Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: We're in a dire state. You can explain how awful
Speaker 2: things are and say we'll do our best, but you
Speaker 2: have to have a degree of charisma to do it,
Speaker 2: and one thing our present prime minister does not have
Speaker 2: is charisma.
Speaker 1: David Dimbleby, who anchored ten general elections on the febrile
Speaker 1: atmosphere in UK politics, would you say to the Labor Party,
Speaker 1: don't change your prime minister.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. I'd say change him. I think you've
Speaker 2: got a dud there. A nice man, and no doubt,
Speaker 2: very intelligent man, but a man so overcautious, seemed public
Speaker 2: with somebody who decides something and then once he gets
Speaker 2: a bit of opposition, turns back.
Speaker 1: From Bloomberg Weekend, this is the Michelle Hussein Show. I'm
Speaker 1: Michelle Hussein. As we go into this episode, I want
Speaker 1: to say that if you're from the UK, then David
Speaker 1: Dimbleby is not going to need an introduction. You'll know him,
Speaker 1: or at least you'd recognize him. He was for decades
Speaker 1: the face of election programs on the BBC, the person
Speaker 1: who said which party had won, who announced on air
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night in June twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: nearly ten years ago that the UK had voted to
Speaker 1: leave the European Union. He has seen prime ministers from
Speaker 1: Thatcher to Blair and many more since come into power
Speaker 1: and then leave it, which is why I thought of
Speaker 1: him in relation to the unrest in the governing Labor
Speaker 1: Party right now, the possibility that Kirstarmer, who won a
Speaker 1: landslide election victory just two years ago, could soon be
Speaker 1: unseated by one of his own I wanted David Dimbleby
Speaker 1: to put that in a wider context to analyze what's
Speaker 1: happening in the UK, to look at its leaders Starmer
Speaker 1: of course, but also Andy Burnham, his most prominent potential challenger,
Speaker 1: and Nigel Farage of the Reform UK Party, who you
Speaker 1: might remember has been on this show. And David Dimblebee
Speaker 1: was also the face of royal coverage on the BBC.
Speaker 1: So this includes his reflections going right back to Diana's
Speaker 1: funeral in nineteen ninety seven and the King and Prince
Speaker 1: William today. So with that, onto the conversation. This is
Speaker 1: what happened when he settled into his chair in the studio.
Speaker 2: H thank you for tempting me and you only got
Speaker 2: me here by grotesque flattery.
Speaker 1: I like to think of it as persuasion, but you're
Speaker 1: someone who's observed beginning, I am think we were already recording.
Speaker 1: How am we going to talk for I think we'll
Speaker 1: talk for forty minutes? Jesus, Yes, okay, it'll go y quickly.
Speaker 1: I promise that's what they say. Yeah, it's just flattery
Speaker 1: to you. You might even enjoy it, you know. No,
Speaker 1: let's we'll revisit that question at the end. So with
Speaker 1: the level of instability that the UK is seeing at
Speaker 1: the moment, this prospect that we might have a seventh
Speaker 1: prime minister in a decade. As an observer of the
Speaker 1: political landscape for so many years, I just want to
Speaker 1: know what you make of that and why you think
Speaker 1: it's happening.
Speaker 2: Well, the churn in prime ministers has really been Tory,
Speaker 2: hasn't it. Cameron May Johnson Trusts for God's sake, And
Speaker 2: then soon I Kuberli had a chance and then there
Speaker 2: was a general election. So it's the Tories who've been
Speaker 2: doing the churning, not Labor. I do remember there was
Speaker 2: a famous thing Harral Wilson always said, which was the
Speaker 2: way to lead the Labor Party when they're in government
Speaker 2: is to keep driving so hard that everybody is clinging
Speaker 2: on for dear life, not to fall off the Labor wagon.
Speaker 2: The moment you sort of show any signs of deferring things,
Speaker 2: changing your mind, then everybody starts fighting for their idea
Speaker 2: of what the Labor Party should be. So you need
Speaker 2: a prime minister who can drive it, and that's the
Speaker 2: key thing. And then that brings back confidence to the
Speaker 2: Labor Party or fear that they'll be kicked out if
Speaker 2: they're not in accord with it.
Speaker 1: But the fact that it is happening now to a
Speaker 1: UK Prime Minister being questioned and more than question from
Speaker 1: within his own party, doesn't that show that there is
Speaker 1: something wider afoot than these two dominant parties, that there's
Speaker 1: something about our political firmament or the appetite of our
Speaker 1: public that seems to engender this.
