Regulating Social Media for Teenagers

Today there's some excited postcode lottery winners waiting to find out how much they've won . Would you like to find out how much you've won? Absolutely. Okay, well you hold that . In Postcodeter Loty's June draws, you could win a share of £20.8 million . So sign up before midnight on the 31st of May. Is your door in the drawer? Postcode Lottery Manage Lotteries on behalf of Good Causes, 18 Plus Conditions Apply. Play responsibly not available in Northern Ireland. Chase is the digital bank that gives your savings a boost anytime, anywhere. Even when I'm busy at work. You bet. You could earn 4.5% AER variable, including a two point two five percent AER fixed boost for twelve months. Right now with Chase, you could be boosting your way to a home extension. Exactly. Search Chase Boosted Saver. 18 plus UK residents available to new Chase Current Account Customers for their first 31 days, 4.41% gross, interest pay monthly eligibility and terms apply. 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 editions, a pot poi 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 32 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, meeting it. Is it hot? I mean in an air an air conditioned travel object seems to really lovely in here, so I didn't realize it was hard . I really do. We didn't vote for Brexit to get European weather is what I said. 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 going to begin in a limited way because none of us know the full situation with the extraordinary Peter Murrell uh saga in Scotland, uh the former chief exec of the SNP 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. Ian, you've worked in Scotland at at the the highest level of journalism. Did did you know him ? Uh well d uh 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's funny as a political scandal and I get exactly what um what Alex means. However, the thing that struck that struck me about it is that it's sort of 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 re entry to the European Union and construct a a foreign policy for an independent Scotland. And you realise with both of them that you were dealing with fundamentally unserious people of people who 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, Nicolas Sturgeon uh was never charged and has issued a statement 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. So um yes they were connected with a joint political project. Well they were connected as in they were married and living in the Yeah, yeah, no absolutely. But she's 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 you know in a in a joint political project to break apart the United United Kingdom 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 figure actually. Um but it was always bigger uh than her, the uh independence uh argument. And of course it's it is still going on, isn't it? You don't Yeah , 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 uh 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 does brilliantly because you've always got a topic that you can divert everyone's attention on to. So I I have good friends who live in uh in Barcelona actually and uh when when I was covering twenty fourteen and the Indy 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 have liked 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 because 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 2007 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 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.e. you keep having to go back over the same ground, even though it's been advertised as a kind of once-in-the generation opportunity at the referendum. And I I s 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 I wonder 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 Plyde Cymru, dominant in Wales, the SNP in Scotland , and Reform two Tim uh appealing to uh uh an outsiders kind of alienation with Westminster and and and it's very different. The SNPE is a uh broadly left of centre party reformer on the right, and Plycymra are very much a left of centre party. But there is something about the alienation of Westminster which transcends, you know, the Nicholas Sturgeon Alex Salmon drama had been played out before all these elections and and they won in Scotland. Yeah. to draw some similarity between say reform applied and SNP. I I think uh probably 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're the communist s killed many more than the Nazis because I think if you belie if you think you have a great goal, people will always trim and make more bad decisions because of the ends justify the means, etc. And I think people probably sort of at the heart of a project like independence, 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 SNP do in government as a uh whether they're competent in bringing down the drugs deaths, etc. They're the people for independence. And if you're inside the machine, you know, you don't cut corners in the way that Morel did. That's you know clear illegality. But I think there's sort of this 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. 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 uh they need access, how hard they will be on scrutinis ing a party that seems to be dominant at any given time. Uh i in your view and uh l 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 the m uh Peter Marrell's story uh in advance with all the legal constraints or or or was part of the fact that he got away with it for a long, long time . The dominance of the SNP 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 the effect, 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 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 at the time when I worked there. But the reality is is that is that independent media was was stronger because 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 you know um, 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 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 emp employed, but I uh which means fewer people s scrutinizing those in power. But I don't w wish to diss the the journalists who are there who in you know in tough circ in a very tough market there are some brilliant hacks 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 amount 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 f 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 and the run up to the referendum. That people were just that thirty 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 w I've I've said it you know many times before, we've moved from a we'd we have moved from and it was a a member a Labour member of the c member of the cabinet putting it to me like this after campaigning in Scotland during the 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 not sure you can. Can I just say I really do agree with that Ian and I think I think, sort of experiencing it, as somebody sort of 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 seemed 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 part isanship 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. Yeah, I my view is 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 I d I don't know what they are. And uh the uh d we Can I just add one thing? Is that without disagreeing with what Ian has said, I I I do think there was something in Scotland before even the SNP though. I I d uh remember after um I took Ian Duncan Smith to Easterhouse and we were uh escorted round that estate by local people in receipt of government money, uh et cetera, etcetera. And they'd only told us afterwards the enormous pressure they came under. I think then from what was the Labour control led um Glasgow authorities, that if they did not disown 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. Some lots of uh parts of the UK as well, where one party had run uh the area for