Speaker 1: Joe, can I ask you a dumb question, Why do
Speaker 1: we say this is the most important budget if they're
Speaker 1: likely gone in the next twelve months.
Speaker 2: I guess it's just their last chance, right. It's like,
Speaker 2: if you're going to try and win the election, this
Speaker 2: has to be a killer moment.
Speaker 3: That's a quite good question for the show.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's our open.
Speaker 1: There you go, There were you recording summers always recording.
Speaker 1: Welcome to in the City, Bloomberg's podcast, connecting you to
Speaker 1: the conversations and the stories shaping the world of finance.
Speaker 1: This week, we have UK Government reporter Joe Mays to
Speaker 1: run us through Bloomberg's Budget Game, an interactive game that
Speaker 1: will help us explore the different options available for the
Speaker 1: Tories and think about how Jeremy Hunt's choices could shape
Speaker 1: the election.
Speaker 3: Squeeze public spending. You can't do that, okay? And the change.
Speaker 1: Finally, like gro we have like our own UK wordl's
Speaker 1: the budget?
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Joe May put together this new game called can you
Speaker 1: make better decisions as transfer than Jeremy Hunt? And we've
Speaker 1: all played it and it's quite fun.
Speaker 3: I'm playing it right now.
Speaker 4: Right Leg was storing up our projects you speak.
Speaker 3: As we speak, I was actually stuff stumped on the
Speaker 3: third question.
Speaker 1: So what I love is basically, you know, you're trying
Speaker 1: to navigate this tricky situation, so you need to not
Speaker 1: crash the economy, but you also need to not lose
Speaker 1: the elections. So this is from a Tory perspective.
Speaker 2: Joe, Yes, I mean your idea is to come up
Speaker 2: with a package of tax cuts effectively that will woo voters,
Speaker 2: but don't go too far to the point where you
Speaker 2: end up breaking your fiscal rules, frustrating markets, and triggering
Speaker 2: a twenty twenty two mini budget episode all over again.
Speaker 2: So you have to find the right balance between a
Speaker 2: kind of political risk taking. If you're not risk taking,
Speaker 2: and you can't.
Speaker 4: If you do it, you can.
Speaker 2: You can get to a successful outcome in the game,
Speaker 2: as you see, but it's tricky. The path to winning
Speaker 2: is is narrow.
Speaker 3: How many outcomes are there?
Speaker 2: There are sixty four different ways of playing the games,
Speaker 2: so yeah, and only about four of them can you win,
Speaker 2: So you have to be careful.
Speaker 3: Have you won?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yes, I had to win the game. Jeremy Hunt played
Speaker 2: the game onto his advisers as we speak. I want
Speaker 2: to see how he doesn't know whether.
Speaker 3: The time for games is now.
Speaker 1: Adrian, welcome to the podcast. Do you want to play
Speaker 1: the game? He's still the first one. Okay, the first
Speaker 1: one is basically do you so the first big decision
Speaker 1: will you squeeze public spending to give yourself more money
Speaker 1: for tax cards or do you want to stick with
Speaker 1: current spending plans?
Speaker 4: I would stick with current spending plans. I think squeezing
Speaker 4: public spending is not probably the right way forward for
Speaker 4: political and economic reasons.
Speaker 2: I mean, we included that choice because Jeremy Hunt is
Speaker 2: considering doing that. People inside the Treasury say, we've had
Speaker 2: to look at the public spending assumption because if we don't,
Speaker 2: we really have so little room to maneuver to offer
Speaker 2: these giveaways. So that is a realistic choice. But you're
Speaker 2: right to say that there's also an awareness in the
Speaker 2: Treasury that it would be politically dangerous to do that
Speaker 2: because you could be accused of austerity once more, and
Speaker 2: that's not a headline you want.
Speaker 3: So yeah, but it is interesting as well because if
Speaker 3: you think about the different different seasons of Jeremy Hunt.
Speaker 3: About a year ago, he was very much in do
Speaker 3: you know, do nothing, be very very conservative, small sea.
Speaker 3: And then then after the event, the fiscal event at
Speaker 3: the back end of last year, and the mood changed
Speaker 3: and the briefing changed, and it was we are now
Speaker 3: a tax cutting government. And now I think they're sort
Speaker 3: of having to follow through on that. And they were
Speaker 3: able to do it last November because the numbers worked.
