The Future of Tech Regulation

Hello and welcome to Not Another One, the podcast with me Steve Richards, Miranda Green, Ian Martin and Tim Montgomery. And on this hot baking day where we are recording, we're going to have our Uh another of our tapas additions, a pot pore to continue with the images of different scenes. Uh which you can enjoy whilst lying on a beach or whatever while we're working away at temperatures of thirty two degrees. Do any of you like this heat? No. I I quite like it actually. I mean I don't I mean this is too much, but I do way prefer being hot to being cold. Yeah, me too. It seems really lovely in here. Really do. We didn't vote for Brexit. Well it's it's it's better being indoors recording podcasts actually at the moment. Um But um anyway, I hope those of you who are on holiday, uh it's half term in Parliament and with schools, you're having a great time. but of course keeping in touch with things. So what we're going to do, if it's okay with all of you, is explore three themes, two highly political and one policy based. Um and we'll see how far we can get with all three in our time together. We're gonna begin uh in a limited way because none of us know the full situation, uh, with the extraordinary Peter Marrell uh Saka in Scotland, uh, the former chief exec of the SMP pleading guilty to embezzlement. And What is partly fascinating in a dark, partly absurd story is the sort of nature of what was being embezzled from the famous camper van to relatively small domestic Items. Um Ian, uh you've worked in Scotland at the at the the highest level of journalism. D did you know him? Uh well I mean, yes, encountered him uh you know quite a few times. Uh I wouldn't as a as as a unionist, I wouldn't say that I'd um uh had the privilege of getting to know him well. But yes, I did encounter him. He was a remarkable figure, extremely successful. as a as an election an election guru. I mean how I feel about this, I feel conflicted because Alex Massey, uh friend and writer who who who's who who I admire greatly, wrote a terrific column about how on one level how amusing all this is and just how it it it's funny as a political scandal. And I get exactly what um what Alex means. However, the thing that strike that struck me about it is that It's it's just evidence of Scotland and Britain's lucky escape. These were the people who were going to if Scotland had had voted for in for independence, which I think would have been a very bad idea, they were the people who were going to establish a new central bank build a new currency, deal with the vast deficit that would result, establish new armed forces, arrange reentry to the European Union and construct a a foreign policy for an in independent Scotland. And you realise with both of them that you were dealing with fundamentally unserious people of people that are dedicated, very dedicated to one thing, which was getting Scotland out of the United Kingdom. But beyond that I just think evidence of how close Scotland and the rest of us from a unionist perspective came to disaster. I I think we need to be careful about this. I mean, uh you you linked the two of them, but on this, Nicola Sturgeon uh was never uh charged and has issued a statement. uh expressing her shock as well at what was going on within that house which she shared with her then husband. And Alex Massey in that piece that you cited said he could quite see how she didn't know about it. Uh so um yes they were connected with a joint political project. Well they were connected as in they were married and living in the world. Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. But she did Ab absolutely and she has she's issued um a series of statements, but there are you know all all sorts of people and all uh in Scotland asking asking questions about it. I mean let's let's see, but the reality is that the the pair of them were engaged in a in a in a in a joint political project to break apart the United United Kingdom. And I'm just saying it is you know, we' we're very we're very lucky that it didn't uh that that that it didn't work. Except Miranda. Uh the SNP are in power again with that one distinctive proposition of independence. Um and it was always bigger. Uh she was a hugely important figure, and in my view a serious, actually. Um Uh but it was always bigger uh than her, the uh independents uh argument. And of course it's it is still going on, isn't it? You don't you know, the SNP will be have been in power in that Edinburgh Parliament for a quarter of a century by the end of this parliament. Nearly a quarter of a century. Yeah. So I mean look look, I'm I mean I'm I'm not a Scotland, I'm no expert on the ebbing and flowing of support for independence. But what you can say is that regions of the world where there is a strong secessionist movement. like Scotland, like Catalonia, uh and elsewhere. The the nationalist party Brilliantly because you've always got topic that you can divert everyone's attention onto. So I I have good friends who live in uh in Barcelona actually and uh when when I was covering twenty fourteen and the in D Ref up there for Newsweek magazine that I was working for at the time actually, it was it was an amazing story and it there was a feeling of sort of excitement and participation. even though uh you know you might not of of of of like the potential outcome as a as a unionist. There was certainly something going on in terms of young people feeling energized by politics and all the rest of it. But I remember my friend saying to me, honestly, Things don't get done in government. 