for a long time. And I don't know whether it's unfair to Scotland to say there was something particularly strong in in Scotland um here. But Labour Labour did go Labour were rotten by the time the SNP took over. But I wonder if the SNP inherited some of their bound m well uh modes of operating. Yeah, I think it's it's really interesting, Tim. I th I I think it is i it's a very particular Scottish version of a much bigger, wider story affecting the the West. So it's c it's really about globali it's about globalis ation. And the great um al already quoted Alex Alan Massey, sadly no longer with us, great man. And I've quoted him before. He's always used to say, 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 homogeneous, 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 Um uh we we're not we're not just a you know another cog in the a north wheel of of it of of of globalisation. And three specific things in Scotland's in in Scotland's case which 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 its and it and its weakening or disappearance in that period, sixties, seventies, eighties . Welfare state, a perception in Scotland that the welfare state, which is the academic James Mitchell, was used to say that is th that explained that Scotland's commitment post war to staying in the Union was that the welfare state and the sort of collective approach were strong. And then once Thatcher's perceived to weaken it then 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 because of the role it had played as a 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. Um but in a way it could be a hung parliament scenario where you could see the SNP holding the balance of power. Yep, after an general election all all bets are off. I mean after after a general election referendums could be back on on all sorts of different fronts, from electoral reform to uh uh independence 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 Make . Um 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 . Airport please mate. Is that an inflatable pineapple? Yep. I'm finally feeling holiday ready after getting my post office travel insurance sorted. It even incl uded medical assistance plus with 24-7 doctor access when you're abroad. Pretty sweet, eh? Now, did I park my snort ? Get holiday ready without the faff. Search post office travel insurance. Ts and C's apply. Medical assistance plus is only valid for trips taken outside of the UK. Chase is the digital bank that gives your savings a boost anytime, anywhere. Even when I'm on a work call. You bet. You could earn four point five percent AER variable, including a two point two five percent AER fixed boost for twelve months. Right now with Chase you could be boosting your way to a home extension. Exactly. Search Chase boosted Saver. 18 plus UK residents available to new Chase current account customers for their first 31 days. 4.41% gross. Interest paid monthly eligibility and terms apply. So back to the by-election in Makerfield. And 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 have any of you been to the constituency yet? So I do know it a bit , but n haven't been you know, it'd 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 know. 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 reformers 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 in in this particular constituency, but I can recommend there is a very good weather spoons in Wig an 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 Oh thank you very much. I didn't know you were a good connoisseur of spoons around. Well I like I like Wi I like I like Wigan a lot when I visited not that long ago and I think there is a c a glamour actually about um about the northwest 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 Street ing, 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. Pe haveople 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 r 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 by election . Who's uh uh Miranda? Well so I mean I gr 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 without plunging 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 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 m 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 good 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 by 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. So I think that judgment because uh this is partly basis analysis, so we wants to be liked by everyone, he's not ruthless enough to be Prime Minister. There was a piece written by uh uh I think Joshy 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 Mr. Well I 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 but um it obviously I I've written I've done a whole podcast analysing that piece and 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 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. Well 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 a sign of responding to an awful lot of broad based support, some of which a lot of people in Manchester would say he has won by not making enem ies. Yeah, but 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 this narcissistic act of self -indulgence. And so you can both be ruthless, and his dealing with Keir Starmer is 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. 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 notice Michael Crick, who follows the selection of all candidates in these constituencies, saying he should never have got near the candidacy. You know, you've said before that reform are going to take great care over who 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 uh stuff about um Carol Voldemort came out, I thought pretty much everything he said was pretty defensible. I found the remarks about Carol Voldeman um certainly beyond the pale. 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 what whatever. And you'd probably find most people were more offended by those views that may be acceptable in the Westminster village than the sort of things that reform candidates say. And I I just want to come back a little bit, if I may, briefly 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, and I think he probably will, um it will be because he understands what is possible when you are facing a reform uh marginal reform constituency. He's neutralized a number of issues, including trans and Brexit. And even if he wins the by-election, he will still represent a And so you will have a Labour prime minister. 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 Kirstarmer that reformers are racist and stupid and 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 will be profoundly interesting if he does win. Labor won't be led anymore 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 seats 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 mindset of his local voters. And that I think is the big conclusion you draw from this election by election so far. Not that he's a shapeshifter 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 it 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 of Hill because it's like he's our guy and he's against them down there, which is you know Yeah I hadn't thought of that as an extra ingredient of what I was saying, but you know 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, you're racist, you're you know, etcetera, etcetera, which seems to be the um the stick of most of the left of trying 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 realizes it's not going to be a tactic that works. And that's why I think he is a formidable opponent for um for reform. And um I s uh you know if we defeat him it's huge for us. 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 I I said it in one programme since forty five I think well, well beyond then. Uh Ian, what's interesting also in since early days in this by election, um, is that in terms of the battle on the right , the only issue for reform seems to be whether Rupert 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. 