Speaker 3: And now you're in a different economic context and I
Speaker 3: think he'd probably quite like to go back to being
Speaker 3: the Jeremy Hunt of a year ago.
Speaker 4: But in terms of expectations management, they made a big mistake,
Speaker 4: didn't they. Yes.
Speaker 2: I think they'd let us think that this was going
Speaker 2: to be the big pre election tax cutting budget and
Speaker 2: that expltation had built, as you say, But then they
Speaker 2: turned around in the obi I've gone, well, you've only
Speaker 2: got thirteen billion bounds, you near historic low, how are
Speaker 2: you going to do that? And they've had to row
Speaker 2: it back slightly with those expectations.
Speaker 1: If I played ten times, will I win?
Speaker 2: I think you'll find. I think you'll find the victory
Speaker 2: part soon enough.
Speaker 1: What's the hardest question on here?
Speaker 2: The hardest question, Well, the final question you have to
Speaker 2: answer is around fuel duty, and that's tricky because It
Speaker 2: costs a lot to keep fuel duty where it's at
Speaker 2: because the chancellors since twenty eleven have frozen fuel duty.
Speaker 2: They've not let it rise with inflation. And there's also
Speaker 2: a five p temporary cut to fuel duty that will
Speaker 2: expire in March. So the chance has to decide, am
Speaker 2: I can to let that happen. Am I going to
Speaker 2: let fuel duty go up? On my watch? It costs
Speaker 2: him about six billion pounds to maintain that fuel duty freeze.
Speaker 2: That's almost half the headroom you start with the right,
Speaker 2: So you can see why that's a big pressure he
Speaker 2: has to respond to. So if you get that choice wrong,
Speaker 2: you're likely to annoy motorists. So be careful with fuel
Speaker 2: duty I.
Speaker 1: Mean inheritance tax. There is also an option to abolish
Speaker 1: inheritance tax, which basically would also cut seven billion pounds
Speaker 1: of headroom.
Speaker 2: It's a very expensive measure, and that's why I think
Speaker 2: that's unlikely. I think it's unlikely the Chancellor would worttion
Speaker 2: hotor tax. It's politically contentious as well.
Speaker 3: You does your game manage to get the kind of
Speaker 3: different complexions of you within parties because you have, you know,
Speaker 3: depending on the kind of factions in the five and
Speaker 3: six different families. However, many families were up to now,
Speaker 3: but for the listeners that gloriously don't know what we're
Speaker 3: talking about. This is the idea that there's these five
Speaker 3: families within the Conservative Party of different perspectives on what
Speaker 3: they're doing now and what they'll do in the future.
Speaker 3: But some of them are as you say, you know,
Speaker 3: some of them are inheritance taxes the problem our voters
Speaker 3: want it removing. But then others, probably more red wall Tories.
Speaker 3: Are you do that and you immediately signal that you
Speaker 3: are not a party that is serious about mass appeal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we try to offer the full panoply of tax
Speaker 2: cuts that the conserative Party is asking for. So in
Speaker 2: the game you have income tax masch insurance stamp duties
Speaker 2: in the game as well. That's important measure that a
Speaker 2: lot of more Centrists and pece want to see action
Speaker 2: onto show we're helping aspirational people once get the property letner,
Speaker 2: inheritance taxes there, I say, a few duties there. The
Speaker 2: public spending choices there as well, and again that's one
Speaker 2: where some would like to see public spending reduced to
Speaker 2: fun tax cuts. Others say no, we can't do that. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: we tried to capture them.
Speaker 4: Do you think there's a real consideration in the conservative
Speaker 4: body that they might win the election. I think they
Speaker 4: have to keep believing that themselves, and that's what they
Speaker 4: tell themselves, I imagine regularly within number ten. And there's
Speaker 4: a directive inside number ten, which is, do not work
Speaker 4: if you do not think we can do this, and
Speaker 4: if you have that negative outlook, just leave.
Speaker 2: Now, because we have to believe. So they tell themselves
Speaker 2: that I think they do. There's like a one percent
Speaker 2: thought in the head which it says, you know, we've
Speaker 2: seen a story in the past where things can go
Speaker 2: well for us, like a job major style outcome or
Speaker 2: a cameraon in twenty fifteen, where you're kind of written
Speaker 2: off but it just comes together at the last moment
Speaker 2: for you. They're still on the kind of bell curve
Speaker 2: of probability that outcome exists, maybe very much in the tail,
Speaker 2: but it does exist.