'cause the the nationalist party can always fall back on the sort of bedrock of support to do with uh the movement. And the and the you know, the quest. And I think that's also a lot of what's happened in in Scotland since two thousand and seven when the SNP were first in in government and it's been continuous ever since, because the record, even on kind of core policy priorities that they have set themselves as a test. It hasn't. gone well. And um I think I think it's interesting in the way you phrased it, saying that, you know, we all had a lucky escape. Uh but I'm not sure. I feel I feel that I feel that the f the political conversation i in and around Scotland in the UK is is is still sort of captive to this in in a way. And you know, there were jokes at the time in twenty fourteen looking at Quebec and saying, Oh well they ended up with a neverendum i you keep having to go back over the same ground even though it's been advertised as a kind of once in a generation opportunity at the referendum. And I s I th I think we've been stuck in that loop even though there hasn't been another referendum. Do you know what I mean? So I don't know if it has been a lucky escape, actually. And well I and I wonder w whether those who vote SNP would feel sort of patronized in it being described in those terms because you c you when you leave Westminster and Tim this reflects reform's appeal at the moment in a very different way. When you leave Westminster, you become clear that Westminster uh looks like a pretty odd alienating place for many. And it could be the right wing consensus, as Andy Burnham would call it, over the last few decades. It could be the instability, whatever. It could be policies that uh so you know you have uh Plied Cymre. dominant in Wales, the SNP in Scotland. And reform to Tim uh appealing to uh uh a an outsider's kind of alienation with Westminster. And and and it's very different. The SP is a uh broadly left of centre party, reformer on the right, and Ply Cymru are very much a left of centre party. There is something about the alienation of Westminster, which transcends, you know, the Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmon drama had been played out before all these elections. And and they won in Scotland. Yeah. I think it I think you're right to draw some similarity between say reform applies and SNP. I think uh probably I I would lean more on what Miranda said though. I think w when you have a really clear mission, it's like it's like when you know the communists killed many more than the Nazis, because I think if you belie if you think you have a great goal People will always Shrimm and make more Bad decisions because of the ends justify the means, et cetera. And I think people probably sort of at the heart of a project like independent, they so believe in their cause, uh, they put up with potentially more uh error from their politicians. You know, it doesn't really matter what the S and P do in government as a um whether they're competent in bringing down the drugs death or th they're the they're the people for independence. And if you're inside the machine, you know, you don't cut corners in the way that Morrell did. That's you know could clear illegality. But I think there's sort of the psyche that can take over. Whereby you uh you think that you are so important to the future of your country. Almost anything is possible and you have to stay loyal to it. And that's a dangerous place, um, for any part of your project to be in. Ian, how much uh pressure is there on the Scottish media when one party is so dominant? We know it works in the same way at Westminster. The media has to calculate where that they need access, how hard they will be on scrutinising a party that seems to be dominant at any given time. Uh it in your view and let's you know you've made absolutely clear you're no fan of the SNP anyway. Have they been particularly tough? Could more have been written about them uh Peter Marrell's story uh in advance with all the legal constraints or or or or was part of the fact that he got away with it for a long, long time. the dominance of the S P over the media, even though it has to be said that that the media isn't sort of completely in the stranglehold of the SNP at the moment. They've got some papers who have produced it, but um is it worse in Scotland than Westminster when one party dominates for so long? Well, firstly I mean I don't want to be too uh un unduly critical of uh of of Scottish media and it sounds like I'm saying goodness things were things were better twenty five years ago uh the time when I worked there. But the reality is is that is that independent media was was stronger because n you know newspapers like the Scotsman that I edited or the the Herald, these sort of papers had by the standards of today very very large um uh circulations and reach and with that economic power comes um independence of mind. It's just a it's just sort of reality of a h of a healthy pluralistic democracy and uh media landscape. And as as the papers have been diminished. I mean their you know the their circulations are just a fraction of what they were then that just means fewer journalists imp um employed. But I uh which means fewer people s scrutinizing those in power. But I don't w wish to this the the journalists who are there who in you know in tough circ in a very tough market there are some brilliant packs in Scotland and actually a lot of people being very robust in the last in the last you know ten years on Sturgeon and the SNP. slightly different elements of broadcast media and certain amounts of timidity, but that's a that's a different question. But I think the reality is it doesn't ultimately that mainstream media critique of the SNP doesn't really make any difference because we've moved into a different kind of media environment where if you are part of and we talked about it a a few weeks ago in this podcast, if you're part of the m of the movement or you feel yourself associated with the movement, then you discount pretty much everything that comes from the mainstream media. other than the the few commentators that you hear that support your party or your cause. And that's the situation in Scotland. Scotland was actually a a a real trailblazer for this before the uh before the Brexit wars in Britain. You could feel that happening in sort of two thousand eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, in the run up to the referendum. But people were just That forty five to forty, forty