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. So there's only if Andy Burnham wins by a small margin 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 was 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 it 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 th there are 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 portrays 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 somewhere like Great Yarmouth where where the low affiliated um candidates, those affiliated to restore um to rest the restore Britain movement stood then it won 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 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 I 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 it what's he really about? What does he really believe? So that's what 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 in 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 nego negotiations to come up with the next couple of years, not least on defense, between someone who says, I want to re join 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, bout of scrutiny because he's not just doesn't just wanna be the MP for um Well that is um uh 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 within days. And I think it partly depends on the mood 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 Sym whoonds left got, is that a triumph? Um or is it has it all been a waste of time? 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 the following week it could be that Keir Starmer says, Right, enough of this, you know, I'm still um and West 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 th that Friday and the weekend amongst uh Labour MPs um as to what happens uh next But does it seem possible ? Yeah, but does it does it seem plausible to you, Steve? Of the of the other con potential contenders, so um uh that's Rayner m um Rayner Millerband Streeting. Um can they they can reconcile themselves to serving under Burnham, do you think? Yes. All of them. But of those, um if Burnham's in the commons, uh Rayner 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 you chancellor apparently uh well could well be the Chancellor. Uh whether we're whether we're streeting contests is is uh a big call for him. Um and uh as I 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 been 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 listening to this on a beach or something, because we're going through a lot. But let's take a short break and we'll come back. Today there's some excited postcode lottery winners waiting to find out how much they've won. Would you like to find out how much you've won? Absolutely. Okay, well you hold that. In Postcode Lottery's June draws, you could win a share of £20.8 million . So sign up before midnight on the 31st of May. Is your door in the drawer? Postcode Lottery Managed Lotteries on behalf of Good Cour 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. Ye.ah Well I I I'm a sort of I don't have children. Mm 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 t 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 is is is is huge. And it is of course discussed in the political arena. But it just seems to be me to be one of those issues where um the politicians aren't talking 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 sixteens. There's not a great deal of evidence that it's working particularly well mechanically. But they did something. And I think the the the the political party that comes to own this issue. They 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 going to be easy to do. 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. And 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 wants something done and um the uh the the candidate that gets this right it's political gold for them. I but I d I don't think anyone yet has got the answer. And perhaps there there is a there isn't an answer. I I agree with all of that. I mean I th I think Miranda and I suspect you will disagree with this that banning things can be a form of liber ation. And I think for kids to be liber ated from these phones and from all the pressures of social media while they grow up would be a form of freedom. 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 to me that this is where the mood of the debate is is is moving. Um I I read someone comparing today it's the equivalent of smoking in the past. It's as damaging as that. And I can quite see why. Yeah, I don't know why you think I would not not not not agree. I mean not not least because I have two teenage girls so No, I think no, I th I think that I think that the overweening influence and power of big tech in all our lives is the big big issue. I think it's the big sort of social policy health of the nation issue over overall. And 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 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, are not living with the consequences of uh of their commercial activiti es 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 defined 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 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? Because there's also a whole bunch of illegal activity online that we don't tolerate offline that we need to look at. And 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 untrammelled because it's in the digital space, not in the physical space , is completely mad, not least because a 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 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 uh 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 and that Thatcher government rightly needed to bring that under control. But that didn't me thatan conservat ism was what conservatives was always against the state. If the market had been too powerful, conservatives should have been 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, untrammeled, is the word morand 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, and the tech giants clearly are, 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 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 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 pressure from below? I remember Tony Blair talking about the smoking ban , and he said to me once, revealing Blair phrase, the voters gave us permission to introduce the smoking ban. Do you do you sense that the mood amongst parents and the wider electorate as such that this is going to happen in some form? Yes, I think this is the the coming wave in politics globally and I think the reason it will happen or it w w or this 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 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 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 American version of the Industrial Revolution and it leads to political this great turmoil and it results in the emergence of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt who was a a political communications genius and a genius administrator 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 i that's how he will try to posi try to position himself. So yes, I think it's coming. Yeah, I do. And of course it won't cost much money. I mean social care they're too scared to raise the money and that's why it hasn't happen There's a downside. There is one downside cost, isn't there, for falling out with tech companies. But yes. There's there'cause there's a cost to political parties but there's also a potential cost. I was off at 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 see that if you if you get a chilling effect on tech invest ment, you know they see it as ultimately the being this this being a about 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