Speaker 1: But the game, exactly, I tried to do what's right
Speaker 1: for the economy, and the game really tries to ask.
Speaker 1: So I mean, you have to, you know, take into
Speaker 1: account that you're trying to win the election. A disaster.
Speaker 1: It tells me the party wanted you to deliver a
Speaker 1: headline grabbing giveaways, you've delivered upos it. So the point
Speaker 1: is that you know it's a tough yard for that
Speaker 1: tough gig.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't just sit on your hands and do
Speaker 2: what the OvR or you know, do what everyone all
Speaker 2: the kind of the economist would like to do. We
Speaker 2: just keep keep the headroom at twenty billion pounds and
Speaker 2: you know the MP's won't be happy with that.
Speaker 4: What in your game is the easiest way to crash
Speaker 4: the economy the.
Speaker 2: East switch crushed economy is to not give yourself any
Speaker 2: more fiscal headroom. So stick with the thirteen billion and
Speaker 2: then just cut all the taxes. If you were to
Speaker 2: come tax cutlash insurance, you then end up blowing out
Speaker 2: your fiscal headroom, You break your fiscal rule by a
Speaker 2: large margin, and you're boring goes sky high and then
Speaker 2: you crash the markets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but is there a question around do all that
Speaker 3: but consult the OBR, versus do all that but don't
Speaker 3: consult the OBR.
Speaker 2: Because that latter.
Speaker 3: Branch on the decision tree was what Liz trusted. That
Speaker 3: was In the end, we ended up thinking, didn't we
Speaker 3: that it was not saying she could have gone away
Speaker 3: with those tax cuts, but it was tax cuts plus
Speaker 3: no referee looking at the numbers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, perhaps I should added that as choice button, check
Speaker 2: check your check your measures.
Speaker 4: And don't sack your senior civil So indeed that as well.
Speaker 2: You cannot choose those in the game, but maybybe next
Speaker 2: budget we'll add in.
Speaker 3: Those, Joe.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been a lot of hints of what
Speaker 1: we could see in the budget. What are you expecting.
Speaker 2: I think personal tax cuts are going to happen. So
Speaker 2: there's going to be either an income tax cut or
Speaker 2: a national insurance tax cut, maybe even both of at
Speaker 2: least one percentage point of income tax. Hunt and Sunak
Speaker 2: would like to do more. I mean that they say
Speaker 2: themselves they'd like to do say two pe of income
Speaker 2: tax cut, but they're waiting to see how the numbers land.
Speaker 2: That's the big things to expect. But there will be
Speaker 2: other stuff around the sides, you know, perhaps help on housing.
Speaker 2: They talk about ninety nine percent mortgages that could come
Speaker 2: in the In the world of the city. We have
Speaker 2: the British Ier, which your friend talks with. The chances
Speaker 2: we are about. That's very likely to come as well,
Speaker 2: potentially reforms around the lifetime ier the chances looking at
Speaker 2: pension funds, how to encourage them to invest more in
Speaker 2: the UK equity markets, so reforms there. But the thing
Speaker 2: the big things to look up for is those personal
Speaker 2: tax tis.
Speaker 4: I think that's right. I think one of the things
Speaker 4: that we tend to think about Hunt is that he's
Speaker 4: on the left of the party because he's relatively social
Speaker 4: socially liberal who's anti prectic, But when it comes to
Speaker 4: things like tax cut, he's actually just pretty much a
Speaker 4: small government conservative. He's a He's a Thatch right of course,
Speaker 4: as as Sunak is, so that would be their their instinct.
Speaker 4: They're not the leveling up wing of the party. They're
Speaker 4: very much let's let's cut the state, let's let the
Speaker 4: free market operator as much as possible, lets people, let
Speaker 4: money fructify in the hands of the in the pockets
Speaker 4: of the people, and that sort of thing. So I
Speaker 4: think that you're right about that.
Speaker 3: But it's tricky for him and them because it isn't
Speaker 3: obvious at the moment with public attitudes what they are
Speaker 3: that necessarily tax cuts are where people are at.
Speaker 4: But I think they think it's the right thing to
Speaker 4: do for conservative to the economy, and so certainly form well,
Speaker 4: yes they are, You're right intellectually they have went into
Speaker 4: politics to cut taxes and to let people make decisions
Speaker 4: with their own money, both of both Richie and Sunak
Speaker 4: and Jeremy Hunt.
