Hello and welcome to an extra special festive edition of the News Agents
Why are you looking at me like that? It just sounds like we're sitting down for a story with Mother. No
Hello children. Shall we begin? No, we're building up. This is welcoming the audience
I don't like doing that. What is wrong with you? How long have you got
Why do you always have to insult our audience? Well, you're the one who swears at them
No, I'm bringing them in. And actually, appropriately enough, in our final show before Christmas
we've got a particularly festive question from John in Essex, who says, famously, Emily was told to, apologies to my mother
f*** off by Marjorie Taylor Greene. If Lewis and John could tell one person to f*** off, who would it be and why
Well, she already did it. Definitely made this. Too late. Too late. Marjorie did it
And she did it with such gusto. Also, Emily's not here to answer back. So, frankly, that would be quite good. Perfect
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
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
We do not have a homicide rate in the UK anywhere that compares with every city in America
You do not fear for you're going to be shot dead in London, frankly
You do not have a huge problem with free speech. You have people who are civil to one another
a far cry from what you see a lot of the time in America
So bugger off. Stop telling us that Europe is rotten when you don't have exactly the most perfect place yourself to live in
But you just didn't avail yourself of your own opportunity. You asked, say, who you would tell to f*** off
you just told him to bugger off which is very which is very World War II I must confess
I changed it I said f*** off at the top and bugger off at the bottom okay fine
well that's you that's pretty fair I would never say that to anyone John
no of course not I'm not that offensive I'm far too polite
far too civil and no I mean what I'm more intrigued by
to learn is of course with Marjorie's great conversion to be one of sort of
liberalism's great folk heroes I just wonder what she'd say to Emily now
can you imagine come for dinner Oh, I love you, darling. I love you. I love you
They'd be all over each other like a rash, a Christmas rash. Welcome to the News Agents
It's Rudolph. It's Comet. Where's Mrs Claus? Yeah, where is she? Not here
Weird that. And the elves. Right. We're going to start with a question from Amanda
Hello, News Agents. I really enjoy your show and the way you tackle political issues with energy and insight
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
I want to dwell on the insight and the wit and the wisdom that we bring. And the modesty
Yeah, and honesty. But I wanted to offer a listener's perspective on your coverage of the current Prime Minister
I completely understand that scrutiny and criticism are essential. That's the role of good journalism
At the same time, I sometimes feel the tone leans heavily towards derision
especially around his personality or presentation. What a show. Derision. No way. Rather than the substance of what he's trying to do
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
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
I think that if you were one of the Starm troopers as they were nicknamed for about 10 seconds
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
I don't just think it's about the substance I think there aren't that many Keir Starm are big friends in politics
he's never had a faction of his own really he's been adopted by different ones at different times
but he's not got a long pedigree in politics, he doesn't have that he hasn't got lots of outriders out there
Tom Baldwin, his biographer, is probably one of the only ones. The sort of people that Corbyn had a lot of, for example
because he needed to go into the media day after day and just argue the case
And you don't hear that very much. And I think that's partly particular to Starmer and his trajectory into politics
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
I think part of it is about him. And I think if you were putting the case for him, you would say that, look
here is a man who I think has restored we talk a lot about like sort of
the idea that the chaos hasn't stopped I don't think that's totally true I think that things are more stable
than they were at the sort of end of the Tory period that's partly about the parliamentary majority
I think he is a man who and some people will object to me saying this
because some people believe and I can see the case that's been made some people believe that he's deeply mendacious
and dishonest and cynical I think that he's, I actually think he does care about integrity in politics
I think he is someone who does want to, I think standards in politics do matter to him
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
the biggest thing I think that's different about this government and the last government
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
how it can use its bully pulpit of politics to create division
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
which is a politics we saw a lot of, particularly in the Johnson years
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
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
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
I mean I think they knew they would have to raise taxes and I think that there was an element in
which there was wishful thinking or dishonesty over the level of the problems that Britain faced
but it was a pretty awful inheritance the black hole that Rachel Reeves had to deal with so you
start from that point of view which was completely different from Tony Blair which is the obvious
point of comparison in 1997 when you know the economy was absolutely humming after various
humiliations that the Tories had been through, but was nevertheless in a very good place when Blair
took over power. So he started from a very bad place. He has tried to do the things that he said
he would do about, you know, cutting waiting lists in the health service, you know, increasing the
number of operations that are happening and all the rest of it. So, you know, in public services
you can see what they're trying to do. Positioning in terms of a closer
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
I think in the relations with Europe and lobbying on behalf of Ukraine, he has done well