five percent that was then SNP or pro-independence just felt it could discount all that all that other stuff. So I've I've said it, you know, many times before, we've moved from a we've we have moved from It was a I remember a Labour member of the c um member of the Cabinet putting it to me like this after campaigning in Scotland during a referendum, we have moved from a situation where people broadly agree on the facts but then disagree about what to do about a problem or you know, disagree on what the solution will be. to actually just disagreeing on the facts and the fundamentals. And we're now more than ten years into that um process. So Scotland was a real a real trailblazer. I don't know how you work back how you get back from that in politics. I'm not sure you can I just say I really do agree with that, Ian, and I think I think sort of experiencing as somebody sort just who's only sort of immersed in it um professionally, that that sort of twenty thirteen into the twenty fourteen referendum was when it felt as if politics sort of went truly mad and it and when the sort of social media online partisanship. seem to start to either reflect or have some sort of feedback loop with what was happening on the streets in this dramatic way. And then the partisanship about around Brexit, when we had these kind of schisms which we haven't fully got out of, and I think that there's a lot to a lot to what you say, actually. Referendums are extremely dangerous devices and um Uh the problem is though to resolve these profound questions, what other devices available? Maybe I mean you cut I d I don't know what they are. And uh uh which brings me to the final question in this part. I I I do think there was something in Scotland before even the SNP though. I I d uh remember after um I took in Duncan Smith to Easterhouse. Um we were uh esc escorted round that estate by local people in receipt of government money, uh, et cetera, et cetera. And they've only told us afterwards the enormous pressure they came under. I think then from what was the labour controls Um Glasgow authorities. But if they did not discern what the nice things that they had said about Ian and his visit, you know, they wouldn't get another penny. Uh from the And there was a lot of that. one party had run uh the area for a for a long time. And I don't know it's unfair to Scotland to say there's something particularly strong in in Scotland, um yeah, but Labour Labour did go Labour were rotten by the time the SNP took over. But I wonder if the S P inherited some of their band And the great um al already quoted Alex Massey, well his his father, the brilliant novelist Alan Massey, sadly uh no longer with us, great man. I've quoted him before. He's always used to say he had this great um riff about this about where this was really coming from in Scotland's in in in Scotland's case. It's a it is about globalisation and identity. As everything becomes more globalised and homogenous, whether it's the high street, newspapers, media, consumer choices, the car industry, you name it, then people look They look for things which say which which which give them meaning and affirm look, I am here, I'm distinct, we matter. Um we're not we're not just a you know another cog in the wheel of of it of of globalization. And three specific things in Scotland's in in Scotland's case, which you you can only really I mean, looking back with a sort of long you know, the long view of history, these things combin combined, I think, explain it, which is Scottish industrial might and it's and it and its weakening or you know, disappearance in that period, sixties, seventies, eighties. Welfare state, a perception in Scotland that the welfare state, which is the academic James Mitchell as you say that is that that explains that Scotland's commitment post war to staying in the Union was that the welfare state and the the sort of collective approach were strong. And then once Thatcher's perceived to weaken it, then that kicks away something that supports the Union. And then defence and the Cold War. This p this perception because it was reality that Scotland played a p uh an outsized role in the defence of the UK. Yeah. The role it had played as a r you know, recruiting sergeant and being brilliant at uh military and also making stuff. And then the Cold War takes away quite a lot of that. So I th I think it is it's it's a it's a story that in in general is about globalisation. It will be interesting to see whether there is any serious um campaign uh conducted by whoever becomes first minister in the coming months and years to have another referendum on independence quite soon. And by serious I mean w with the absolute determination for it to be held. I can't see any Prime Minister conceding it, given all the other instabilities around. But in a way could be a hung parliament scenario where you could see the SNP holding the balance of power. Yep. After a general election all all bets are off. I mean not for a general election referendums could be back on on all sorts of different fronts. reform to uh uh independent uh for Scotland and and and so on. Uh but um in the meantime, uh that's a neat link actually to our next theme. You can guess what it is. We're gonna have uh look at the by election. You know the one? I think there's one being played out in me. Um which uh is gonna change a lot, whatever the outcome. So we'll take a short break. And the reason that's a link, by the way, is that Andy Burnham is a supporter of electoral reform. And he says if it were to happen, it wouldn't be if he became Prime Minister now, but it could be a proposition, a general election, with all kinds of consequences. But anyway, let's take a break and then we'll go to the by-election. Uh so back to the by-election in Makerfield. And uh the first poll of the by-election, and these are often unreliable by-election polls, suggests Andy Burnham is ahead, but it's very close. Um have any of you been to the constituency yet? I have been to the constituency, but not during this little little