WEBVTT - Jeremy Hunt’s Make-or-Break UK Budget 0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:02.720 Joe, can I ask you a dumb question, Why do 0:00:02.800 --> 0:00:05.920 we say this is the most important budget if they're 0:00:06.080 --> 0:00:08.000 likely gone in the next twelve months. 0:00:08.240 --> 0:00:11.400 I guess it's just their last chance, right. It's like, 0:00:11.560 --> 0:00:13.280 if you're going to try and win the election, this 0:00:13.400 --> 0:00:15.200 has to be a killer moment. 0:00:15.320 --> 0:00:17.160 That's a quite good question for the show. 0:00:17.360 --> 0:00:18.560 Okay, that's our open. 0:00:18.640 --> 0:00:22.600 There you go, There were you recording summers always recording. 0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:30.720 Welcome to in the City, Bloomberg's podcast, connecting you to 0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:33.559 the conversations and the stories shaping the world of finance. 0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:35.960 This week, we have UK Government reporter Joe Mays to 0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:38.640 run us through Bloomberg's Budget Game, an interactive game that 0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:41.920 will help us explore the different options available for the 0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:45.320 Tories and think about how Jeremy Hunt's choices could shape 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:45.720 the election. 0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:51.960 Squeeze public spending. You can't do that, okay? And the change. 0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:55.960 Finally, like gro we have like our own UK wordl's 0:00:56.360 --> 0:00:58.600 the budget? 0:00:58.600 --> 0:00:59.480 I don't think so. 0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:03.280 Joe May put together this new game called can you 0:01:03.320 --> 0:01:05.560 make better decisions as transfer than Jeremy Hunt? And we've 0:01:05.560 --> 0:01:07.720 all played it and it's quite fun. 0:01:08.120 --> 0:01:08.840 I'm playing it right now. 0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:11.119 Right Leg was storing up our projects you speak. 0:01:11.160 --> 0:01:14.760 As we speak, I was actually stuff stumped on the 0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:15.479 third question. 0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:18.320 So what I love is basically, you know, you're trying 0:01:18.319 --> 0:01:20.360 to navigate this tricky situation, so you need to not 0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:23.960 crash the economy, but you also need to not lose 0:01:23.959 --> 0:01:26.280 the elections. So this is from a Tory perspective. 0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:28.120 Joe, Yes, I mean your idea is to come up 0:01:28.120 --> 0:01:31.720 with a package of tax cuts effectively that will woo voters, 0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:33.560 but don't go too far to the point where you 0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:37.480 end up breaking your fiscal rules, frustrating markets, and triggering 0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:40.160 a twenty twenty two mini budget episode all over again. 0:01:40.160 --> 0:01:41.840 So you have to find the right balance between a 0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:43.960 kind of political risk taking. If you're not risk taking, 0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:44.800 and you can't. 0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:45.480 If you do it, you can. 0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:47.280 You can get to a successful outcome in the game, 0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:50.279 as you see, but it's tricky. The path to winning 0:01:50.320 --> 0:01:50.920 is is narrow. 0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:52.160 How many outcomes are there? 0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:53.960 There are sixty four different ways of playing the games, 0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:56.520 so yeah, and only about four of them can you win, 0:01:56.640 --> 0:01:57.680 So you have to be careful. 0:01:58.000 --> 0:01:58.520 Have you won? 0:01:59.120 --> 0:01:59.240 Oh? 0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:04.400 Yes, I had to win the game. Jeremy Hunt played 0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:07.280 the game onto his advisers as we speak. I want 0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:09.519 to see how he doesn't know whether. 0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:11.320 The time for games is now. 0:02:12.760 --> 0:02:14.399 Adrian, welcome to the podcast. Do you want to play 0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:17.720 the game? He's still the first one. Okay, the first 0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:20.799 one is basically do you so the first big decision 0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:23.040 will you squeeze public spending to give yourself more money 0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:24.880 for tax cards or do you want to stick with 0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:26.120 current spending plans? 0:02:26.600 --> 0:02:29.480 I would stick with current spending plans. I think squeezing 0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:32.720 public spending is not probably the right way forward for 0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:34.440 political and economic reasons. 