Speaker 2: Well, there's certainly an electoral system, and I don't want
Speaker 2: to go into constitutional things that absolutely doesn't reflect opinion
Speaker 2: in the country and so a lot of people feel
Speaker 2: that they vote in a general election and it doesn't
Speaker 2: get represented. I mean, if you look at the last
Speaker 2: general election, reform got I think more votes than the
Speaker 2: Liberal Democrats. They've got a tiny number of seats. The
Speaker 2: proportions people get doesn't reflect the balance of opinions. So
Speaker 2: if you go into the voting booth and you vote,
Speaker 2: and millions of people vote, and then you don't get
Speaker 2: any seats in the House of Commons, you feel unrepresented,
Speaker 2: and I think that does cause huge frustration. I mean
Speaker 2: it's crazy to argue for, you know, a change in
Speaker 2: our constitution. I don't think that's going to happen. It's
Speaker 2: a long process, but it's I mean, our constitution is
Speaker 2: very suited to aristocratic government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Speaker 2: I mean the public having views, I mean people below
Speaker 2: a certain freehold value of house having views. No, it
Speaker 2: wasn't contrived for that. It was simply for a simple
Speaker 2: virtually a dichotomy. And even then, during the eighteenth and
Speaker 2: nineteenth centuries, we churned prime ministers. So there's nothing much
Speaker 2: new in the churning that went on with Liz trust.
Speaker 2: I mean, she was obviously a disastrous choice and it
Speaker 2: didn't work out, But it's I think much more important
Speaker 2: is that how do you get And this is where
Speaker 2: reform comes in, And I suspect some of the vote
Speaker 2: for the Greens come in if people don't feel that
Speaker 2: they are getting represented. If you have a swathe of
Speaker 2: people voting reform who've got more votes for instance in
Speaker 2: the last general election the Liberal Democrats but only got
Speaker 2: four seats to the Liberal Democrats forty or fifty whatever
Speaker 2: it was, then people who know, facing issues about their
Speaker 2: income going down and the NHS not serving them all
Speaker 2: and everything feel but I've voted and nothing actually happens.
Speaker 2: And if you take I mean you have to be
Speaker 2: careful with voting it, You have to take sort of
Speaker 2: accumulation of individual votes. I mean, the sophologists always treated
Speaker 2: they're great sways of opinion. But if you go into
Speaker 2: the minds of just a single voter in maker Field,
Speaker 2: for instance, where there's going to be this.
Speaker 1: By election, the one that may bring the likely next
Speaker 1: Prime minister to.
Speaker 2: Parliament, though Reform one of the vote there in the
Speaker 2: local elections in that area, so nobody knows quite what
Speaker 2: will happen. But I mean, if you took that and
Speaker 2: just examined what individual voters thought and then ask them
Speaker 2: whether they felt they were represented, that's why they're voting
Speaker 2: for reform. Because they didn't feel what is that word heard,
Speaker 2: They didn't feel heard. But we're off track on them well,
Speaker 2: on the churning of prime ministers, because I think that's
Speaker 2: much more to do with warfare within political parties.
Speaker 1: Yes, but I remember the time, and I'm sure you
Speaker 1: remember as well. Where you know, in the British political
Speaker 1: established more widely the public, you'd look at the many
Speaker 1: prime ministers somewhere like Italy and you'd feel quite superior
Speaker 1: about it that that was not the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that happened in the UK. Do you think that we
Speaker 1: are heading for a multi party system that will mean
Speaker 1: the only way to govern will be to be in coalitions,
Speaker 1: and that will need a different mindset, certainly on.
Speaker 2: The present form of reform. I mean, if the local
Speaker 2: election results were at a general election, and of course
Speaker 2: you know there are all sorts of caveats you have
Speaker 2: to put in about what would it be exactly the
Speaker 2: same if it had been reformed. Wouldn't have a working
Speaker 2: majority in the House of Commons, so of course there
Speaker 2: would have to be yes. And I mean it's easy,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, it's easier to mock countries like
Speaker 2: Italy where it was all chaotic and now seems to
Speaker 2: be rather stable. I mean, these things come and go.
Speaker 2: We were the sick man of Europe, remember way back.
Speaker 2: I mean in my lifetime, not in yours. We were
Speaker 2: the sick man of Europe because because our growth was low,
Speaker 2: we had winter of discontent, we had strikes everywhere, the
Speaker 2: country ground to a halt, we had a three day week.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've been through before, you know, and we're
Speaker 2: going through it again now. So is your antimist I'm
Speaker 2: not saying it's optimistic.
Speaker 1: If you're saying should one be steady at the moment
Speaker 1: then and would you say to the Labor Party don't
Speaker 1: change your prime minister?
Speaker 2: Absolutely not, I'd say change him. I think you've got
Speaker 2: a dud there. I mean a nice man, and no doubt,
Speaker 2: very intelligent man, but a man so overcautious and so
Speaker 2: seen publicly, I don't know what to be a is privately,
Speaker 2: but seen publicly. Somebody who decides something and then once
Speaker 2: he gets a bit of opposition, turns back. Unlike Thatcher,
Speaker 2: unlike Blair, who were kind of bold statement politicians. In
Speaker 2: times of crisis you need that. And at the moment
Speaker 2: the Labour Party is in complete disarray about what it
Speaker 2: really wants.
Speaker 1: So if it is Andy Burnham who comes to Parliament
Speaker 1: and then is in a position to challenge the Prime minister,
Speaker 1: do you think he would be different in substance or
Speaker 1: is it the case that he'd be a better communicator
Speaker 1: and that is crucial in our age.