uh you know, local excitement. So I do know it a bit, but haven't been you know. It'll be nice to go. I'd love to go. Excitement understates it a bit, Miranda. Well it was it was supposed to be for comic effects, Steve, but you didn't know. Oh right, sorry. Too hot for laughs. Um but uh Well I'm I'm due I'm due to go up on Thursday, but I'm such a wimp. If it stays this hot, I think I might delay until next week. So if um if uh if the reform is depending upon my energy to win this by election, Burnham should already be um in Parliament. So I tell you what, it's not in the constituency, it's in in this particular constituency, but I can recommend There is a very good weather spoons in Wigan. on the high street that does of mean fish and chips. And it's called the moon it's called the moon underwater, as in the George Orwell sort of ideal of the British pub. So uh anyone who's campaigning and indeed you if you go up, Tim, I recommend that that that uh thank you very much. I didn't know you were a good connoisseur of spoons around. Well I like I like w I like I like Wigan a lot when I visited not that long ago and think there is a c a glamour actually about um About the north west and the red brick. Uh Victorian architecture and all the rest of it. So Well let's well let's return to the by election if that's okay. Um and try and sort of reflect on uh things that have happened there already. I think what is unfair is some of the comments about uh Andy Burnham um who is well known to regard I know Ian and Tim find this unacceptable uh Brexit as a disaster and has said it many times and that has said as has Wes Streeting though he's never been time specific that at some point Britain would go back in and should. And the fact that he's not making this the main focal point of his by-election campaign in a constituency that voted for Brexit has triggered in some quarters quite a lot of criticism, oh he's flaky and all the rest of it. And it just seems to me that sometimes in politics, uh people have very limited room to move. And that would not be the way Burnham would fight a campaign to win this particular by-election. And it seems to me just preposterous for people to sort of judge him on the basis of a pitch to win a by-election. Now his problem is, of course it's not an ideal by-election to then go on and win a Labour leadership contest if that's what he plans to do, because his pitch then will have to be very different. But that's the only route available to him. And I think we should be careful about making sweeping judgments about this means he will be a Prime Minister who U-turns left, right, and centre. Based on this unique, weird high stakes Who's uh uh Miranda. Well, so I mean I I agree with you on the Brexit point, okay, wholeheartedly. Because actually I think you know, we had this out a bit on our uh on on our sort of mini tapas row last week. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that Britain should be back in Europe in the long term. And that it there are sensible ways to do that over the long term withouting the the country back into, you know, the sort of divisive partisanship that we've just been discussing. So I actually think that that's entirely understandable and some of those kind of he's flipped, he's flopped. headlines were a bit silly. But I don't think that this judgment on Andy Burnham's kind of political character is based on that one one point, though, is it, Steve? That's the problem. Is that people who n have watched him closely as he's operated as mayor of Greater Manchester City Region, say that he doesn't like being disliked. He does like to, you know, kind of try and woo everybody all at the same time. He likes to be a unifier, which is actually something interesting that these uh, you know, directly elected mayors have found works for them and that's good for the g you know it's good for the region. It's been a good development in our politics in my view. But it's not the same when you're then trying to woo um you know in a in a bu in a by election and then go on to to to to woo a selector of your own party, you know, where you have to sort of take some positions. But hold on around. Because uh this is partly basis analysis, so he wants to be liked by everyone, he's not ruthless enough to be Prime. There was a piece written by uh uh I think Josh Herman of The Mill. Uh which was retweeted by virtually every member of the Westminster lobby as this work of great insight. And in some ways it is, because it provides context about the Well I ha I haven't read that piece though, Steve, so if you're accusing me of just regurgitating somebody else's views, I actually have people that I speak to as well. No but um it honestly I I've written I've done a whole podcast analysing that piece and that its response. My answer to it, if it's just if it's you forming that view um separately from uh this this very fashionable celebration of this article. Um is It doesn't add up. Look at what he's doing now. If he was this sort of mealy mouth, uh oh I'll try and please everyone, he is taking on a route to remove a prime minister. There is nothing more decisive and ruthless than that. It may well fail. But I don't think uh I think we lapse too easily into stereotypes and caricatures that are are at odds with what is actually happening. But but hang on hang on, he's doing that off the back of enormous popularity, which is gives you a warm feeling, right? So if you're Andy Burnham Hey, everybody loves me, why don't I do it? And as we all know from the life that we've spent around politicians, every senior politician has people around them saying, It's your t it's your time, boss. It's your time, boss. You should go for it, right? So on a human level I don't think you can say that him deciding to put himself forward now, when everyone seems to love him, is is a sign of ruthlessness. It's it's a sign of responding to an an awful lot of broadbase support. Some of which a lot of people in Manchester would say He has one by Not making enemies. Yeah, I'm not going to be