0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.120 I mean, we included that choice because Jeremy Hunt is 0:02:37.160 --> 0:02:39.680 considering doing that. People inside the Treasury say, we've had 0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:41.839 to look at the public spending assumption because if we don't, 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:44.320 we really have so little room to maneuver to offer 0:02:44.320 --> 0:02:47.200 these giveaways. So that is a realistic choice. But you're 0:02:47.240 --> 0:02:49.200 right to say that there's also an awareness in the 0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:51.280 Treasury that it would be politically dangerous to do that 0:02:51.320 --> 0:02:53.600 because you could be accused of austerity once more, and 0:02:53.639 --> 0:02:54.680 that's not a headline you want. 0:02:54.760 --> 0:02:57.440 So yeah, but it is interesting as well because if 0:02:57.480 --> 0:03:00.800 you think about the different different seasons of Jeremy Hunt. 0:03:01.840 --> 0:03:04.160 About a year ago, he was very much in do 0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:08.679 you know, do nothing, be very very conservative, small sea. 0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:12.000 And then then after the event, the fiscal event at 0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:14.200 the back end of last year, and the mood changed 0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:16.560 and the briefing changed, and it was we are now 0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:20.480 a tax cutting government. And now I think they're sort 0:03:20.520 --> 0:03:23.680 of having to follow through on that. And they were 0:03:23.680 --> 0:03:26.840 able to do it last November because the numbers worked. 0:03:27.360 --> 0:03:30.520 And now you're in a different economic context and I 0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:32.520 think he'd probably quite like to go back to being 0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:33.760 the Jeremy Hunt of a year ago. 0:03:34.360 --> 0:03:37.760 But in terms of expectations management, they made a big mistake, 0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:39.280 didn't they. Yes. 0:03:39.320 --> 0:03:41.320 I think they'd let us think that this was going 0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:43.880 to be the big pre election tax cutting budget and 0:03:43.920 --> 0:03:46.000 that expltation had built, as you say, But then they 0:03:46.040 --> 0:03:47.480 turned around in the obi I've gone, well, you've only 0:03:47.480 --> 0:03:49.560 got thirteen billion bounds, you near historic low, how are 0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:51.160 you going to do that? And they've had to row 0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:52.640 it back slightly with those expectations. 0:03:52.920 --> 0:03:54.839 If I played ten times, will I win? 0:03:55.160 --> 0:03:56.880 I think you'll find. I think you'll find the victory 0:03:56.920 --> 0:03:57.920 part soon enough. 0:03:58.800 --> 0:04:00.800 What's the hardest question on here? 0:04:01.040 --> 0:04:03.800 The hardest question, Well, the final question you have to 0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:07.160 answer is around fuel duty, and that's tricky because It 0:04:07.240 --> 0:04:10.080 costs a lot to keep fuel duty where it's at 0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:13.640 because the chancellors since twenty eleven have frozen fuel duty. 0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:15.800 They've not let it rise with inflation. And there's also 0:04:15.840 --> 0:04:18.880 a five p temporary cut to fuel duty that will 0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:22.040 expire in March. So the chance has to decide, am 0:04:22.040 --> 0:04:23.200 I can to let that happen. Am I going to 0:04:23.279 --> 0:04:24.960 let fuel duty go up? On my watch? It costs 0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:27.559 him about six billion pounds to maintain that fuel duty freeze. 0:04:27.560 --> 0:04:29.159 That's almost half the headroom you start with the right, 0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:30.719 So you can see why that's a big pressure he 0:04:30.720 --> 0:04:33.080 has to respond to. So if you get that choice wrong, 0:04:33.120 --> 0:04:35.520 you're likely to annoy motorists. So be careful with fuel 0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:36.200 duty I. 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:38.600 Mean inheritance tax. There is also an option to abolish 0:04:38.600 --> 0:04:42.159 inheritance tax, which basically would also cut seven billion pounds 0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:42.640 of headroom. 0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:44.760 It's a very expensive measure, and that's why I think 0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:47.080 that's unlikely. I think it's unlikely the Chancellor would worttion 0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:49.360 hotor tax. It's politically contentious as well. 0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:53.039 You does your game manage to get the kind of 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:57.359 different complexions of you within parties because you have, you know, 0:04:57.400 --> 0:04:59.520 depending on the kind of factions in the five and 0:04:59.520 --> 0:05:02.120 six different families. However, many families were up to now, 0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:05.760 but for the listeners that gloriously don't know what we're 0:05:05.760 --> 0:05:07.760 talking about. This is the idea that there's these five 0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:11.440 families within the Conservative Party of different perspectives on what 0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:13.039 they're doing now and what they'll do in the future. 