386. Trump's 'Bomb Yemen' Group Chat

25:07Secondly, it means that nobody's interested anymore in Turkey joining the European Union because at a time of anti -immigration, people don't want Turkish immigrants coming to the European Union. And the third thing that happens is that Turkey is suddenly able to present itself as the country that's stopping Syrian migrants going to the European Union. So an EU -Turkey deals, made Turkey keeps 3 million Syrians and suddenly the relationship between Turkey and the EU becomes much, much more transactional. Finally, fast forward to where we are today, Trump comes into power, all norms change. Europe's suddenly very worried about Ukraine.

25:42They want Turkey as a possible ally in Ukraine. And this is the point at which Erdogan sees his final opportunity to go much more authoritarian because he knows that Europe isn't going to really criticize him. He knows that Trump really isn't going to care at all. He's got much more freedom of movement than he did in the late 90s, early 2000s. And he completes his journey away from a sort of competitive authoritarianism where the odds were stacked against the opposition because he fixed the media, fixed the university's fixed civil society. But it was still theoretically possible to win on the opposition sometimes, one in some of the cities towards a situation now where he's moving fast towards a one -party state.

26:21But as you say, the politics, the geopolitics around it have changed. I found that the American administration response was the only thing I could find very little reaction from any American politicians. The official line from the state department was that we don't interfere in the political processes of other countries, which is, I think that's used a lot of people down through history. And so that was that one. And then Macron, who in the past has been very critical when Turkey has kind of been on this road towardsocracy, very, very quiet, as you say, because of these other factors, especially at the moment, I think Ukraine.

26:56We were talking a few weeks ago about doing a big episode on Turkey becoming so much more of a power broker in some of these big, you know, Middle East, Ukraine, Asia, the relations in Europe and Asia. So I think that he is thinking, if there's ever a time when I'm going to get away with this, it is now. And that's why these protests are one very, very brave, but also very, very important. I had an amazing conversation for about an hour and a half yesterday with a Turkish academic called Berk Eson, who's I think a really great analyst of this. I mean, he had an analogy, which I thought, you know, might appeal to you.

27:32He said that the way to understand the old Erdogan system is it's it's like a football match in which one team has 11 players. And the other team has nine players and the ref tends to favor the team with the 11 players. But if you don't understand, you're not concentrating on the game very much, you're just occasionally glimpsing it on television. It does look like some sort of fair competition taking place and it's occasionally possible even for the team with nine players to score a goal, but basically it's stacked against you. That was the old, old system. It was also interesting, because what, but was reflecting on is the way that I mean, he's very brave.

28:05I mean, he's calling the sounds in an environment that is getting more and more all sort of, you know, where genuine need people are being locked up, people using losing their university jobs. There still seems to be space, Berk thinks. I mean, he's speaking to be from Turkey for academics, such as himself to call it out and to try to speak up for a different secular liberal version of Turkey. He also really though wants to get people to focus on the fact that he thinks Trump is doing exactly the same thing, but much, much quicker. Trump's going through the journey against universities, against the media, against the judiciary judges judges against independent agencies at a much more accelerated pace.

28:44And he said this is partly something he's observed, which is the way that the populists are different in their second terms that Erdogan was much more aggressive having left power for about when the ismas came back into power that Autobahn started as a sort of almost a kind of liberal lost power. And then when he came back was much more conservative. And that's definitely the case for Trump. And I think his final point would be the huge difference between, you know, middleing countries, like Turkey or Mexico or even Brazil going down a populist route on the one hand, or small countries like Hungary.

29:18And on the other hand, what happens when you get a superpower like Trump doing it? I mean, his capacity to do harm is so much bigger than anything that Erdogan has. And you can see it also in how much more I've spoken here is that, you know, generally when Erdogan or Autobahn, these populists turn up at international meetings, they're relatively polite. They make their most extreme statements at election rallies to their own domestic audiences and their own local languages. That's when Erdogan will call the German government neo -Nazis, for example. But when they go to international conferences, they're quite polite.

29:48Erdogan was part of his communications on this since the arrest. First of all, is to say, to go through this pretence that it has nothing to do with politics. And they sent out the justice minister, a guy called Yulmus Tunch. And he went out and said, attempting to associate judicial investigations with our president is an act of audacity and irresponsibility. It sounded very kind of Dmitry Petskov when he was in the early days of Putin taking over the judiciary in Russia. And I think the other thing to understand it in this is that because we do live in a pretty even though we don't have complaints about our media, we do have a genuinely free media.