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
I think what I also liked about Keir Starmer when he was running for government
was to be honest enough to say, you know what, it's complicated
You can't just pull a lever and press a button and something happens instantly to re-deliver economic growth
These things take a long time. I think that would have been so much more effective
if he'd been able to keep telling the story of we're doing the right things
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
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
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
I think that feeds populism when you get people who make simple yses of problems and they're really complex
So I think in Keir Starmer's favour, he's done all of that
Those are the positives if you want to make a case for Keir Starmer
But what also feeds populism is failure, political failure, particularly from mainstream forces
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
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
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
You know, you want to create more content, sort of like try and dominate the media conversation more
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
And, you know, successful politicians bend themselves around that media and political environment
I fear that Stahmer's demerits is that he is unwilling or incapable of so doing
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
That's how high the stakes are. And in their place, replace them, we know not
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
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
I think that's where his problem is. He struggles to adapt to the circumstances that he's in
And basic sort of decency is not going to get you that far
Well, you are correct to say that, I mean, if you think about the inheritance, they were unusual in the sense that most governments
if you think about difficult inheritances, government have had over the past 30 years
last couple of times we've changed party. In 1997, Blair had broken public services
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
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
particularly in terms of levels of debt and so on. So all of that is there. And Starmer recognised that
And he talked in the language of that big diagnosis. He talked in the language of saying this is we have got terrible inheritance
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
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
They didn't believe him. They thought he was a liar. They thought he was completely untrustworthy
And it was impossible to do any kind of business with him because of his duplicitousness
And I don't think you would hear that at all in the councils of Europe
Well, I don't feel embarrassed by him as prime minister. I mean, I didn't feel embarrassed by Sunak either
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..
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
Well, let's go to this question from James Kimber, which is kind of related to what we've just talked about
Let me just... Starmer's horrible popularity rating. have been top of the news for weeks
and his robotic appearances don't land well with the public. However, I've heard that he can go to Arsenal
sink six pints, is known as six beer kia, returning home for dinner with his family like he's drunk nothing
Does Starman need to show his human side more to claw back any semblance of popularity with the general public
My booze doesn't touch the sides with me. I can drink with the best of them
I'm basically an alcoholic. I find it hard to believe that he's drinking six pints at Arsenal
Yeah. I don't know. It doesn't... I'm sure it's a nickname that he probably quite enjoys
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
you know, my favourite band is X, and then they can't name a single hit that the band have had
or whatever it happens to be, where you try and show, look at me, I'm an ordinary bloke
I'm just like everybody else. You know, I mean, it's great if you can pull that off
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
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
I don't know. Whatever it happens to be. I just think we think confection. Don't believe it. I'm not buying it
Yeah, I think that one of the intriguing things about Starmer is that there are genuinely authentic things about him
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
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
and clearly it's a big part of their leisure life. It's a big part of their wider cultural life
And yet when he speaks about it, it somehow doesn't ring true
He starts to descend into slightly weird things, talking about the halftime orange
or sort of romanticising it, talking about it in a nostalgic way, which somehow doesn't seem authentic
even though he really is very authentic. I think that might just be because
he sounds like a politician when he's talking about football. And then you can have people who know way less
politicians who know way less about football sounding like, sounding less like a politician
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
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
so, like asking whether, you know, whether we could do a sort of couple of episode profile
of him, spend a load of time with him. and they said, you know, yeah, Lewis, in theory, would love to
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
There ain't loads else going on, right? He is who he is, ironically enough
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
demanding more, when actually he is authentically himself. It's just that the reality is, ironically enough, we don't like it
we in some ways are demanding more inauthenticity from him at the same time as demanding his
authentic self, which is actually basically what we've got. He's not a stand up comic
I think that's fair. He's not going to do well as, you know, at the Edinburgh Fringe
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
he was going to the sort of World Economic Forum in Davos. And we were in this room set up where we were waiting
and he pokes his head around the door and says, oh, shall I come back later
Like, you know, he come on, you're the alpha male. You're the you're the big beast here