my point is just that he's gonna have to make some enemies. The two things can apply, can't they? And when he goes into Westminster, there will be enemies who think that what he's done is a narcissistic act of self-indulgence. Um and so you can both be ruthless and his dealing with Keir Starmer is a an act of brutal ruthlessness, I say it might fail or not, but the intention is ruthless. Um whilst trying to be a popular figure because you're accountable to an electorate. Um you know, I I just think these things are more uh layered. Tim, in terms of um reform, I mean I I've read these sort of social media things that have been deleted from this uh candidate, and I noticed Michael Crick, who follows the selection of all candidates in these constituencies, um saying he should never have got near the candidacy. Um you know, uh you've said before that reform are gonna take great care over who's selected as candidates. In these high profile by elections, that doesn't seem to have been the case. Well yes y yes and no. Um up until the um stuff about um Carl Valdemann came out, I thought pretty much everything he said was pretty defensible. I found the remarks about Carl Voldeman um Certainly beyond the pell, whether they're disqualifying, I I don't know. Um I don't know. Perhaps they should matter. I don't think they will matter a huge deal. I think people are generally of the view now that um Politicians say lots of stupid things. And you know if you went through the sort of Labour MPs who've said stuff on transgender or w w whatever, and you'd probably find most people more offended by those views that may be acceptable in the Westminster village. Than the sort of things that and reform candidates um say. And I I just want to come back a little bit, if I may, briefly on on what you and Miranda were discussing about. And I think the most interesting thing that's happened so far is that um if Andy Burnham wins this by election, I think he probably will. And it will be because he understands what is possible when you are facing a reform uh mar marginal reform constituency. He's neutralised a number of issues, including trans and Brexit. And even if he wins the by election, he will still represent a marginal seat. And so you will have a Labour prime minute I I don't think it is about, you know, his his shifting his positions. It's the fact that he has made a few decisions about how you have to deal with reform He hasn't gone on and on like uh Kir Starmer's done that reformers are racist and stupid and all the all the rest of it. He's gone for his own agenda and he's tried to neutralize a few issues. And I think it would be profoundly interesting if he does win. Lab Labour won't be led any more by someone who represents a North London seat. Be representing someone that has to not not just make these few tactical changes during a by election to win it. He'll be conscious he needs to maintain them or he will lose his seat at the next general election under accusations of betrayal. And he will have Be mindful all the time a Labour Prime Minister with a marginal seat will not be able to ignore the reform um m mindset of his local voters. And um that I think is the big conclusion you draw from this election by election so far. Not that he's a shapeshifter or or whatever else some people might accuse him of. So that that's really interesting, but you not also think that harks back to the conversation we were having, Steve, earlier on, about a kind of anti Westminster sense sentiment. Because Burnham is very strong on that, right? Hav having been, ironically, having been, you know, a special advisor, uh, an aide to all sorts of senior labour politicians, and then his w working his own way up as an MP, uh, you know, and a successful cabinet minister before he went to Manchester as m as mayor. But actually he his his shtick, his rhetoric is very anti Westminster as well. Uh, you know, is comparable almost to that uh you know, SNP and reform stance. So that's quite interesting, isn't it, Tim? That presumably goes down very well in Make a Fill because it's like he's our guy and he's against them down there, which is, you know No, I haven't thought of that as an extra ingredient of what I was saying, but you're completely right. So yeah, he's doing the policy neutralisation. He's doing the outsider thing. And he's not doing your stupid, your racist, you're you know, et cetera, et cetera. Which seems to be the um the most of the left to try to use against reform or Trump or whatever. And it it just doesn't work. And I think Burnham is astute enough. He may think it I don't know. He may think it, but he realises it's not gonna be a tactic that works. And that's why I think he is a formidable opponent for um reform and um uh if we defeat him it's you trust If we don't defeat him it's huge for the Labour Party. It really is a by election of enormous consequence. It it is a I I I think it is the most significant by election. Um well I've I I said it in one program since it's forty five, I think well, well beyond. Uh, Ian, what's interesting also in uh since early days in the spy election. Um is that in terms of the battle on the right. The only issue for reform seems to be whether Ruper Lowe's party position to the right of Farage's reform party. to some extent, anyway, eats into the reform vote, and meanwhile the Conservatives are nowhere to be seen. Uh they barely register in the poll for this uh by election. And I wonder again whether we're seeing a further fracturing on the right with uh I'm I'm I'm amazed to be honest. I thought that Far uh Farage would sweep up the voter. Maybe that will happen when we get the result. But this breakaway low party um appears to be picking up a significant section of support. I wouldn't want to exaggerate it, but it's enough per cent, perhaps, to split the right vote. Seven, I think, on that poll. So this is only if Andy Burnham wins by three. Yeah. Yeah, he's uh yeah. There's there's definitely something happening with this restore uh phenom you know, phenomenon. I mean d