30:31It is quite amazing to think that in Turkey, it's not always been like this. They have a sort of free media in that you'll see there will be a column. There will be this. There will be criticism. There will be debate. But 90 % now, the Turkish media essentially is controlled by government or by businesses which support the government very, very closely. And you are seeing that develop in America. You're seeing it partly developed voluntarily. The newspapers and broadcasters who are sort of limiting what they say, they're volunteering just to be... And that's just taking care. Now, that might sound odd given that we've just talked about the guy from the Atlantic who was pretty cautious in how reported, but he didn't.

31:12He understood there's a very big difference between being a journalist and working for the government. But in Turkey, you've got these big protests going on. I was talking to somebody last night who said that who lives in Istanbul, but who said who'd been at work, who said they're not really aware of them. So it's only word of mouth that is getting these crowds to come out because actually imagine if this was Britain with hundreds of thousands of people out on the street through the night, it would be rolling news, it would be sky news 24 hours a day. And we'd all be aware of it. We'd make a judgment about whether to join or not to join.

31:42So I think it'll be very interesting to see at what point. I've got no doubt at all there will be a crackdown, a real crackdown at some point. And it'll be interesting what point that happens. And I think one of the reasons he's waiting is because he's waiting to see whether this international reaction does take place. And thus far, as far as he's concerned, it's gone completely according to plan. I'm afraid. Well, I think the point to take a break can come back to the very different subject to the UK economy. But thank you very much.

32:13This isn't ad from BetterHelp. At the moment, we're getting advice from everywhere. You just have to go on TikTok. Could be Alice's cold plunges. Could be my attempts to meditate or the digital detox that I'm doing in Colombia. But of course, one of the things that we know is that it can be incredibly valuable to talk to another human being, somebody who's actually been trained as a therapist to work through these ideas calmly, objectively and professionally. And as the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a very diverse variety of expertise.

32:49They've got over 5 ,000 therapists in the UK. They've helped more than five million people globally. And you can join a session literally at the click of a button, change therapists anytime. It's obviously not about fixing you, but it's about hearing yourself clearly, maybe for the first time. So talk it out with BetterHelp. Our listeners get 10 % of their first month at BetterHelp .com slash rest politics. That's better H -E -L -P .com slash rest politics.

33:21Welcome back to the rest of politics. We're being honest to Campbell. And with me, Roy Stewart. Just a quick reminder for people, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied territories is our latest interviewee on leading. Very, very interesting, very, very passionate. Got a lot of response. A lot of people say she was great. And we had a usual massive pushback from people that we always get a massive pushback from when we talk about them at least. But anyway, it's worth listening to and I hope that you do if you haven't already. But let's talk about the economy.

33:56Let's talk about the spring statement. We're recording this on Tuesday. It'll be out Wednesday, early hours, and then later in the day, Rachel Rees will stand up in Parliament. For what feels like a bigger moment than maybe that it should be, that's why we'll be doing a, I won't call it emergency pod, but we'll be doing an instant reaction to the spring statement with none other than one of the heroes of the rest of politics, Paul Johnson of the Institute of Physical Studies live on the rest of the pollinities YouTube channel today Wednesday 3 30 pm. Keep an eye out on our social media accounts for any more details.

34:32And everyone will be able to watch that live on YouTube. And if you want to catch her afterwards, it will be available for members of the rest of this politics plus wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're not already a member, you can go to the rest of this politics .com to join. So as you're quite right, this is a very interesting moment because the story was that we were going to move away from two big fiscal events or two big British budget events a year to one. And this was Rachel Reeves, great announcement. And there was general applause because it was going to give us more policy stability.

35:07And instead of everything lurching around every six months, the government would say what it was doing once a year. However, she ran into a bit of a problem. And the problem is that she set herself a very strict fiscal rule and gave herself very little wiggle room. So her fiscal rule, which is about getting how much she borrows, how much she spends. She only left 10 billion pounds out of what's projected to be nearly 1 ,500 billion pounds worth of government spending within a couple of years. And not actually that surprisingly. The Office of Budget Responsibility, looking at what's happening around the world, has revised its forecasts.