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
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
the room hushes. I don't think he has that effect on people. And that is who he is. I don't know
about whether you can be less robotic as as you know, you put it in the question, James
I don't know how you do that. If broadly speaking, that is who you are, a rather shy person
thoughtful person, considerate, you know, loyally. I mean, he is loyally. He does choose his words
with care. He does speak slowly. He's not a natural kind of
funny man in that sense. Again, I think that's fair. John Sopel in the pub until closing, of course
Maga Taylor via Instagram says, politics has never felt more divisive. And there's another three years of Trump. What election
should we be looking out for? Oh, this is right. I love this. What election should we be looking out for
in 2026? And how might they impact the political landscape? Bread and butter, of course, is
UK and US. And obviously, people will know already about the elections
here in May, they're going to be really big probably big for Keir Starmer's future
in Scotland, in Wales and in English local councils as well the midterms of course, already back
round again in November third of the Senate up, all of the House
up, clutch of other races around the country as well, basically the last
referendum on Trump that there's going to be in the United States, his name won't
be on the ballot but clearly as they always are they are sort of plebiscites on the
administrations exist now and it would have real consequences because if the Dems
were to retake both houses or either house, house is easy, the Senate
is harder, but if they would retake either, once again they get the power of impeachment
they get the power of subpoena, they can start launching all sorts of investigations
just like they did last time when Trump was there. That's why Trump has been trying
to gerrymander it as much as possible because he knows how damaging that will be. And then in other
places in Europe, some very interesting elections coming up, I think in the spring
in Hungary, which again will be considered a real kind of bellwether on where populism is
Obviously, Orban has been there now since 2010. And the Israeli Knesset elections in October
which again will be a referendum on Netanyahu, which could have huge consequences in terms of
what happens next in the Middle East and beyond. Yeah, I mean, just picking on a couple of those
I mean, the Israeli elections, which you mentioned last, I mean, this dreadful government have just
announced 19 new settlements to be built in the West Bank. Further evidence of how they
want to scupper any possibility of a two-state solution. If Israeli public opinion moves against
Netanyahu and the ghastly people who are part of his coalition, then that has significant effects
not only for Israel, but also for the Palestinians as well, and potentially for the region, because
one of the reasons that Saudi Arabia, for example, gives why it won't establish diplomatic relations
with Israel is because Israel won't do anything towards a two-state solution. And so if you get
any sizable change there, that will be significant. Orban, of course, is the big holdout in the EU
about taking tough action on Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. And can you imagine in
America, as you say, Lewis, if the Democrats have control of the House, I mean, if you look at the
money raising that has gone on and the corruption that has gone on and the enriching of the Trump
family that has gone on in the past year. Where to begin? I mean, where to begin? I mean, those
investigations by the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee and all the rest of it
over how pardons were given and granted and what was given in return for those pardons
the money that has gone into building the White House ballroom, the trade deals where there were
side deals for the Trump family. It goes on and on. Bitcoin
Crypto. It just goes on. Yeah, I mean, think about just the
impact. You know, one House committee, admittedly on a very, very high profile subject in the form of
Jeffrey Epstein, has had on world news throughout the course of the year. And, you know, US House
committees, they sound boring and so tedious, but they can because they have this extraordinary
power under the US Constitution. And that's why Trump, as I said, has been gerrymandering
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
Cook Islands general election coming up. Oh, I knew it. I was thinking the Solomon Islands must be
doing an election. No, we've got the Cook Islands coming up. Big rematch, I think, between the Cook Islands
party, imaginatively named, and the Democratic Party, and of course, Cook Islands
United, who probably beat them 3-2. Yeah, yeah, yeah, beat them 3-2
Do you want to have a little bit of trivia, John? The Cook Islands party, which, of course, you'll be aware, emerged
victorious in the 2022 Cook Islands general election, winning 12 seats plus two
They got 44% of the vote. How many votes do you think that was? Oh, 44% of the vote
on the Cook Islands. 2,742. Oh, you've just lost out on a free deployment to the Cook Islands
which I'm surprised, frankly, you have not already pitched for at some point over the course of this year
No, it was 3,890. So the Cook Islands party will obviously be doing
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
description of journalists as wide, shallow pools who know a little bit
about a huge number of subjects? And as soon as you said the Cook Islands, I thought Cook Islands
I know absolutely sod all about anything to do with the Cook Islands
Well, if you're listening from the Cook Islands, do send John a note with some interesting tidbits
And who knows, some stories that he may or may not be able to cover from the Cook Islands through the course of 2026
We'll be back just after this. Let's have this voice note from Paul in Cambridge
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
ensured that no government will ever command the support of the majority of the electorate again
Have we essentially moved into a post-governance era? I'd be fascinated to know your thoughts. Many thanks
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
But I still think that there is respect for law and order in this country