Tim and I are on another group where this was being you know, we're on a uh you know, WhatsApp group where this is being discussed and some people were expressing scepticism about it, but it is from what I hear and just what I observe, it it seems to be real. And it does and there there is there's a it w might be difficult for some listeners who um who don't like reform to to uh understand or get their heads around, but there there are there are port there's a portion of that vote which which sees Farage in in in sides with Lowe and sees Farage as um you know alm almost as someone who's uh you know who's who's too soft and who you know potentially betrays the cause. Now whether that that part of the vote is two percent nationally or more like five or six or seven or maybe even ten. But if you look at someone like Great Yarmouth, where the low affiliated um candidates, those affiliated to restore um to rest the restore Britain movement stood, then at one won every seat. So there is there is there's definitely something happening and it could be it could or could not be significant in the by election. As you said, Steve, the Tories are absolutely nowhere uh in this contest. It's not the only by election that is coming, though. There is a really interesting contest in Scotland in Aberdeen South where the the the Tories are actually in contention and the issue is the death of the North Sea um of the n north you know North Sea industry and demands for a change in energy policy. So that that that by election is actually competitive. On the Burnham point, I mean I just uh really interesting discussion between you and Miranda. I mean I I uh I sat beside with Miranda on this I also just don't like the um from Burnham's supporters. And I've you know, I'm on record as admiring aspects of his campaign, the way in which he's communicating with the media um with the media, the way in which he challenges people politely on X when they disagree with him or, you know, set about him, I think is is makes him a makes him a really interesting candidate. But he's not he's not doing us a favour here, right? He is standing because he wants to make himself Prime Minister, which is a plum job which can which brings with it a huge amount of power over his fellow citizens. So it it's that so this is more than just a normal by election. It's obvious then that he's going to be examined by people asking, What does what's he really about? What does he really believe? So that's what's what's at stake for me on the European question is that not is I I I completely understand Not an idiot. I understand why he'd he'd rather not talk about it. 'Cause he's trying to win a by election and a seat that voted leave and he's worried if it comes up too much then he might lose. I get what's in it for him. But for the rest of us, we surely have to have some sense of where this guy's centre is. And that that's what I'm I I mean I said it last week. I I think there is a there's a difference between a Prime Minister who accepts Brexit and negotiates with the European Union and there's a lot of y negotiations to come up in the next couple of years. not least on defense, between someone who says I want to rejoin as fast as possible, but it's just not quite possible yet. You negotiate in a different way from someone saying no, I accept it and we're not we're not rejoining which was the Labour position when it won a landslide only two uh only two years ago. So to me it's about It is about him getting a you know a well deserved uh you know bounce of scrutiny because he's not just doesn't just want to be the MP for um Bakerfield, he wants to be Prime Minister, so he should be tested. Steve, do you think if he wins Bakersfield he'll be cor there'll be a coronation? Well that is um a a a key uh question which no one, to be honest, knows the answer to. I think it will be um you know people said before the local elections, we won't know the response of Labour MPs until it happens, because only when it happens do you get a real sense of the level of crisis. And of course when it happened, all hell broke loose uh within days. And I think it partly depends on the mood. U afterwards. If there is this sense of I mean it could go in all sorts of different ways. So, you know, he could win by a smaller majority than the MP Josh Simons who left God. Is that a triumph? Um or or is it has it all been a waste of time? Um but if it if there is a sense that here is a figure who can take on reform. And there is a sense that any contest would be an absolute slaughter for anyone to contend in. I can see a scenario where people come together and say, Let's all rally round uh Andy Burnham. Um but there are situations where the mood will be could be more ambiguous than that on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday it'll be a huge weekend in politics, I think. um uh and and the following week it could be that Keir Starmer says right, enough of this, you know, I'm still um and where Streeting speaks of a contest at the moment, although it's been reported that the two of them might do a deal of some sort. So I think it go it it it will really depend on the mood on the fr that that Friday amongst uh Labour MPs um as to what happens uh next. Um but I think Yeah but does it does it seem plausible to you, Steve Of the of the other con potential contenders, so um uh that's Reyner m um Rayner, Millerband, Streeting, um can they they can reconcile themselves to serving under Burnham, do you think? Yes. All of them. Um but of those, um if Burnham's in the comments, uh Reyner and Miliband will I assume endorse him. Uh and we know that uh Ed Miliband has been in dialogue with him for quite some time. Um uh the issue is should do chancellor, apparently. Uh well could well be the chancellor. Uh whether we're streeting contests is is uh a big call for him. Um and uh as say when he does interviews at the moment he speaks of a contest coming up. Uh, it's such an odd situation 'cause Keir Starmer is governing as if, you know, he's gonna carry on. And we're streeting