35:48And she now looks as though she's going to be in real trouble. So to put it in context, it looks like she's going to have to borrow 23 billion pounds more than forecast. And remember, she'd already was borrowing a lot more. This is 151 billion against the 87 billion, which was forecast before she came in. So nearly 63 billion pounds higher overall terms. And that leaves her with three choices. Either choice number one, she just puts ahead in the sand, pretends nothing's happening. Hope the world may change the next six months and return to the whole thing in the budget in the autumn. Option number two is she reduces borrowing or increases taxes or cut spending in order to sit within her fiscal rule.

36:28So she does something dramatic to make sure that she's not borrowing and spending too much. Third option is she changes her fiscal rule again and says, actually, I want a more flexible fiscal rule to make it through it over you. Oh, she could just on that one. She could, for example, do something similar to what the Germans have just done, which is, which is tweak it by taking defense and security out of it. And but that people would very, very quickly see that what that was doing. But I think she could maybe tweak it in relation to this broader security situation. Before we get on to which she's going to do just from a, let's set aside the technocratic economics from a political comms perspective.

37:08What are the advantages to disadvantages? And number one, saying, well, I don't want to react to quickly figures change. Let's wait till the autumn or option two, I'm going to show that I believe in my fiscal rule and I'm going to cut or option three, I'm going to go down the German option or I'm going to re -describe my fiscal rule in some way so that I have more headroom. Which, what are the pros and cons of each? I mean, I'm pretty sure which one she's going to do. And it's not that, it's not the last one. I think she's going to, she's going to state her guns. And the pros of that are showing strength, commitment, stability.

37:48She'll think that the markets will respond reasonably well to that. The cons of that, I think, are the extent to which the political and the economic story are starting to intertwine in a way that is not great for the government. I think she will want in her statement to project all lots of this sort of progress that has been made, for example, in waiting lists and, you know, real wages and interest rate cuts and what have you. But I think in terms of how people are feeling about the politics of the economy right now, it's not great. And I think that interesting, just to call me a bit sad, but as part of the preparation for this, I went back and listened to the chat that we did with her last year before she was elected, which if you remember, got quite sparky between between you and her.

38:36It was also, I completely forgot, and this was the, this was the place where you revealed your predilection of a very expensive pots because you were explaining that you were explaining the the, the huge cost, the additional costs of you are getting your thousand pounds pots into the country from the, from the Netherlands. But a couple of things really interesting went listening back to it now. The first is the extent to which cuts under the conservatives drove her into politics in the first place, motivated her in terms of her political career. She was very, very clear that her politicization, it's really interesting, she was born in 1979 in the year that she came to power and her first vote was in 1997, the year that Labour came to power.

39:22And she's very much of that generation that felt growing up, thatcher's Britain was not good for people like her. So cuts, really sort of visceral about the Tories not spending enough on schools, not spending enough on textbooks. Her mum essentially losing her job as a special educational needs teacher and so forth. And then her, her analysis of the, of the last government and their inability to, as it were, stand up for people like, like me. So that's why I think this stuff with welfare cuts, the huge welfare cuts that we talked about last week, I think it should be fine in that very, very difficult.

39:57Small sort of side note on that. So that, that I thought was really interesting in terms of trying to understand her because normally what you'd expect is you'd say the problem with the Tories is cuts and austerity. And therefore what we're going to do is we're going to be much more social democratic. We're going to try to make a state that feels a bit more Scandinavian. It's going to be much more about generous welfare payments, much more about thinking about a quality, maybe much more ambitious green agenda, much more big investment in I don't know roads, super computers. And we're going to turn the whole economic model around from a very kind of tight, worry about the markets, cut expenditure, saturate state to a more generous state that borrows more, spends more and invests more and welfare in the future, is that right?

40:50Yeah, that may sense. And I think that one of the reasons why politically things would become quite difficult for her is this feeling that, you know, we had this in a question last week about, you know, what is the difference between some of the things that conservatives did in the past, or that conservatives talk about now, it's always quite uncomfortable for labor activists when they hear Tories saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, she's going even further than we would have done on welfare and so forth. And but the other thing that I thought was really interesting that came through in the interview, and bear in mind, you know, she's in opposition.

41:23So we all know the game that was being played at that time. There were fairly cautious, didn't want to make the states, didn't want to make promises that were going to come back to all of them. But with pressure of a bit on whether she was actually comfortable with the basic core institutions of economic management. And she was, bank of independence, the work of the Office of Budget Responsibility. Now one of the things you've got to say about the Office of Budget Responsibility, which is George Osborne's creation, is essentially we've we've now given it almost godlike status when it comes out tomorrow and gives the revised growth fork.