Speaker 2: I think he'd be a far better communicator. I don't
Speaker 2: know what his views are. I mean I've had him
Speaker 2: on programs often and have never quite been able to
Speaker 2: work out what he stands for. To tell the truth,
Speaker 2: I think it comes and goes a bit. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know that we've now got this thing that he
Speaker 2: wants to go back into the EU. Oh no, I
Speaker 2: don't actually no, I don't want to get back into
Speaker 2: the EU. No, that's way well obviously has to say
Speaker 2: that because if he goes, I mean, he's not going
Speaker 2: to win, not going to win the Labor Party, He's
Speaker 2: not going to win the country over if he says
Speaker 2: it's time to go back into the EU.
Speaker 1: He's not going to win election in that particular area.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and in that area, I mean, which was a
Speaker 2: reform area. So how would he be different? I think
Speaker 2: he has on his side the kind of political patterner
Speaker 2: of energy, youth enthusiasm, and the so called success of
Speaker 2: Manchester which is compared to the UK as a whole,
Speaker 2: tiny microcosm, but nevertheless generally seem to be successful that
Speaker 2: they brought in, they got industry to come to Manchester.
Speaker 2: Manchester has revived under Burnham's mayoralty, and me keeping on
Speaker 2: being told he was very good with the buses, so
Speaker 2: you know, those sound small things, but they show a
Speaker 2: kind of willingness to change, So I don't mean who knows.
Speaker 1: Andy Burnham's people have told Bloomberg that he would not
Speaker 1: change the current fiscal rules which essentially limit borrowing, which
Speaker 1: leads to the question of how differently he may or
Speaker 1: may not govern. Would he be a better communicator but
Speaker 1: a prime minister with a similar policy agenda, which leads
Speaker 1: me to wonder, is there something more fundamental to do
Speaker 1: with the country underway? And you've seen you know, different
Speaker 1: governments over a long period of time in that our
Speaker 1: we as a country in favor of we want good
Speaker 1: public services, but we don't really want to pay the
Speaker 1: levels of taxation that make them possible.
Speaker 2: Well, we're pretty well taxed, don't we. We're fairly highly taxed.
Speaker 2: But we're up with the European averages. I think we're
Speaker 2: in a position of stagnation on government borrowing, on taxation,
Speaker 2: and on GDP growth. I mean there's been since Brexit,
Speaker 2: what does it fall on prospective growth of eight percent?
Speaker 2: So people are genuinely feeling hard pressed, hard done by.
Speaker 2: They're not able to take their holidays, their money doesn't
Speaker 2: go around as well as it did, and that's really
Speaker 2: oppressive because it's a trap, because the theory of successful
Speaker 2: social democracy is amelioration all the time. That's the point
Speaker 2: of it. A society goes richer because of the energy, inventiveness,
Speaker 2: and enthusiasm and commitment that it has to its own prosperities.
Speaker 2: So it produces better educated people, it produces more intelligent
Speaker 2: solutions to problems. And we've had, of course, the problem
Speaker 2: going from a heavily industrialized society to a service industry society,
Speaker 2: which is difficult, but this position of falling back, so
Speaker 2: you've get these terrible stories of you know, young people
Speaker 2: unemployed in perpetuity and then coming forward with supposed mental
Speaker 2: health problems and then being put on drugs and all that.
Speaker 2: We're in a dire state. I'm not pretending we're not
Speaker 2: in a dire state. I think we are in that
Speaker 2: sense economically socially, I think economically as well.
Speaker 1: And what is the impact of that on the social fabric.
Speaker 2: I don't know. They don't riot. Well, they do riot actually,
Speaker 2: as we saw this week, I mean the two massive
Speaker 2: demonstrations in London, which mostfully didn't end up in the
Speaker 2: thousand deaths. And I think people who voute reform, I
Speaker 2: don't know quite what they're after, but it's certainly, I
Speaker 2: think probably above all greater prosperity. That's I mean, that's
Speaker 2: the one thing people go for it. It may get
Speaker 2: disguised as controlling immigration, you know, it may get disguised
Speaker 2: as cutting taxation or I mean, but it's actually GDP
Speaker 2: growth so that people feel each generation feels that they're
Speaker 2: doing better and not that they're slipping back. And that's
Speaker 2: the that's the key to good government. And I mean,
Speaker 2: god knows how at the moment that can be done,
Speaker 2: because we're you know, up to our eyes in we
Speaker 2: can't get the IMF says we can't go any further
Speaker 2: on our debt, on our guilt yields and all that.
Speaker 2: We can't change that. You can't effectively reduce taxation. You
Speaker 2: can't effectively I don't know. I don't know what you do,
Speaker 2: but what I do know you do is you have
Speaker 2: to kind of recognize those are the problems and talk.
Speaker 1: About and you need the leaders who are fit for the.
Speaker 2: Most Yes, I mean maybe I put too much on leadership,
Speaker 2: but I do think that acknowledging. You know, you can't
Speaker 2: just be medi mouthed and say things are going to
Speaker 2: get better and then actually do nothing very much. If
Speaker 2: you want to, you can explain how awful things are
Speaker 2: and say, well, we'll do our best, but you have
Speaker 2: to have a degree of charisma to do it. And
Speaker 2: one thing our present prime minister does not have is charisma.