Speaker 3: That's true. But there's this blend at the moment where
Speaker 3: you could backfire. You know, how much is the right
Speaker 3: amount to give people of their own money back for
Speaker 3: them to think it's worth it, versus that sense of
Speaker 3: a crumbling public realm where people are fed up with
Speaker 3: the fact that, you know, when they take their mum
Speaker 3: to hospital, it's miserable, and that's that, And that is
Speaker 3: the sort of it's almost unknowable how people would react
Speaker 3: to yes, you get another few hundred quid back, which
Speaker 3: is not nothing. But you know, the opinion polets are
Speaker 3: consistently showing rather than a couple that are manipulated, you know,
Speaker 3: they're consistently showing people are quite aware of the tax cuts. Yes,
Speaker 3: you give us a tax pot versus versus well, firstly
Speaker 3: versus what's what's the trade off? But the other thing
Speaker 3: that I think people are quite sophisticated about is this
Speaker 3: idea of the sandwich, so you know, you get, yes,
Speaker 3: this might be that moment of tax cutting, but you
Speaker 3: put it up massively the other day, and there's other
Speaker 3: things that are coming up in the in the years ahead.
Speaker 3: So there's a there's a sense of the kind of
Speaker 3: electra is very sophisticated around what's being done to them.
Speaker 4: But is the a sense that if they don't get
Speaker 4: tax cuts they will be confident that the NHS might
Speaker 4: be better or their local services might be better. I don't
Speaker 4: think there's that either.
Speaker 5: No, No, are you use the budget for together right,
Speaker 5: especially if they have an election after the Conservative Party conference?
Speaker 1: Or is it actually appealing.
Speaker 2: To new voter as I think the overriding thought for
Speaker 2: the Primeister and the Chancellor is this budget is to help
Speaker 2: us win the election. It's it's kind of as simple
Speaker 2: as that. So it's it's targeted at voters, I think,
Speaker 2: And I think the reason why personal tax cuts are
Speaker 2: so attractive is because they want to set up an
Speaker 2: election campaign that is fought on the dividing line that
Speaker 2: they want, which is we're a tax cutting party and
Speaker 2: labor are not label put up your taxes we're the
Speaker 2: ones who've been cutting them, and that they think that
Speaker 2: is the best strategy. They have the entire election around
Speaker 2: that kind of narrative, and that's why the abolition of
Speaker 2: the non dom tax status is now also being considered,
Speaker 2: because they know that by doing that that also spikes
Speaker 2: Labour's guns, because labor have various spending commitments that are
Speaker 2: attached to using the revenue that you'd raise from a
Speaker 2: non tax tax status abolition. But if if the concern
Speaker 2: has already done that, then Labe, you have to find
Speaker 2: some new measure to raise the funds to pay for
Speaker 2: all those spending commitments. That's exactly what the toys want.
Speaker 2: The toys wants.
Speaker 4: This non dom money is going to pay for an
Speaker 4: enormous amount of stuff exactly.
Speaker 2: And now if they don't even have that Nondon money,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, you know what where's it going to
Speaker 2: come from? So I think we have to view it
Speaker 2: through that election lens.
Speaker 3: It's also interesting if they do that because that's traditionally
Speaker 3: been seen in British politics as the way you would
Speaker 3: signify that you are for the many, not the fear,
Speaker 3: and so on, which which which would be a you know, hitherto.
Speaker 3: I think the Conservative Party said, well, you know, we
Speaker 3: don't have to signify that, we we assert it. But
Speaker 3: I think if they feel that actually the fundamentally there
Speaker 3: aren't many pots of money that they can go for,
Speaker 3: that's part of the problem, isn't it That it's I'm
Speaker 3: going to play your game with interest, but there aren't
Speaker 3: actually are there. There isn't sort of lots of kind
Speaker 3: of hidden cupboards with with with bags of golden no exactly.
Speaker 4: And the wright also that many pots of public sentiment
Speaker 4: they can go for. Nobody's really going to vote for
Speaker 4: the Conservative Party because I think it's going to give
Speaker 4: them a better national health services compared with the Labor Party,
Speaker 4: So they should.