41:58That is going to be as big as anything that she, that she says. And I think that one thing I think that's that you hear from, and this is bound to happen because things haven't been going that well. Just to, you know, give you one sort of anecdotal sort of factor in relation to this, I sent you the the Labour equivalent of conservative home, who's up, who's down. This is this Labour list thing, but you know, who's the most popular member of the cabinet, who's the least popular. Ed Miliband and Angela Reiner are far out in front. And Rachel Reeves and Liskendle are right down at the bottom with negative approval ratings, Keir Starmer, West Streetings pretty low down.

42:40Now what that's saying is that the ones who are giving the difficult messages are the ones who are getting hit quite hard in terms of their popularity within the party. But that becomes a problem. And the thing is that this, we've got to keep reminding people, this is a Labour government and Labour governments who expected to do Labour things. Two things Gordon Brown never lost sight of. One is the Chancellor has to drive the Treasury. Don't let the Treasury drive the Treasury. The Chancellor has to drive the Treasury. And that means being very, very clear about what you wanted to do for you. And the second thing is never, ever, ever forget that you're that you're Labour.

43:18Now we talked a lot in the podcast about her understanding of Labour history and her commitment to Labour history. What's been difficult is this, she's desperately trying to avoid this being called austerity mark too. But once you get into some of the numbers that we're going to see in the spending round to meet this fiscal rule, it's going to be tough. It's going to be tough. I mean, she's inherited a big problem. And the big problem is much more than any government. And she didn't really want to acknowledge that I felt in the interview, which is Britain's aging. We want growth, but a lot of the public doesn't want immigration.

43:53We want more houses, but a lot of the time we don't want the environmental costs or the neighbourhood costs of building those houses. We want services, but we don't want to pay higher taxes. So she's inherited this big problem and our growth is kind of anemic, but she didn't help herself because she has a tendency, I think, unnecessarily, to tie her hands behind her back. The first big example of this was she ruled out 75 % of the tax rises by saying that she wasn't going to raise corporation tax national insurance or VIT. And I think it's tax. Incomplex. Yeah. The second mistake she's made is she's committed to this fiscal rule and left herself a very, very tiny headroom.

44:33And once she's made those commitments, she somehow feels that she can never get out of them. So she said, you know, we're not going to come back with more tax rises. She just said it again to the Treasury Select Committee. And she has been given opportunities, which the Germans took to say, security situations completely changed. We're going to change our fiscal rules or we're going to raise more taxes. She won't do that. That then means that she's basically stuck in the austerity light world. The growth is not coming. And she's committed to not raising taxes and not borrowing anymore. So she don't have any money.

45:08She has to cut. And there everything comes down to something that my friend who you know Felix Martin wrote a rather good article in Reuters about, which is whether labor is going to be able to deliver on what at least for some people seems to be the most exciting potential path to growth, which is that you get a lot of statements out of Kirstauma and increasing the out of West reading, saying the way we're going to create growth is not by borrowing and spending more. We're going to create growth through efficiency. We're going to get rid of regulations. We're going to get rid of red tape. We're going to bring productivity into the NHS.

45:44We're going to get rid of quangos. So there was this thing about sacking the chair of the competition market sorority. And there the hope, I guess, from Felix and others is that although all that stuff sounds quite Tory, it's only labour that actually has the political capital to really make the tough decisions to bring efficiency into government, bring productivity into the NHS, that getting rid of NHS England, which we haven't discussed in a lot of detail, is part of this movement. So be a vision of a much more efficient, much more accountable government. Do you think that can fly? Well, I think it has to fly in reality, but I think it's going to be very difficult.

46:23So the scrapping of NHS England, interestingly, I've spoken to people who work in the National Health Service who are not as alarmed by that as I thought they might be because they actually say there is massive duplication and is very, very confusing to work at the front line with all these different misceives coming down. I think that the idea of these huge civil service cuts, and I'm always very suspicious when people say we're just going to affect the back room. I always want to know, I mean, I think I was deemed to work in a back room, I guess, but where are all these back rooms in government?

46:57And I always think we're the efficiency. I mean, we've got the whole dodge thing going on with Musk, which is on a different scale. But there's always a part of me with the things, well, why do we, are we saying we've always been incredibly inefficient? And why are we sort of having to admit that? I think it doesn't hit the scale of the problem they're talking about. And I think the other thing that we need to acknowledge is the cost of borrowing. The reason why she's so, one of the reasons she's so wedded to this fiscal rule is because the cost of government borrowing is now astronomical. The money that we are paying to service the debt is on a par with anything else that government is doing.