Speaker 2: I mean, he mutters, he mutters, are you? I mean,
Speaker 2: look at Trump. Trump's a good example. Trump. Trump traded
Speaker 2: on exactly the same disaffection in the middle of America
Speaker 2: that has led to the rise of reform. That is
Speaker 2: to say, lower middle class that put it that way,
Speaker 2: and working people who just feel they're slipping backwards. And
Speaker 2: that's why Trump was so enthusiastically endorsed. That's why he
Speaker 2: may be in trouble in the midterms. If the economy
Speaker 2: doesn't pick up, and that's a strong, real political instinct.
Speaker 2: I mean, people in Wall Street or the city can
Speaker 2: sort of sneer at it, and you know those are
Speaker 2: left behind, But it's they're the voters. It's a democracy,
Speaker 2: and they're the ones who have to be constantly nurtured
Speaker 2: and looked after if democracies to work, if to succeed.
Speaker 1: Are you worried about what the future holds for the country.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, but I've always been. I've always been worried.
Speaker 2: I was worried when we had the three day week.
Speaker 2: I was worried when the offshoot of the Iraq War.
Speaker 2: I'm worried about the Iran War. Of course, I'm worried
Speaker 2: about the future in that sense. But if you mean,
Speaker 2: am I worried about whether our politics can cope with
Speaker 2: the crisis we're in, yes, i am, because I think
Speaker 2: in some ways it's unfitted to cope. For the reasons
Speaker 2: that I was explaining.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the prospect of Nigel Farash
Speaker 1: being the next Prime minister?
Speaker 2: I well, I don't think. Can I say this, I
Speaker 2: don't know. I'm not sure he's temperamentally suited to the
Speaker 2: job and I haven't yet seen any signs around him
Speaker 2: of people of caliber to act as chance the exchequer,
Speaker 2: foreign secretary, Home secretary until we see them and how
Speaker 2: competent they are at the moment. It's a bit of
Speaker 2: a sort of mix and match leftovers, seems to me.
Speaker 2: I don't yet feel that Farage is presenting other than
Speaker 2: himself and some bold ideas which may or may not
Speaker 2: be acceptable or doable. I don't think he's presenting himself
Speaker 2: as a government yet, but he's got three years to go.
Speaker 1: We know that they've got a big policy on mass deportations.
Speaker 1: That's what they have promised if they come to government.
Speaker 1: And that does mean that given they want to abolish
Speaker 1: the indefinite leave to remain state where people can be
Speaker 1: here without being British citizens if they've fulfilled the requirements,
Speaker 1: I mean the prospect of policies like that, instinctively, how
Speaker 1: do you respond to them? What do you think they
Speaker 1: would mean for the Britain We know, I.
Speaker 2: Think instinctively that they would be totally disastrous because I
Speaker 2: think that the ramifications would go well beyond the few
Speaker 2: who may be here because they've cheated about their circumstances
Speaker 2: or you know, have got definitely to remain improperly. But overall,
Speaker 2: I think it would be I think it would have
Speaker 2: a terrible effect on communities that for twenty thirty or
Speaker 2: forty years have lived side by side. I think it
Speaker 2: would be devastating. But I also don't think it would
Speaker 2: be doable ice in Britain. I sort of didn't think so.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, I've asked Nigel Fowers this question because
Speaker 1: he's been on this podcast. Yes, and he said, we
Speaker 1: do it in all way that Ice is not the comparison,
Speaker 1: because you know, Ice armed and obviously they exist in
Speaker 1: the United States and have done for a long time
Speaker 1: before Donald Trump. But he was very clear that he
Speaker 1: would that a reform government would do it in their
Speaker 1: own way.
Speaker 2: So and what did he mean by that.
Speaker 1: I think he means that there would be that they
Speaker 1: would actually deport people in high numbers in a way
Speaker 1: that he would say previous governments haven't.
Speaker 2: Had a bottle to do well. Good question.
Speaker 1: We didn't get that far.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, they would, they would leave it.
Speaker 2: But you look at the process for that, leave the EHR.
Speaker 2: They've got to change the law, they've got to get
Speaker 2: the judges out of their hair, and then how many
Speaker 2: people are they going to deport? I mean million, half
Speaker 2: a million.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the plan is, but he's made
Speaker 1: other things happen, as like leaving the EU, as you
Speaker 1: witnessed over many years when he came on Question Time,
Speaker 1: the program that you presented for so long, do you
Speaker 1: think that that exposure on television helped him become the
Speaker 1: national public figure that he now is. That people knew
Speaker 1: him because they saw him on television. They liked the
Speaker 1: way he came across, and you know the program that
Speaker 1: you fronted was part of giving him that kind of
Speaker 1: national status. Mayor coolper not you personally. I tell you
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump benefited from being recognized on TV. Boris
Speaker 1: Johnson did as well.