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
I agree with you. I think governing has become immeasurably more difficult
And I think the level of cynicism and the lack of trust that we have in politics and politicians
And that's kind of not just new to Keir Starmer. It was there during the Johnson years, made worse during the Johnson years
You know, arguably goes back to 2008 and the financial crash and people feeling that, God, politics is not working for me
So I think it's got a long history. And I do think it's getting worse
But I'm not ready for the Council of Despair yet. Yeah, I think it's a really intriguing question
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
There's a sort of vein or sort of strain of thought, which is like, God, our politicians are so useless
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
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
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
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
And perhaps something more systemic. And I do think that there are systemic factors at work here
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
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
Which is that particularly the WhatsAppification of politics and Parliament, you can overdo this stuff
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
I mean, you know, between the years of, what, say, 1979 and 2010, we had four prime ministers
That seems, even just between 1979 and 1997, this huge long period of conservative domination, we had two prime ministers, just Thatcher and Major
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
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
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
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
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
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
And that was the and therefore, you know, is governing more difficult? Yes
Is it impossible? No. And I just think that, you know, if the whip's office had been kind of really doing well
you've still got the power as the prime minister to hire and fire ministers
which keeps a certain number of people on board because they're ambitious and therefore they want preferment
or they want to be sent on interesting fact finding trips to the Cook Islands or wherever it happens
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
It's just that I don't think the operation of this particular government
has been that good in dealing with the things that can upend you
I fully accept it's become more difficult, but I don't think it's inherent that it's impossible
I think there are clearly structural factors at work which make governing harder than it used to
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
Every prime minister finds that. I think it's true to say, partly things are just referred to
Technology, speed of events, the expectation on the modern state and modern government to have answers about everything and to have it now
People's own, the electorate's own patience with the pace of political change makes things harder
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
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
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
I think the quality of our MPs probably has come down a bit. You can overdo it, but I think that's true
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
But I think there are real systemic factors which lead to the appearance of ungovernability in our politics
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
They have to have even more quality leadership. Your leadership has to be world class almost at any given moment, at any given time
And we probably haven't had that. So the systemic problems have got harder. The individuals have got worse
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
the United States with all of its disagreements in terms of the difference between federal
and local polarisation that has taken place there, makes it very, very difficult to govern
The sort of legitimacy of the state in many ways in America is under question in a way that it isn't in Britain
France, we see the problems of the Fifth Republic, with Parliament that can't deliver a majority for anything
that relationship with the President, the unions and so on. Britain has got its problems, particularly around devolution in Scotland
in the long term, what happens there. But actually, I think one of the disappointments about Starmer
has been that for the first time we had a government with a big majority
which on paper you would think would be able to govern as it saw fit
and have the strength of that system and they haven't been able to do so
But I don't think structurally you could easily have a government and a prime minister
not easily, but you could have a government and a prime minister who could govern
and this one just appears not to be able to do so. Yeah, I heard Tony Blair the other day
framing it in a rather similar way to you, not the same way
He used his starting point, 2010, and he held this up. He's held up a smartphone
and he said the invention of the smartphone and suddenly, you know, access to WhatsApp, access to social media
meant that suddenly you've had six prime ministers since 2010 in the 15 intervening years
Whereas, you know, look at the sort of stability that you had before that
And he says that, you know, exactly that, I suppose, the point that you are making
that, you know, you just look at what's happened to our politics since the smartphone came along
and you suddenly see the chaos that it has brought and the difficulty that it has led to in terms of governing
Well, it's probably no surprise that as we've entered the kind of attention deficit era of our lives culturally
that that would feed into politics. No surprise that as our own attention spans have lessened
that suddenly within politics the churn has increased. And we've seen that in other places as well
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
But I think that it is clear technology is having a factor
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
I wonder how the Thatchers or the Blairs, you know, kind of master politicians who commanded, you know, had their flaws
but they were pretty effective political leaders in their own ways, would have managed in the social media age