47:39And the cost is going up, the cost of government borrowing is represented by bond yields. It's gone up to 4 .6%. Well, that's kind of, we're now, we're talking, I don't want to make any other comparison with Trust Quarting, but, you know, we're talking that level and a hundred, hundred billion pounds a year, isn't that now? Exactly. A hundred billion pounds. And this is something that, you know, there's two things that you'll hear from Rachel Reeves and all her, the other Labour ministers, when they're on the airways and then it's a couple of days and they won't be wrong. One is we inherited a terrible mess and we're still trying to work, trying to fix it.

48:09That's true, even if the public get bored hearing it. And the second is that these, there are international factors here that have made our life more difficult. Both of those things are true. However, when you look at the, the numbers, I'm just looking at a graph that somebody sent me, debt stock as percentage of GDP, Gordon Brown, 37%, George Osborne, 65%, then we're into the 90s through Quarting. We're now at 98. Debt payments as percentage of revenue, again, you go back to Gordon Brown, was fairly high, but Rachel Reeves is even higher. So these are trends that she will be very, very worried about.

48:49Now, as to what she does, I, and you were saying here, the sort of pros and cons of, I guess the pros and cons of doing little things or big things. In the end, I don't think you've got any choice. I think we're going to have to do big things on the economy. I don't even think you have to say single market customs union. I've got a new acronym, Rory. It's called AFTA, AFTA, the alliance of frictionless trade associates, something like that. Frictionless trade, okay? So it could be the association of frictionless trade allies. It could be anything. But that is, I think, that reform is one thing, and I think you and I both agree that public services do need reform.

49:32That's fine. But unless we sort this trade relationship with Europe, unless we do get back to some sort of frictionless trade, I think we're just going to be going from, and remember, remember one of the things that Kirsta Amas said is we're going to put an end to sticking class to the politics. There is a danger that we just could have go from budget, spring statement, budget to spring statement. We have the same debate every time. Are we going to put up a bit of tax? Are we going to cut more spending? And where is the growth going to come from? Because don't forget, this is something else she said several times in our interview.

50:03Without growth, we do not get the funding for our public services. Well, right now, yes, we talked to Peter Karl recently about AI, and you can see maybe there's a part of a growth strategy there. You can see it may be in relation to the planning, but as you said, there are a lot of problems related to that, political problems. But in terms of an overall plan for growth of the economy, I still feel that they're struggling to articulate it because actually they don't have that many levers right now. Unless they did very, very radical things, obviously if you were a Tory listening to this, you'd say maybe we need to rethink the whole of the NHS.

50:38The NHS is now absorbing so much more of our budget all the time and that there are other systems around the world, which you could look at, etc. But you can imagine the total allergic reaction, which would happen as soon as you hear that kind of stuff. That's the forage position though. I'm just finished with a thought, which you've just inspired me, which is we just did this interview with Peter Kyle for members, the second interview, taking members questions. I thought that was if you were really looking for a detailed way of understanding why the government's such a mess, what Peter Kyle explains really beautifully is the trade -offs.

51:10On the one hand, he really wants Britain to be an AI superpower. He's talking very much in the kind of language that almost a Thatcherite would talk about. He's regulation, changing copyright rules, more risk capital, tax breaks for American companies, generating much more energy to run these huge data centers that are going to use half the power of Los Angeles, driving more productivity and businesses, loosening the planning laws to get these energies facilities built, bringing US firms and technology. And then on the other hand, he's having to balance that with, well, yeah, but on the other hand, if we change a copyright rules, what's that going to mean for the creative industry in Britain at Synccoms?

51:53And if we suddenly loosen up all the pension funds, what risks is that going to mean for people's pensions? And we bring all these tax breaks to the economy and maybe get these big companies to come here, but that suddenly means that we're very, very vulnerable in the way that Ireland is on our income to these US tax companies. We're going to do these big energy things, but what's that going to mean for climate? And we're going to do productivity, but what happens for all these companies when everybody loses their jobs? And what's going to happen to everybody lose their jobs as the productivity comes?