Speaker 2: It brings us to the whole business of social media
Speaker 2: and the way people communicate nowadays. And in two minds
Speaker 2: about under BBC rules, once he had become a UKIP
Speaker 2: representative in the European Parliament, he had a right, the
Speaker 2: party had a right. I can't remember how many times,
Speaker 2: two or three times a year out of twenty six programs,
Speaker 2: but then the question always was, well who do we
Speaker 2: put on? And they were all such drong Goos. Apart
Speaker 2: from Farage, he was the only articulate one. I mean,
Speaker 2: we did try one or two others, but they were
Speaker 2: so boring and so confused, and maybe in the interest
Speaker 2: of democracy we should have put them on as boring
Speaker 2: and confused. But we wanted a good argument about what
Speaker 2: Reform was arguing, and so Farage. And this is the
Speaker 2: problem actually with the reform now that he is the
Speaker 2: only voice. Really the reason you were talking to him,
Speaker 2: he is the only voice, and I think that's a
Speaker 2: kind of achilles heel for him.
Speaker 1: They're definitely now trying to build up others.
Speaker 2: Yes, but he's not very good at the relationships. To see.
Speaker 2: He calls out with people quite easily. He's quite he's
Speaker 2: quite thin skinned in a funny way. I guess, well,
Speaker 2: if you're going to lead a new party, you've got
Speaker 2: to be quite broad shouldered about who you bring in.
Speaker 1: I'm conscious that we're now ten years on from the
Speaker 1: EU referendum and you were the voice who said that
Speaker 1: night on the airwaves were out the people are voted
Speaker 1: to leave the EU. But you would also in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy five anchored the results coverage and.
Speaker 2: Of the we've left Farage now have we well, I
Speaker 2: mean his big cause was his big cause has before
Speaker 2: this before the country as whole was the EU.
Speaker 1: And it just made me think, with this ten year anniversary,
Speaker 1: you've been a witness to many big political moments, anchoring
Speaker 1: all those general elections and the voice of the referendum
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen when the results came, and you played
Speaker 1: a similar role back in nineteen seventy five when the
Speaker 1: UK voted to stay in the European Economic Community as
Speaker 1: it was. Then, how do you reflect on seeing that
Speaker 1: total expanse of time and two different decisions by the
Speaker 1: British public.
Speaker 2: Why did they vote for and then vote against.
Speaker 1: Or how did it feel both of those nights to
Speaker 1: you having seen that the entire.
Speaker 2: Sectory the first one was virtually was a foregun conclusion. Really,
Speaker 2: Wilson had been aware, and I mean, unlike Cameron, who
Speaker 2: you remember, came back before his referendum, which I think,
Speaker 2: actually think was a disastrous mistake to call it because
Speaker 2: it became something quite different. But he came back from
Speaker 2: Russell's with one or two minor concessions that had been offered,
Speaker 2: which we help. But Wilson came back and Wilson was
Speaker 2: a wily Prime minister, and he came back and said, oh,
Speaker 2: we've got this and we've got that, and people just
Speaker 2: voted for it because it seemed then to be the
Speaker 2: way to go, not least to the French been trying
Speaker 2: to keep us out, so it was to you know,
Speaker 2: the the goal had vetoed us going in, so we thought, long,
Speaker 2: there must be something good here because he doesn't want
Speaker 2: us in, so let's get in. I mean, that was
Speaker 2: a much easier course, and I think what happened in
Speaker 2: the years since was that it was an easy target.
Speaker 2: Everything could be blamed by the Conservatives and by the
Speaker 2: left of the Labor Party on being in the EU,
Speaker 2: loss of control, particular issues like fisheries and all that,
Speaker 2: and so it built up a momentum and when, in
Speaker 2: my view, very inadvisedly Cameron decided to call a referendum
Speaker 2: because he thought he'd win it, and then went to
Speaker 2: Europe and got absolutely no change at all. He was
Speaker 2: as he was, asking for trouble. And the facts are
Speaker 2: I mean, it may be okay that people who are
Speaker 2: to Brexit may say in fifty years time it will
Speaker 2: show it was a good thing. Britain will. But we've
Speaker 2: had ten years of it now and it has shown
Speaker 2: us no advantage at all that I can see, and
Speaker 2: hasn't had any effect on immigration numbers except we no
Speaker 2: longer have people from the EU coming easily in the
Speaker 2: students coming in. We have no particular advantage. And ten
Speaker 2: years has passed a decade, and I'm not surprised actually
Speaker 2: that people are very restless.
Speaker 1: If a future prime minister wants to take us back
Speaker 1: into the EU or even a single market, do you
Speaker 1: think there should be another public vote? Absolutely so that's
Speaker 1: the only way to undo Brexit. To actually have another.
Speaker 2: Public I think it'd have to be. But I think
Speaker 2: having had the fifty two forty eight, which we now
Speaker 2: know incidentally, if they're where a vote would be reversed pretty.
Speaker 1: Well as opinion stands at the moment, Yes, as opinion stands.
Speaker 2: But that's quite interesting because there's not been a case
Speaker 2: being made for going back in just a lot of
Speaker 2: regretful noise. But yes, I think there should certainly be,
Speaker 2: but it won't be in my lifetime. Well I hope
Speaker 2: I may live long enough to see it.