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
And you can say, in a way, and I do think that Blair and Thatcher
because they're the ones that we talk about as the most commanding, the sort of titanic political figures, right
Certainly the maybe post-war overall. Certainly big election winners, but certainly since the 1970s
You know, they dominated politics. They were both colossus-like in their period. They defined their eras in so many ways
You could make an argument to say that, you know, that is the unusual thing
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
Some of that was contingent and some of it was clearly down to them and the sort of people they were
That's quite unusual. If you go back to the period before, you do have more of a churn of prime ministers
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
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
British political history, to have a churn of prime ministers, to have no one who dominates
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
on television. When was the last time you were truly caught off guard
by an answer? Oh, that's good. It's a great question, but we were discussing it
before we started the record. And we were both scratching our heads thinking
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
I had a slight sense of that when we interviewed Lammy in his office at the Justice Department
And he started talking, you know, we had kind of tried to war game the interview and we thought
he would close down any questions relating to closer relations with the European Union
And he didn't really close it down. He kind of went there. Yeah. And it is those moments when
politicians commit news in a way that maybe you don't necessarily expect them to do
I think that is the moment you have to kind of like take your sort of you have to be
on the ball with it right because and sometimes like one of the
challenges is even making sure you're listening to hear it because sometimes you go
back to an interview and you realise a politician has committed news or said something and you
you weren't quite again you were already thinking about your next question because you're almost anticipating
in your own head that they're just going to say what you think they're going to say
And obviously that's the last thing you want to do, right? Because then you've missed the moment
Although sometimes it can have the other effect as well, because sometimes they might say something
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
And then they'll say, no, I don't mean it like that or something like that. And therefore you undermine the story
So it's kind of those little tricks that you're constantly going through. The moments are few and far between
I mean, kind of, you know, from when I first started in political journalism
Hesseltine walking out of cabinet and there was one crew in Downing Street
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
And she was there in Downing Street. And suddenly Hesseltine walks over to the camera and says, I've just resigned
I'll be making a full. I've just resigned from cabinet. I'll be making a fuller statement later on
I thought, bloody hell, no one expected that. You know, sure, there'd been a row going on within the cabinet over the cell
of Westland helicopters and all the rest of it and, you know, relations with Europe and whether it should go to Sikorsky
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
And, you know, the real core, blimey, shocking moments happen very, very rarely indeed
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
is when politicians have a go at you, which sometimes they'll do and some do more than others, right
because then you have to, you have to then sort of, it becomes a slightly different exercise
It becomes more pugilistic and you have to kind of sort of parry off what they're saying or they'll say
you don't really know this, do you, have you read this, whatever, you know? And you always, I'm always very conscious
of that that could happen at any moment. That's the moment of potential embarrassment. And actually, if I were a politician
I probably shouldn't say this, I would do it more often, you know, because that's a, and it's a careful line
You don't want to be too aggressive because people don't like it and you can sound arrogant or conceited
or you've got something to hide. But very often it can be quite effective
although you never know how it's going to go. Even worse, of course, when they decide to basically end the interview
which is when I was thinking about this is what I thought about. Galloway was the master of what we were just talking about
in terms of being aggressive. He would routinely be aggressive. So if you're going to interview Galloway, you kind of know
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
where he said that gay relationships... He did not want his children to be taught
that gay relationships are exactly the same and as normal as a mum and a dad and kids
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
i.e. gay relationships and heterosexual relationships, are equal because I don't believe them to be equal
We'll come back to the question of the other word you used, which is normality. But specifically on being equal
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
You got this interview to talk about the election. Secondly, you don't think that these are important remarks
You're a leader of a party. Lewis, this is a clip of a clip
It's an edited clip. No, it's not. No, it's not an edited clip. No, it's not
It is a full 90 seconds. of what you said. No, it isn't
You clipped out the point about the 97 genders. No, no, no
That's a separate question. You chose... You clipped it out. Gender what
Don't think I don't know what I said. Gender what? We just played what you said, Mr Galloway
We want to know. You clipped it out. Look, I'm not going to have a Barney with you because..
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
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
It's an unedited clip. I've got a simple answer. Why aren't gay relationships equal to heterosexual relationships, Mr Galloway
Listen to the whole thing tonight. Why? I've listened to the whole thing
I've listened to the whole thing. Why aren't... You haven't given your..