52:20And finally, how does this all work in our geo -strategic calculation? I mean, we don't really want a world run by musk and Zuckerberg. And that's when Peter then starts saying, well, yes, of course, we want more productivity, but we're going to force these companies to make sure that they invest more in retraining the staff when they lay them off because they're making bigger profits. They have to invest more. And yes, we want these companies to come, but they have to commit to putting in green energy investments in order to make sure that everything we're doing is renewable. This is the stuff, I guess, that Rachel Reeves and Kirsten are struggling with all the time, which is how do you get a clear message on which side of this ultimately are you on, because we can all do the on the one hand or the other, but Labour's big decision is, is it going for growth or is it going to be going endlessly for, well, we don't want to be like the Tories.

53:06We're going to have put in regulations in place, incentives in place, conditions in place to make sure that we don't end up with people losing out of the other end. Well, they've said they're going for growth and it will be a very, very big thing for them to change that approach now. Our friend Peter Kellner wrote a very interesting piece yesterday, I think I saw it, and he was drawing comparisons with Labour in the past. And the comparisons aren't exact, but he made a very, very interesting observation. His view and devaluation of sterling is an argument that sort of ran through several Labour governments in the past, and his view very strongly is that the Labour government that came in after a long period of Tory power in 1964 should have had a dreadful inheritance like the Labour government now and should have devalued.

53:55Okay, but because Atley had done that, somewhat against his will having been pushed into it back in 1949, I think it was Jim Callahan as Chancellor didn't want to say, well, we mustn't become known as the party of devaluation. So put it off and put it off and put it off. Then ran, had another election two years later, won it, got a bigger majority, but then the core problems came back, run on the pound, and instead of going for devaluation, they went for spending cuts, went for freezon wages and other taxes, booze and petrol and what have you. And then, lo and behold, forced devalued 14 % I think it was.

54:31And the point that Peter's making is that Labour today feel like they're being pushed towards something that may be in their hearts, they know they should be doing. And it won't be surprising to know that he had both degree that that relates to this relationship with Europe and that the arrival of Trump and the new security environment, these are the Putin, these are the Ukraine, but particularly now with the new American administration is actually an opportunity for the Labour government to stand up and do a major reset. And that reset may involve just as they've broken the manifesto promise in relation to international aid to pay for the extra defense spending, which people seem to accept.

55:13Actually, there may be other manifesto commitments that have to be broken to to acknowledge this. So for example, everybody knows that even though Kierstheim has got some political credit for saying we have to increase defense spending, it's going to have to go even further. Now, how's that going to get paid for? And if that's where they think they're going to get pushed to, do it now. Don't get pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed. This is the important thing, isn't it? If you can see in advance that the tax rules that you've set yourself, the fiscal rules that you're simply not compatible with where you need to go, which is maybe spending 3 % of GDP on defense or your commitments on the customs union are not compatible with the new world.

55:50Get out there, make the argument now. If you can see the, you know, the train coming at you down the tunnel, do something about it, that the risk is that they're going to try to tinker technically around the edges and the other risk I suppose is that Morgan McSweeney, this key figure who seems to be very focused on the red wall is going to say all that matters to my red wall voters is you never raise tax and you never do anything that sounds like being nice to Europe and you never do anything that allows too many immigrants to come in. And if they, if Morgan McSweeney wins that argument, they're not going to be able to achieve their growth objectives.

56:21Well, there you go. So that's the big argument that probably, and I don't know if that argument is raging within government. And look, this, this is, she was clear at the start, again, something she said in the interview that she didn't want to get to a place where you have these huge fiscal events coming around every few months, but it's a danger that that's happening, whether she likes it or not. And I always say, I think she's still in that place where we're still less than a year into the, the labor government. There's still in that place where there's just about enough goodwill left. There's just about enough sort of, I think there's quite a lot of credibility still.

56:56And I think here's enhanced credibility in terms of the way that he's handled the foreign stuff. But I think that sense of the overseas scenario gives him an opportunity to build on the success that he's had in that personally and politically and to match that now alongside a domestic economic agenda that is about signaling big changes. Because I think if we just this feels a little bit like we're beginning to kind of, you call it tinkering or limping or whatever it might be, but the one thing that we're not feeling is that the boost, the growth boost of rockets is sort of somehow, you know, waiting for his round the corner.

57:30Well, thank you on that. I said, good thing to close on. See, for question time, we should talk about lots of the things we didn't talk about today because of all the other things that we're going on, not least the ridiculousness of the American administration. I want to talk about Mexico, actually. I think Claudia Schaienbaum, very, very interesting woman. And I think we could also talk a little bit about adolescence, the amazing new Netflix series that's on the line. Thanks a lot, and I'll see you tomorrow for Paul Johnson.