Speaker 1: I'd love David to talk a bit about you as
Speaker 1: I don't want to be too grand about this, but
Speaker 1: you have been a witness to history and that you
Speaker 1: have seen from the anchor's chair these moments where political
Speaker 1: power shifts or we leave the EU. And I'm of
Speaker 1: course conscious that that was part of your father's life too,
Speaker 1: not just famously being at the liberation of Belson, but
Speaker 1: even before that. I think this was just before you
Speaker 1: were born. He was on the tarmac where Neville Chamberlain
Speaker 1: came back from Munich with the piece of our time
Speaker 1: piece of paper. Did you ever talk to him about that?
Speaker 2: No? No, think so.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised because you obviously grew up to be a
Speaker 1: journalist too. It's an incredible moment to have seen.
Speaker 2: I don't think most reporters, and you're a reporter, do
Speaker 2: talk very much about what they've done, because they're always
Speaker 2: in the present, and they don't. I didn't talk to
Speaker 2: my father about about anything about it. He didn't like
Speaker 2: politics for a start. He wasn't interested in politics at all.
Speaker 1: Really, why wasn't he? He thought it was messy or dirty.
Speaker 2: Messy Charlatan's couldn't believe a word they said, all that
Speaker 2: kind of thing.
Speaker 1: He'd be perfect for the moment, I think.
Speaker 2: Yes, but he didn't know. He didn't really it wasn't
Speaker 2: interested in the machinations of politics. He did one two
Speaker 2: general elections, but he sort of did it as an
Speaker 2: observer rather than he wasn't really interested. And then his
Speaker 2: wartime and this being out in the desert during the war,
Speaker 2: and then I think the bravest thing he did when
Speaker 2: he came back was to fly with bomber Command. He
Speaker 2: did twenty five raids over Germany as an observer. When
Speaker 2: the attrition raiate was well, you were dead after twenty
Speaker 2: or something, and he did twenty five with Guy Gibson.
Speaker 2: Never talked about it at all, except to say he
Speaker 2: was sick once because it was bumping, but never No.
Speaker 2: I think, I mean, I think it's I think it's
Speaker 2: quite boring to get, isn't it. I mean, tells stories
Speaker 2: about this. I've done this, and I've done that.
Speaker 1: Now I get that I did well. I wondered if
Speaker 1: it was because he didn't want to center himself, that
Speaker 1: what was more important was with the actual events and
Speaker 1: the observer's perspective is less important.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely, which is a good.
Speaker 1: Good way to tack and again is probably something we've.
Speaker 2: Done lost right, been saying any of the things I've
Speaker 2: been saying to you this morning.
Speaker 1: But the observer's eye is important to make sense of
Speaker 1: what's happening. Because he didn't.
Speaker 2: Do observation of politics. He did occasional political interviews and famously,
Speaker 2: I think the when the BBC Panorama program got huge audiences,
Speaker 2: which you know, in those days eight ten million, during
Speaker 2: the Cuban missile crisis, he had a defense expert on
Speaker 2: and his last question was, well, we've had a question
Speaker 2: sent into us from somebody who says is it safe
Speaker 2: to go to bed tonight because they thought there might
Speaker 2: be a nuclear war overnight. And he asked that question
Speaker 2: and the man said, yes, I think it's child fund.
Speaker 2: It was Lord Chalfund later, Lord Chelfund, yes it's safe,
Speaker 2: And that was taken as a kind of seminal broadcasting
Speaker 2: moment where he'd acted to reassure people. But it wasn't
Speaker 2: his interest in the politics submit that it led him to.
Speaker 2: It was his liscal sort of humanity and and and
Speaker 2: just concern for people who were watching at home, you know.
Speaker 2: And so those were moments when he did touch politics,
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: But on the whole you've had to find the right
Speaker 1: words for the moment in live commentary on royal occasions.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking particularly about the funeral of Diana, which was
Speaker 1: a mense shock, and I still remember lines from your
Speaker 1: from your commentary.
Speaker 2: Then I don't what do you remember?
Speaker 1: I remember. I remember the coffin coming out of Kensington
Speaker 1: Palace that morning, and it was the first moment that
Speaker 1: people had seen a coffin, and it was very quiet,
Speaker 1: and you picked up, you know, after everyone watching had
Speaker 1: had a chance to absorb just the pictures. And I remember,
Speaker 1: you know, learning a huge amount from that that when
Speaker 1: are the moments where you should not speak rather than speak?
Speaker 2: It's one of the great you Well, it's interesting that
Speaker 2: the BBC, in the week after Dana was killed in
Speaker 2: the car crash, met every day and they're always angst
Speaker 2: thing about what tone should we take for this funeral?