Speaker 1: Stick to the text, right or you know, certainly on
Speaker 1: the Conservative side you hear a lot saying, look, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of undecided voters. And when you're on that
Speaker 1: ballad on your own in that cubicle, what do you
Speaker 1: think about? I mean, do you think about inflation like
Speaker 1: you know, the food prices? Do you think you actually
Speaker 1: probably think about your household and your personal situation right,
Speaker 1: rather than the Tories have messed it up for last
Speaker 1: thirteen years.
Speaker 3: It's a blend, Isn't that? That's the thing. It's a blead.
Speaker 3: You know, people stand in that ballot box and they
Speaker 3: make decisions based on family and their identity, and you know,
Speaker 3: the kind of person they think they are. It's not
Speaker 3: always homoeconomicus, is it.
Speaker 4: But then what have they got to offer? They offer
Speaker 4: a vote conservative because we don't crash the economy like
Speaker 4: the labor people. That that one's gone. So there's really
Speaker 4: very little that they can say is distinctively conservative.
Speaker 3: I mean, we've heard it before, but it's finished the job.
Speaker 3: So it's if you think that inflation is coming down
Speaker 3: and you like that, you like the fact that, you know,
Speaker 3: food prices don't feel so kind of strangulating and all
Speaker 3: of that, then you know, why would you switch right now?
Speaker 3: And now? Yeah, yeah, that's an argument. The opposing argument
Speaker 3: is yes, But in the eyes of some people who
Speaker 3: cause that.
Speaker 4: We don't switch horses in midstream is a bit difficult.
Speaker 4: If you've been in perfect.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the poles are so far apart, what would
Speaker 1: make a difference. Are there undecided voters?
Speaker 2: There are undecided voters, yes, and how they break is
Speaker 2: obviously a key question for the election. But I think
Speaker 2: Even then when they do these you know, large poles
Speaker 2: using sophisticated techniques, and they say, imagine if all the
Speaker 2: undecideds broke for the Conservatives, even then those poles still
Speaker 2: show labor winning and majority. So I mean, that's one
Speaker 2: hope the Conservative Party have, and it shows how how
Speaker 2: child tough the task is for them. I just say
Speaker 2: that the danger of the sticks to the plan narrative
Speaker 2: is that you risk going into election being the party
Speaker 2: offering change, and that is dangerous. And uh, but even
Speaker 2: then they still think that it's probably our best approach
Speaker 2: we have, just given how much a bindery it mean.
Speaker 2: Notice which tried the change narrative at the party conference.
Speaker 2: Remember that, but that got very quickly junked because they
Speaker 2: realized it's it's so hard to kind of almost with
Speaker 2: a straight face, make that claim given that you, like
Speaker 2: you say, Adrian, we have been in power for so long. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go back to the old narrative of sticks of land.
Speaker 2: You know, labor are dangerous, We're the safe guys.
Speaker 1: What would be in a labor budget.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 3: School face and then everything else is tough.
Speaker 2: I mean because at the moment, so much of labors
Speaker 2: position is our economic stance is the same as the
Speaker 2: Conservative Party because they don't want that divide because they
Speaker 2: know that the Tories always exploit that. And and Rachel
Speaker 2: Rus when you ask her, always says, well, we have
Speaker 2: to see what the fiscal situation is come that time.
Speaker 2: But you know, if they were to win power, they'd
Speaker 2: have to address all the public service I think situation
Speaker 2: that we have, they'd likely have to raise some taxes
Speaker 2: you'd have thought to fund increasing investment in public services.
Speaker 2: But the Ritard is we never say that at this
Speaker 2: point because they don't want to give Torri's ammunition for
Speaker 2: the election. So yeah, very hard to say.
Speaker 4: What being a labor jet, you could argue that, you know,
Speaker 4: there's nothing that you can really do without doing something
Speaker 4: radical to change the calcus of this country. And one
Speaker 4: of the radical things you can do is to start
Speaker 4: to charge people for using the NHS, or at least
Speaker 4: find them then turn out for their appointments, open that thing.
Speaker 4: And that might happen under labor. It couldn't happen under conservatives,
Speaker 4: I think because because of the dynamics of politics. But
Speaker 4: you could see something very interesting coming from from from
Speaker 4: labor in order to just shake us out of this,
Speaker 4: this this inertia that we have at the moment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and we're streeting who's their health? Does talk in
Speaker 3: in innovative and different ways. Just the question will be
Speaker 3: how quickly you go from this sort of conservative in
Speaker 3: fighting to labor in fighting where they've tried to do
Speaker 3: something radical, which, as you said, suggest they need to
Speaker 3: do and maybe only they can do. And then and
Speaker 3: then you know what did the Union say? What does
Speaker 3: the left say? What a Corbynist to say?