speaking of a contest but is not yet a candidate. And we've got a by election. I mean it is it is nothing quite like it. But you know what, we've got to move on to um uh our kind of policy discussion. Uh we're giving you a lot. I hope you're ha listening to this on a beach or something 'cause we're going through a lot. But let's take a short break and we'll come back. Okay, welcome to the final part of this week's edition of uh Not Another One. There is a huge debate, and Keir Starm has intervened again on it this week, about social media and access uh for teenagers, people under uh sixteen. And it looks, does it not, Tim, as if we might be moving to a situation where um access to certain forms of social media for people under sixteen are blocked. Yeah. I don't have children. Uh I'm a sort of a of a generation where most of the conversation with my peers is about looking after older people. But Even even for me, in a different The number of times um that people talk about particularly grandparents talk about what their children or grandchildren are uh experiencing um what they know through their phones, etc. is is is is huge. And it is of course discussed in the political arena. But it it just seems to be me to be one of those issues where Politicians aren't talking about. on about this issue on the scale that the public would want them to. And uh Australia's obviously banned um social media for under sixteen. There's not a great deal of evidence that it's working particularly well mechanically. Um but They did something and I think the the the the political party that comes to own this issue The have to do it intelligently. Um the online safety bill turned out not to be a great piece of legislation. It's it's not gonna be easy. And doing something bad is probably worse than doing nothing at all. But I do sense and the fact that Keir Starmer's raised it in this period of the Prime Minister of Premiership when he's looking to s seem relevant Perhaps even keep his job. I think that's significant. Um this is an electric issue with the public. And I I think the libertarian element within my own party reform is very much out of uh touch with the public on this. The public want something done. And um P the the candidate that gets this right, it's political gold for them. But I d I don't think anyone yet has got the answer. I mean I th I think Miranda And I suspect you will disagree with this, that banning things can be a form of liberation. And I think for kids to be liberated from these phones and from all the pressures of social media while they grow up would be a form of freedom. Uh, but you have to do the ban first. Now, as Tim says, how you do it is is stuff full of uh problems. But it seems that this is where the mood of the debate is i is moving. Um I I read someone comparing today, it's the equivalent of smoking. in the past. It's as damaging as that. Um and I can quite see why. Yeah, I don't know why you think I would not not not not agree. 'Cause I have two teenage girls, so Paul liberal who would be wary of the state. Intervening perhaps in these situations. So I'm not trying to no I think no I th I think that I think that the overweening influence and power of big tech in all our lives big issue. Um and I think it's the big sort of social policy health of the nation issue uh over overall. Um this is one important part of it because you know children are more vulnerable and we take more steps to protect them because they're children. So I'm completely fine with this idea. It does of course need to work as your question, um you know, s suggests. And I'm not sure that as you say that the Australian example, uh, Tim has has quite sort of proven its worth yet. So we need to work out what what to do that actually works. But I think it's outrageous, personally. I think it's outrageous that these hugely profitable uh businesses, all based in America and not living with the consequences of uh of their commercial activities, are able to define themselves as platforms and therefore not be responsible for anything that is published. on their on their website, on their sites, right? So I think the the sort of international legal efforts to get them to find as publishers and make them responsible, that whole side of things is incredibly important. And I think individual governments deciding to move with their population and draw some draw some lines of what is and isn't acceptable is also incredibly important. So I mean I'm all for it. It's it's just a question of w of it is just a question of what works, I think. And and it's not the only sort of area of uh the online world where it's a kind of appalling wild west, right? 'Cause there's also a whole bunch of illegal activity online. that we don't tolerate offline that we need to look at. And uh I think it's I think it's absolutely high time. I think it's high time. I think the idea that um you know that that that it should should necessarily be untrammeled because it's in the digital space, not in the physical space, is completely mad. Not least 'cause the whole generation is uh is growing up in the digital space. So so yeah, I'm I'm all for it. And also on that point about freedoms, you know, fundamentally to a liberal, you have to have constraints because otherwise some people are not free, right? So you know, some people's freedoms have to be constrained so that other people can live freely. So otherwise it is libertarianism, which is a completely different world view. Yeah, I I I think conservatives some some way to learn the wrong lessons from the nineteen eighties as well. In the sense that the big problem in the nineteen seventies was an overpowerful state. that Thatcher government rightly needed to bring that under control. But that didn't mean that conservatism's what conservatism was always against the state. If the market had been too powerful, conservatives should be worried about that. If if if the tech companies are too powerful, you worry about whoever sort of is in a society that has too much power, untramels, is the word