Mr Galloway, you're not... No, you're misleading my listeners in saying that. You're misleading my listeners
You're misleading my listeners in saying that because we have not edited the clip. That is a full 90-second exchange
You did edit the clip. No, no, no. You cut out the transgender bit. The transgender bit is separate
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
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
Oh, grow up, Mr Galloway. Come on. Or fool me thinking that your request
that I come on and talk about the elections was genuine. Of course it was genuine
Well, there you go. You heard it there. Mr Galloway refusing to answer a very, very simple question
and you can make up your own mind as listeners as to what you think about that
That is a great moment. I love you telling George Galloway to grow up
Well, I mean, you know, I hate, I don't know about you, my absolute bet no more is when politicians..
Say that white is black. Well, A, that, first of all, it was not, I mean, obviously, I think Donald Trump
had clearly been listening to that and Galloway maybe should have taken some lessons
He'll probably sue me for $10 billion now, whatever it is. But, you know, yeah, that
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
if someone's not a politician, you book them to come on about a particular subject and whatever
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
I mean, you know, it's fair game for an interviewer to ask you about what they want to ask you about
Of course, you can give a heads up and say, and sometimes that's better because they'll have time to think about something
but ultimately if you were a politician you should be prepared to be asked
about anything particularly stuff you yourself have said you can't then turn around in the middle of an interview
and go well we agreed to do it about this topic we'd done that
topic and he'd said this a week before or whatever it was and naturally I decided to ask
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
us both well in our own ways. It was the first edition of the Sunday show and that got written up and
he enjoyed having a go at me and that was it. There you are. Win-win. All is not a zero-sum game
We will be back in a moment with a very important final question. So our
final question really is a very important question to end this episode of The News Agents On
and I am as intrigued by the answer as all of you
Tony from Glasgow, thank you for your question. I follow Lewis on Instagram
Thank you, Tony. And it feels like every night he goes out for a fancy dinner
I wonder if he can cook himself a meal. I mean, let me just add Tony to the question
I wonder whether he ever pays for a meal because he's always putting photos and I wonder whether it's some dodgy deal
I pay for all my meals. John Freeby's open is on very dodgy territory here
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
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
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
Keir Starmer, isn't it? Very quickly. Mutually sure of destruction. No, I... What
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..
Because you don't know how. Now, until quite recently on Instagram, you were called John Le Savant for reasons no one understood
Right. Just answer the question, Lewis. Tony from Glasgow hasn't got all day
No, look, I'm not one of life's great chefs. Fortunately, my wife has many, many talents and she's a great cook
But, you know, the girl deserves an evening out now and again, doesn't she? The girl deserves an evening out now and again
Oh, she does. We just had you having a go at Galloway a moment ago
The girl deserves an evening out. She does. She does. Oh, my God
the unreconstructed alpha male. Again, I would say dodgy, dodgy territory once more
Before we go, Lewis Goodall, the floor. Do you want a few more facts about the Cook Islands
No, you do. Come on, you do. Just because you have spent the last half hour
looking up obscure facts on the Cook Islands, go on then, two more facts
before we go. Well, you know, once, can I tell you that Saturday the 4th of July
1892, never took place on the Cook Islands. Because it went from
the Gregorian calendar. No. The Gregorian calendar was well in place by 1892, John
What do you think it is? The Holy Roman Empire? Come on. I bet I'm close to the answer. No
They shifted on the international date line. They shift from being aligned with the Americas
to Australasia in 1892. So they moved to the international date line
So Saturday the 4th of July on the Cook Islands never took place
Another fact, there are no traffic lights on the Cook Islands. Rarotonga
which is the main island, has no traffic lights at all and until recently only had one roundabout
which locals still occasionally referred to as the roundabout. So that's good, isn't it
Oh, and birthdays can be national events. Important birthdays, especially the 21st and 50th birthdays
often involve huge communal feasts where extended family and the entire island sometimes just turn up
So that's nice, isn't it? We should do that. That is it from us, the newsagents
This episode was sponsored by the Cook Islands Tourism Board, where Lewis Goodall will be there
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
we know what has happened. We will see you. We're off to Rarotonga, baby
We will see you on Christmas Day. But in the meantime, have a lovely run up to Christmas
Bye-bye. Bye-bye. The News Agents. This is a Global Player original podcast