Speaker 4: But I can't see anything that can shake us out
Speaker 4: of this situation of deteriorating public services and marginal right
Speaker 4: without something really radical new income.
Speaker 1: Joe, I mean NHS is at a lunch pin. I
Speaker 1: mean does that how many votes does that give you
Speaker 1: or lose you?
Speaker 2: Well, I think if you're the Labor Party, I remember
Speaker 2: Pat McFadden, who's the national campaign COORDINATSY. He always says
Speaker 2: we are the party who are known to be of
Speaker 2: the heart, but we always have to convince voters that
Speaker 2: we are the party of the mind in terms of
Speaker 2: we will make the right scisions. The public know that
Speaker 2: we are the party of ahs in our hearts, but
Speaker 2: can they trust us to make the right economic decisions,
Speaker 2: such we have the funds for the NHS, so we
Speaker 2: should never do anything that risks our perception on the economy.
Speaker 2: And that's why we've seen this caution from the lad
Speaker 2: Party on the economic stands. But agan you asking what
Speaker 2: could be done to radically shape things up, I mean,
Speaker 2: Labor almost had an answer to that when they had
Speaker 2: their twenty eight billion pound Green Prosperity Plan, which was,
Speaker 2: you know, their flagship economic ex stands for a long time,
Speaker 2: because you know, Kis Damer publicly says our mission is
Speaker 2: to have the heighest growth rate in the G seven
Speaker 2: and they had a policy which could have been the
Speaker 2: answer to that in terms of let's do a Joe
Speaker 2: Biden style massive Indeed, you know, it's kind of modern
Speaker 2: monetary economics and so on. But you know, there are
Speaker 2: advocates of that who say, okay, yes, there's lots of boring,
Speaker 2: but it could significally increase the growth rate of the
Speaker 2: country such that it pays for yourself in the future.
Speaker 2: I mean, that was why the policy was deemed plause
Speaker 2: won in the first place. But they obviously since rode
Speaker 2: back on that right. So again, because we're now in
Speaker 2: this election focused period where they were getting so hammered
Speaker 2: over it they've had to pull back. But would that
Speaker 2: come back perhaps? Would might they perhaps if they were
Speaker 2: to empower Actually, oh, yes, we are gonna go a
Speaker 2: bit further on green spending. You know, who knows, but
Speaker 2: you know, you talk about radical.
Speaker 4: In a world of much lower interest roads, yes, exactly.
Speaker 3: And it also depends on the size of the victory.
Speaker 3: So if they've if it's a wamping landslide, then you know, potentially,
Speaker 3: I mean, there's all sorts of things we can talk
Speaker 3: about at that stage. But in a world where it's
Speaker 3: a smaller number and then everybody's grumpy and fighting and
Speaker 3: you can't be certain how long that that parliament would last,
Speaker 3: I think they have to be really.
Speaker 2: Cautious, exactly. And I think just one fin thing very
Speaker 2: which is that I think Kirstama has benefited so far
Speaker 2: from the fact that the party can see that it's
Speaker 2: perhaps headed for power, and that creates discipline. So those
Speaker 2: on the left of the party are kind of keeping quiet,
Speaker 2: really striking. But then, but as you say, if you're
Speaker 2: suddenly in power, that discipline might disappear and suddenly the
Speaker 2: left of the party are very vocal again, and we'd.
Speaker 3: Be saying, what's the point of this?
Speaker 4: This is that moment, Although Tony Blaird did keep the
Speaker 4: party under discipline for quite some time. I mean it's
Speaker 4: not just that you once you taste power, there's a
Speaker 4: certain pleasure in there. But if you've been out of
Speaker 4: bout for a long time.
Speaker 1: Perfectly at end it.
Speaker 2: Joe, Thank you, cool, Thanks guys.
Speaker 1: This episode was hosted by me Francin Laqua with Allegro
Speaker 1: Stratton and Adrian Woolridge. It was produced by Sammersati and
Speaker 1: Tiffany Choi. Special thanks to Jomays