Speaker 2: And I said, just learn your business. You don't adopt
Speaker 2: a tone, you reflect a tone. And so and I
Speaker 2: remember as that coffin came down from Kensington Palace, the
Speaker 2: hearse and turned, there was a shout. Two women in
Speaker 2: the crowd at the gate just shouted, God bless you, Dana,
Speaker 2: God bless you. And I thought, yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: Just leave that happen and then say as little as possible,
Speaker 2: because it was perfectly obvious what was happening. I mean
Speaker 2: that some of the pictures from that funeral extraordinary, and
Speaker 2: the one the only time my voice cracked actually when
Speaker 2: I saw that on the top of the hearse in
Speaker 2: white flowers was just written mummy. And when I said
Speaker 2: the word mummy, I just cracked a bit because I
Speaker 2: thought it was so simple and moving. But there was
Speaker 2: an extraordinary moment when they were going off after the
Speaker 2: terrible thing of the sons having to walk behind the
Speaker 2: coffin and all that, which was clearly a terrible error.
Speaker 2: But then the hearse went off on its way to
Speaker 2: where she was to be buried, and so many flowers
Speaker 2: were thrown at this house that the driver had to
Speaker 2: put the windscreen wipers on. I'll never forget that, this
Speaker 2: extraordinary picture of carnations and roses and lilies and things
Speaker 2: just being swept off the car so you could see
Speaker 2: where to drive. And again I didn't just say anything.
Speaker 2: You get a close up of it, viewer can see it.
Speaker 1: It's obvious you you were not happy about the king
Speaker 1: going to America for his recent visit, you thought it
Speaker 1: was the wrong political moment to send the King into.
Speaker 1: When you saw how the visit actually transpired, the speeches
Speaker 1: that the King was able to give in the presence
Speaker 1: of President Trump and in Congress, did you feel differently.
Speaker 2: I thought it was handled impeccably, really, and I was
Speaker 2: surprised by that. I mean, Trump didn't take advantage of
Speaker 2: it in the way that I thought he might, and
Speaker 2: the politics of the Iran War were kept out of
Speaker 2: it as far as possible. But I thought that, and
Speaker 2: maybe this was wrong. I thought that by postponing the visit,
Speaker 2: we'd put pressure on Trump, though actually nobody puts much
Speaker 2: pressure on Trump, not until the midterms. That may put
Speaker 2: pressure on I thought it might just distance us from it.
Speaker 2: But it was curious because the careful wording of that
Speaker 2: very good speech that the King made. I don't know
Speaker 2: who wrote that, but it was I mean, obviously he
Speaker 2: had an input, but it was a wonderfully crafted speech.
Speaker 1: The one Congress, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And people said, amazing, twelve standing ovations. Actually, you can't
Speaker 2: say good morning in Congress if you're a visitor without
Speaker 2: getting a standing ovation. They're all getting up at every turn.
Speaker 2: But that was a very clever and subtle speech about
Speaker 2: the relationship. It doesn't change the relationship, but it And
Speaker 2: I don't know what purpose it actually serves for Britain,
Speaker 2: because I mean, the Scotch whiskey got a cut in
Speaker 2: its duty. But the idea that there's a whole story
Speaker 2: about America and Europe going on at the moment, in fact,
Speaker 2: which I'm doing a podcast on about the relationship between
Speaker 2: America from forty five to now with the rest of
Speaker 2: the world. And Trump is obviously an outlier on this,
Speaker 2: and a visit by the King is not going to
Speaker 2: change policy one way or another.
Speaker 1: I mean, is it not change policy? But perhaps there's
Speaker 1: a value and a purpose in the fact that he
Speaker 1: is uniquely played and use the opportunity to talk about
Speaker 1: the courage of the people of Ukraine or the importance
Speaker 1: of checks and balances in front of lawmakers and a president,
Speaker 1: some of whom don't generally want to hear any of
Speaker 1: that and won't hear any of it said to their face.
Speaker 2: Well, the mystery is the mystique of monarchy, because if
Speaker 2: the French president had gone and said it, or if
Speaker 2: German president had gone and said it, or Malonia or
Speaker 2: anybody else. Nobody has taken a bit of notice. But
Speaker 2: the Americans have partly because they many of them have
Speaker 2: their history as in Britain, this huge respect for hereditary monarchy,
Speaker 2: which is I agree, it's a mystery and it's worth
Speaker 2: trading on.
Speaker 1: Are you a monarchist yourself.
Speaker 2: I'm a monarchist, but I think I'm in favor of
Speaker 2: a monarchy that adapts. I remember that South Africa the
Speaker 2: way when Aparthe collapsed, the Africana prem minister tell the
Speaker 2: Africanas adapt or die. That was their slogan, adapt or die.
Speaker 2: And I think with our monarchy just adapting is very
Speaker 2: important and the signs is actually happening because I think,
Speaker 2: rather to the discomfiture of the king, William has said,
Speaker 2: change is on my agenda. He said, it's a Canadian comedian,
Speaker 2: a brilliant line. Changes on my agenda. And what do
Speaker 2: we see just yesterday that he's going to give up
Speaker 2: twenty percent of the Duchy of Cornwall. It's a huge
Speaker 2: amount of land over twenty one or twenty seven counties
Speaker 2: of Britain, vast that he's going to give that land
Speaker 2: up for development. I mean, I think he's aware that
Speaker 2: to keep the monarchy in line with the country's feelings
Speaker 2: and aspirations, you can't go on with loads of helicopters
Speaker 2: and planes and this and that and the other. And
Speaker 2: the key does need to adapt.
