close down any questions relating to closer relations with the European Union 34:33.529 --> 34:37.989 And he didn't really close it down. He kind of went there. Yeah. And it is those moments when 34:37.989 --> 34:43.949 politicians commit news in a way that maybe you don't necessarily expect them to do 34:43.949 --> 34:48.469 I think that is the moment you have to kind of like take your sort of you have to be 34:48.469 --> 34:52.409 on the ball with it right because and sometimes like one of the 34:52.409 --> 34:56.289 challenges is even making sure you're listening to hear it because sometimes you go 34:56.289 --> 35:00.129 back to an interview and you realise a politician has committed news or said something and you 35:00.129 --> 35:04.149 you weren't quite again you were already thinking about your next question because you're almost anticipating 35:04.149 --> 35:08.309 in your own head that they're just going to say what you think they're going to say 35:08.869 --> 35:12.489 And obviously that's the last thing you want to do, right? Because then you've missed the moment 35:12.909 --> 35:16.429 Although sometimes it can have the other effect as well, because sometimes they might say something 35:16.429 --> 35:23.129 and then you go back almost asking them to reaffirm it. So you've got it even cleaner or crisper and to really hammer it home 35:23.209 --> 35:27.069 And then they'll say, no, I don't mean it like that or something like that. And therefore you undermine the story 35:27.169 --> 35:31.169 So it's kind of those little tricks that you're constantly going through. The moments are few and far between 35:31.169 --> 35:35.309 I mean, kind of, you know, from when I first started in political journalism 35:35.309 --> 35:41.949 Hesseltine walking out of cabinet and there was one crew in Downing Street 35:42.049 --> 35:48.309 There was an ITV crew. It wasn't a BBC crew. It was an ITV crew. And the political producer then came over to the BBC, a woman called Joy Johnson 35:48.589 --> 35:53.589 And she was there in Downing Street. And suddenly Hesseltine walks over to the camera and says, I've just resigned 35:53.689 --> 35:57.749 I'll be making a full. I've just resigned from cabinet. I'll be making a fuller statement later on 35:58.149 --> 36:05.289 I thought, bloody hell, no one expected that. You know, sure, there'd been a row going on within the cabinet over the cell 36:05.289 --> 36:10.549 of Westland helicopters and all the rest of it and, you know, relations with Europe and whether it should go to Sikorsky 36:10.549 --> 36:16.329 or whether it should go to someone else. You know, all of that was going on, but no one anticipated that Heseltine would just walk out 36:16.669 --> 36:22.409 And, you know, the real core, blimey, shocking moments happen very, very rarely indeed 36:22.669 --> 36:27.909 Yeah, I mean, I suppose the moments that it does happen is when, and again, something about which you have to be on your guard, right 36:27.909 --> 36:33.069 is when politicians have a go at you, which sometimes they'll do and some do more than others, right 36:33.069 --> 36:37.269 because then you have to, you have to then sort of, it becomes a slightly different exercise 36:37.369 --> 36:42.389 It becomes more pugilistic and you have to kind of sort of parry off what they're saying or they'll say 36:42.469 --> 36:48.169 you don't really know this, do you, have you read this, whatever, you know? And you always, I'm always very conscious 36:48.169 --> 36:52.369 of that that could happen at any moment. That's the moment of potential embarrassment. And actually, if I were a politician 36:52.589 --> 36:58.569 I probably shouldn't say this, I would do it more often, you know, because that's a, and it's a careful line 36:58.729 --> 37:02.869 You don't want to be too aggressive because people don't like it and you can sound arrogant or conceited 37:02.869 --> 37:07.029 or you've got something to hide. But very often it can be quite effective 37:07.189 --> 37:11.909 although you never know how it's going to go. Even worse, of course, when they decide to basically end the interview 37:12.509 --> 37:17.009 which is when I was thinking about this is what I thought about. Galloway was the master of what we were just talking about 37:17.009 --> 37:20.789 in terms of being aggressive. He would routinely be aggressive. So if you're going to interview Galloway, you kind of know 37:20.789 --> 37:31.858 you need to be sort of prepared I interviewed him on LBC last year and he basically done another interview where he said that he 37:31.858 --> 37:36.438 where he said that gay relationships... He did not want his children to be taught 37:36.438 --> 37:41.698 that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum and a dad and kids 37:41.898 --> 37:46.998 And so I asked him about it and this is what he said. Just to recap what you said there, I don't want my children to be taught that these things 37:47.118 --> 37:51.158 i.e. gay