Moran used. We should be standing up against that. That that that's the key thing. You don't want any sphere in society. Any group to be overpowerful. And if you have a group that is overpowered, the tech giants clear, you stand up against them. There's nothing alien to any of the great traditions of any of the parties to do that, I don't think. It is interesting, Ian, isn't there, that you you sense, I mean you can hear it in this discussion w with us, there is a consensus uh uh around this, and there is to some extent a political cons uh party political consensus around this. But do you sense it will be for very different reasons, like social care, that all the parties agree there should be a the social care system, they've put it in manifestos, etc, and it never happens. Or with this, do you think that such will be in a way the the pressure from below? I remember Tony Blair talking about the smoking ban, and he said to me once, uh revealing Blair phrase, the voters gave us permission to introduce the smoking ban. Do you do do you sense that the the the mood amongst parents and the wider electorate is such, that this is going to happen in some form? Yes. I think this is the the coming wave in politics globally. And uh th think the reason it will happen or it w w or there'll certainly be demands for it, is because of what's about to happen in in US politics as you run into the twenty twenty eight election. It's clear that the Democrats are going to with one caveat, because remember big tech will will also start to will donate as much money as possible to um to the Democrats to try and soften the blow, but that th this will this will be how the Democrats campaign. They'll essentially they'll go after they'll go after um big tech and it'll be a sort of center centrepiece of where they head to in terms of in terms of twenty twenty eight. So it's the coming wave. It reminds me of what happened in the progressive era. which of course that comes after American rapid industrialization, enormous um enormous change, you know m uh switch away from an agricultural economy to the world's leading emerging as the world's leading industrial and financial power. and you get all of this social social change produced by this um American version of the industrial revolution and it leads to political uh this great uh s turmoil and it results in the emergence of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt. Now Teddy Roosevelt who was a a a political communications genius and a genius administrator and a and a warrior. So if there is a politician like that out there, out of these massive changes, it produces big s social shifts and uh if a if a l if a leader can encapsulate all of that or articulate it all, then there's a great political prize. I mean for someone I did hear where Streeting Speaking really uh coherently about this on um on the radio this morning and you'd have thought that if he's serving in a Burnham government or if for s some unforeseen reason he wins that it that's how he will try to posit try to position himself. So yes, I think it's coming. I mean social care They're too scared to raise the money, and that's why it hasn't happened. But on this there are less uh spending implications. There's a downside. There is one downside. There's a c yeah, there's an opportunity cost, isn't there, for falling out with tech companies. Yes. But there's also a potential cost. I was offered uh an event over the weekend where there were quite a lot of um tech people on various panels and having conversations with them and They see it obviously they see it as being not just about the social media thing. They say that if you if you get a chilling effect on tech investment They see it as ultimately there being this this being about a a peer competition with China, race for race for technological superiority to win the race on AI, robotics, sensors, all the stuff that's gonna decide who wins the rest of the twenty first century. In their their view and it's not an outlandish view that it w that it won't just stop with a ban on um social media for under sixteens, that you'll ha have much wider regulation which will inhibit in innovation and give China an advantage. I think the jury's out on that. I I I I have some sympathy with that with that kind of view long term, but it all just illustrates that this is gonna be one of the big battles and discussions and debates of the next decade. I should say it, by the way, just to s slightly break uh we're all agree but to think that something should be done. But my instinct is we have been so bad at regulating well for such a long time. I suspect that whatever will be done will probably be a rush. Will be ineffective and the worry will be that it will strime me something m more productive that might have come from more thoughtfulness. So Um there is a great danger when you have a political consensus and a political rush. It doesn't always lead to the outcome that we all want, but will politicians pause and get it right. various other things actually. And he said there are some really fundamental things about the British public and They love nature and they love banning things. So you know, to your point about the British public has allowed us to act on this issue. Um, I I'm a great banner. Uh so I'm really pleased uh to hear that I'm at one with public opinion. I I thought I didn't think I would be. Um you're a vegetarian, so banning uh things that hurt animals. You really are in touch, Steve. Uh uh Yeah, but on that uh it's entirely up to everybody what they do in my God, we're we're leaping all over the place. Um I think we should stop before we um have a debate about vegetarianism. Um uh in the heat. So look, uh all of you who are on holiday have a great time, those working, uh like us and many others. Uh let's see if we can enjoy some of this sunshine, 'cause it won't last forever. And yeah, politics is in an extraordinary place at the moment. Really extraordinary, I think, the more I think about it. Uh so uh we'll see you again soon. Bai. Bai. Bye.