Speaker 1: And the King himself the changes he's made, particularly the
Speaker 1: way that he took his brother's title away from him
Speaker 1: over the Epstein affairs.
Speaker 2: Yes, that was inevitable, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: Well, we can say it's inevitable now. For a long
Speaker 1: time it looked like something impossible to take away a
Speaker 1: title he that is his birthright. How much damage do
Speaker 1: you think has been done to the family and the
Speaker 1: institution through Andrew?
Speaker 2: I think I don't know. You can say way would Sun,
Speaker 2: but actually the palace as a whole failed to do
Speaker 2: anything to control his you know, when he was I
Speaker 2: mean this ridiculous thing that had been made a UK
Speaker 2: ambassador for trade, which is absurd, and everybody knew it
Speaker 2: was crazy and that he wasn't actually doing anything for
Speaker 2: trade at all, but it was sort of connived at
Speaker 2: So there's a The thing I'm against is the lack
Speaker 2: of openness in the royal family, and I think they
Speaker 2: should have They should confront the problems they face. And
Speaker 2: if it's perfectly obvious that Prince Andrew as he was
Speaker 2: is roaring around the world actually having good time at
Speaker 2: the taxpayer's expense, you shouldn't condone it. You should pull
Speaker 2: him in. But his mother, as we know, indulged him
Speaker 2: and wouldn't have done that. I think that parliamentary scrutiny
Speaker 2: of the monarchy is very important. I'm not in any
Speaker 2: way a republican because I don't think it would work
Speaker 2: for the UK. Try getting a president that would, I mean,
Speaker 2: unlike Ireland, where it works brilliantly.
Speaker 1: An elected head of state.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when it works there, because you know, it's much
Speaker 2: much smaller country, much more cohesive. I mean, it's accepted.
Speaker 2: But think of a president that would work for England,
Speaker 2: for another country, Wales for a third country, Scotland for
Speaker 2: a fourth, Northern Ireland. I mean, I think it would
Speaker 2: be incredibly difficult. And a monarchy that is like the
Speaker 2: other European monarchy is not too pretential, not too vulgar
Speaker 2: in its behavior, not too obviously privileged, though it is
Speaker 2: always going to be very privileged, would suit as well.
Speaker 2: And I think I don't know, I don't know what
Speaker 2: William's going to do. I don't know any of them,
Speaker 2: so I have no idea what they're going to do.
Speaker 1: Do you miss being part of those kinds of occasions
Speaker 1: and commentating on them, No, A moment that's passed.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you what. I've always stopped doing things
Speaker 2: when I thought I've sort of done them as well
Speaker 2: as I can. I mean, I did Question Time for
Speaker 2: twenty five years and I was coming up to eighty
Speaker 2: auto recommend was and I thought, actually, this is only
Speaker 2: going to go downhill from here. One day someone is
Speaker 2: going to come up and say, do you know, I
Speaker 2: think it's time you're stopped doing this. So I stopped
Speaker 2: doing that and Royal commentaries. I mean, the last one
Speaker 2: I did was State Occasions was the Cenotaph, and again
Speaker 2: I'd done it so many times, and I've been quite
Speaker 2: ill before the last one I did, but it went
Speaker 2: very well. For some reason, I thought, right, this is
Speaker 2: the moment to stop.
Speaker 1: Go out on a high.
Speaker 2: But is why I like doing podcasts and this and that.
Speaker 2: I mean, when an election comes up, I have to
Speaker 2: say I still think, hmmm, I wonder whether I couldn't
Speaker 2: do that better than terrible arrogance. But I've always I
Speaker 2: enjoy broadcasting. So if you enjoy it, and it's my
Speaker 2: it's in my blood. I mean, I see an election
Speaker 2: broadcast and I want to be there commanding the stage.
Speaker 2: I like it and I like question Time for that reason.
Speaker 2: So if another vehicle came start all over.
Speaker 1: Again, who knows. David Dimblebigh, thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you for attempting me, and I enjoyed talking to you.
Speaker 1: And that's where we left things. I did think he
Speaker 1: would enjoy it in the end. Most importantly, I hope
Speaker 1: you found the conversation valuable. Dimblebee's verdict on Ki Testarmer
Speaker 1: is harsh and for that reason, in particular the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister's record, the fact economic growth has risen this year.
Speaker 1: That's all in my notes at Bloomberg dot com. Forward
Speaker 1: slash Michelle, Thanks as ever to the team producers Jessica
Speaker 1: Beck and Chris Martlou guest booker Ilan Bird, video producer
Speaker 1: Andy Hayward. Our social media is by Alex Morgan. The
Speaker 1: music is by Bart Walshaw. Production assistance is from Jennifer
Speaker 1: Seeley and audio mixing by Richard Ward. The executive producer
Speaker 1: is Louisa Lewis, and this podcast is part of Bloomberg Weekend,
Speaker 1: where Brendan Francis Nunam is Director of Audio and Special Projects,
Speaker 1: and our executive editor is Catherine Bell. Until the next
Speaker 1: time I persuade a guest to come on, Goodbye.