relationships and heterosexual relationships, are equal because I don't believe them to be equal 37:51.458 --> 37:57.218 We'll come back to the question of the other word you used, which is normality. But specifically on being equal 37:57.438 --> 38:03.398 Why aren't they equal? Lewis, we won't actually come back to it because, first of all, that's not what this interview is about 38:03.558 --> 38:08.598 You got this interview to talk about the election. Secondly, you don't think that these are important remarks 38:09.318 --> 38:13.998 You're a leader of a party. Lewis, this is a clip of a clip 38:14.318 --> 38:18.378 It's an edited clip. No, it's not. No, it's not an edited clip. No, it's not 38:18.598 --> 38:23.918 It is a full 90 seconds. of what you said. No, it isn't 38:24.038 --> 38:28.938 You clipped out the point about the 97 genders. No, no, no 38:29.098 --> 38:33.338 That's a separate question. You chose... You clipped it out. Gender what 38:33.338 --> 38:37.778 Don't think I don't know what I said. Gender what? We just played what you said, Mr Galloway 38:37.918 --> 38:41.778 We want to know. You clipped it out. Look, I'm not going to have a Barney with you because.. 38:41.778 --> 38:46.638 I don't want a Barney. I'm just trying to understand what you said. Look, I came on here to speak about the elections 38:46.918 --> 38:51.718 Of course. Now you're ambushing me. It's not an ambush, Mr Galloway. It was an edited clip of... It's not an edited clip 38:52.298 --> 39:00.338 It's an unedited clip. I've got a simple answer. Why aren't gay relationships equal to heterosexual relationships, Mr Galloway 39:00.798 --> 39:04.638 Listen to the whole thing tonight. Why? I've listened to the whole thing 39:04.958 --> 39:08.678 I've listened to the whole thing. Why aren't... You haven't given your.. 39:08.678 --> 39:13.058 Mr Galloway, you're not... No, you're misleading my listeners in saying that. You're misleading my listeners 39:13.158 --> 39:17.958 You're misleading my listeners in saying that because we have not edited the clip. That is a full 90-second exchange 39:18.158 --> 39:22.618 You did edit the clip. No, no, no. You cut out the transgender bit. The transgender bit is separate 39:23.258 --> 39:28.338 You are the one who chose to introduce... No, it isn't that answer that you gave. Yes, it is part of the longer two and a half minutes 39:28.338 --> 39:32.698 I'm going to hang up now because you fool me into thinking. You don't want to explain yourself. It's not a fool. You're a politician 39:33.178 --> 39:37.558 Oh, grow up, Mr Galloway. Come on. Or fool me thinking that your request 39:37.558 --> 39:41.758 that I come on and talk about the elections was genuine. Of course it was genuine 39:42.078 --> 39:47.958 Well, there you go. You heard it there. Mr Galloway refusing to answer a very, very simple question 39:47.958 --> 39:52.998 and you can make up your own mind as listeners as to what you think about that 39:54.618 --> 39:58.978 That is a great moment. I love you telling George Galloway to grow up 39:59.298 --> 40:04.118 Well, I mean, you know, I hate, I don't know about you, my absolute bet no more is when politicians.. 40:04.118 --> 40:08.018 Say that white is black. Well, A, that, first of all, it was not, I mean, obviously, I think Donald Trump 40:08.018 --> 40:12.358 had clearly been listening to that and Galloway maybe should have taken some lessons 40:12.538 --> 40:16.698 He'll probably sue me for $10 billion now, whatever it is. But, you know, yeah, that 40:16.698 --> 40:24.238 And just sort of mislead people about it. That's number one. But number two also, when they come on and when they're a politician, it's fair enough with a sort of, you know 40:24.318 --> 40:28.378 if someone's not a politician, you book them to come on about a particular subject and whatever 40:28.498 --> 40:34.558 When you're a politician at the time, he was the leader of a party. I don't know if he still is, but with the Workers' Party, you know, he had been elected as an MP 40:35.278 --> 40:40.258 I mean, you know, it's fair game for an interviewer to ask you about what they want to ask you about 40:40.498 --> 40:45.838 Of course, you can give a heads up and say, and sometimes that's better because they'll have time to think about something 40:45.838 --> 40:50.378 but ultimately if you were a politician you should be prepared to be asked 40:50.378 --> 40:56.078 about anything particularly stuff you yourself have said you can't then turn around in the middle of an interview 40:56.078 --> 41:00.278 and go well we agreed to do it about this topic we'd done that 41:00.278 --> 41:04.238 topic and he'd said this a week before or whatever it was and naturally I decided to ask 41:04.238 --> 41:16.708 him about it because guess what he would have had gay constituents in his constituency who might not particularly have appreciated being told that their relationships are not as normal as a heterosexual relationship Was there any comeback after that interview No I don think so I think that was it You know what I think it served 41:16.708 --> 41:20.528 us both well in our own ways. It was the first edition of the Sunday show and that got written up and 41:20.528 --> 41:26.868 he enjoyed having a go at me and that was it. There you are. Win-win. All is not a zero-sum game 41:27.028 --> 41:30.708 We will be back in a moment with a very important final question. So our 41:30.708 --> 41:37.168 final question really is a very important question to end this episode of The News Agents On 41:37.168 --> 41:41.208 and I am as intrigued by the answer as all of you 41:41.368 --> 41:46.308 Tony from Glasgow, thank you for your question. I follow Lewis on Instagram 41:46.528 --> 41:51.228 Thank you, Tony. And it feels like every night he goes out for a fancy dinner 41:51.748 --> 41:57.968 I wonder if he can cook himself a meal. I mean, let me just add Tony to the question 41:58.408 --> 42:03.408 I wonder whether he ever pays for a meal because he's always putting photos and I wonder whether it's some dodgy deal 42:03.408 --> 42:08.468 I pay for all my meals. John Freeby's open is on very dodgy territory here 42:08.468 --> 42:12.728 is what I would say. I had a wonderful meal at Joe's Cafe today. Pictures of the meal and all the rest of it 42:12.728 --> 42:17.368 I pay for all my meals. Anyway, go on, Lewis. No, I pay for all my meals. Are you going to the football again anytime soon 42:17.668 --> 42:21.928 I pay for my... I've got a season to get. You've never had any? All right, this is going to get very early days 42:22.008 --> 42:26.188 Keir Starmer, isn't it? Very quickly. Mutually sure of destruction. No, I... What 42:26.508 --> 42:30.768 Oh, because you've never had a meal out in your life, have you, John? No way. I'm not posting endlessly pictures of my delicious.. 42:30.768 --> 42:36.048 Because you don't know how. Now, until quite recently on Instagram, you were called John Le Savant for reasons no one understood 42:36.368 --> 42:40.488 Right. Just answer the question, Lewis. Tony from Glasgow hasn't got all day 42:41.848 --> 42:47.728 No, look, I'm not one of life's great chefs. Fortunately, my wife has many, many talents and she's a great cook 42:47.828 --> 42:53.388 But, you know, the girl deserves an evening out now and again, doesn't she? The girl deserves an evening out now and again 42:53.708 --> 42:57.308 Oh, she does. We just had you having a go at Galloway a moment ago 42:57.708 --> 43:01.368 The girl deserves an evening out. She does. She does. Oh, my God 43:01.368 --> 43:06.128 the unreconstructed alpha male. Again, I would say dodgy, dodgy territory once more 43:06.308 --> 43:10.248 Before we go, Lewis Goodall, the floor. Do you want a few more facts about the Cook Islands 43:10.468 --> 43:15.128 No, you do. Come on, you do. Just because you have spent the last half hour 43:15.128 --> 43:19.028 looking up obscure facts on the Cook Islands, go on then, two more facts 43:19.028 --> 43:22.848 before we go. Well, you know, once, can I tell you that Saturday the 4th of July 43:22.968 --> 43:27.148 1892, never took place on the Cook Islands. Because it went from 43:27.148 --> 43:32.448 the Gregorian calendar. No. The Gregorian calendar was well in place by 1892, John 43:32.508 --> 43:36.768 What do you think it is? The Holy Roman Empire? Come on. I bet I'm close to the answer. No 43:37.028 --> 43:42.608 They shifted on the international date line. They shift from being aligned with the Americas 43:42.608 --> 43:46.288 to Australasia in 1892. So they moved to the international date line 43:46.448 --> 43:50.188 So Saturday the 4th of July on the Cook Islands never took place 43:50.408 --> 43:54.688 Another fact, there are no traffic lights on the Cook Islands. Rarotonga 43:54.768 --> 43:59.508 which is the main island, has no traffic lights at all and until recently only had one roundabout 43:59.508 --> 44:05.508 which locals still occasionally referred to as the roundabout. So that's good, isn't it 44:05.768 --> 44:11.108 Oh, and birthdays can be national events. Important birthdays, especially the 21st and 50th birthdays 44:11.228 --> 44:16.248 often involve huge communal feasts where extended family and the entire island sometimes just turn up 44:16.488 --> 44:20.988 So that's nice, isn't it? We should do that. That is it from us, the newsagents 44:21.128 --> 44:25.948 This episode was sponsored by the Cook Islands Tourism Board, where Lewis Goodall will be there 44:25.948 --> 44:32.468 I'll be having a lovely dinner there, won't I? Exactly. I'll be having a lovely dinner. When we see the photos of Lewis eating supper in the Cook Islands 44:32.648 --> 44:36.888 we know what has happened. We will see you. We're off to Rarotonga, baby 44:37.728 --> 44:42.148 We will see you on Christmas Day. But in the meantime, have a lovely run up to Christmas 44:42.308 --> 44:47.668 Bye-bye. Bye-bye. The News Agents. This is a Global Player original podcast