0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:15.039 But some of them are as you say, you know, 0:05:15.120 --> 0:05:18.480 some of them are inheritance taxes the problem our voters 0:05:18.480 --> 0:05:22.000 want it removing. But then others, probably more red wall Tories. 0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:24.479 Are you do that and you immediately signal that you 0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:27.920 are not a party that is serious about mass appeal. 0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:30.440 Yeah, we try to offer the full panoply of tax 0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:32.320 cuts that the conserative Party is asking for. So in 0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:34.760 the game you have income tax masch insurance stamp duties 0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:37.200 in the game as well. That's important measure that a 0:05:37.240 --> 0:05:40.040 lot of more Centrists and pece want to see action 0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:42.960 onto show we're helping aspirational people once get the property letner, 0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:45.440 inheritance taxes there, I say, a few duties there. The 0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:47.600 public spending choices there as well, and again that's one 0:05:47.640 --> 0:05:50.280 where some would like to see public spending reduced to 0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:52.400 fun tax cuts. Others say no, we can't do that. So, yeah, 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:53.320 we tried to capture them. 0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:55.640 Do you think there's a real consideration in the conservative 0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:58.600 body that they might win the election. I think they 0:05:58.640 --> 0:06:01.040 have to keep believing that themselves, and that's what they 0:06:01.040 --> 0:06:04.640 tell themselves, I imagine regularly within number ten. And there's 0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:07.560 a directive inside number ten, which is, do not work 0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:09.680 if you do not think we can do this, and 0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:12.640 if you have that negative outlook, just leave. 0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:15.440 Now, because we have to believe. So they tell themselves 0:06:15.480 --> 0:06:17.599 that I think they do. There's like a one percent 0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:19.120 thought in the head which it says, you know, we've 0:06:19.120 --> 0:06:22.159 seen a story in the past where things can go 0:06:22.240 --> 0:06:24.920 well for us, like a job major style outcome or 0:06:25.240 --> 0:06:27.560 a cameraon in twenty fifteen, where you're kind of written 0:06:27.600 --> 0:06:29.840 off but it just comes together at the last moment 0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:32.360 for you. They're still on the kind of bell curve 0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:36.640 of probability that outcome exists, maybe very much in the tail, 0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:37.800 but it does exist. 0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:47.200 But the game, exactly, I tried to do what's right 0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:50.160 for the economy, and the game really tries to ask. 0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:52.000 So I mean, you have to, you know, take into 0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:54.080 account that you're trying to win the election. A disaster. 0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:57.240 It tells me the party wanted you to deliver a 0:06:57.240 --> 0:07:02.679 headline grabbing giveaways, you've delivered upos it. So the point 0:07:02.760 --> 0:07:04.599 is that you know it's a tough yard for that 0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:05.080 tough gig. 0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:07.080 Yeah, you can't just sit on your hands and do 0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:09.400 what the OvR or you know, do what everyone all 0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:11.160 the kind of the economist would like to do. We 0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:13.320 just keep keep the headroom at twenty billion pounds and 0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:15.560 you know the MP's won't be happy with that. 0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:17.720 What in your game is the easiest way to crash 0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:18.720 the economy the. 0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:22.400 East switch crushed economy is to not give yourself any 0:07:22.400 --> 0:07:24.760 more fiscal headroom. So stick with the thirteen billion and 0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:26.400 then just cut all the taxes. If you were to 0:07:26.760 --> 0:07:29.440 come tax cutlash insurance, you then end up blowing out 0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:31.440 your fiscal headroom, You break your fiscal rule by a 0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:33.880 large margin, and you're boring goes sky high and then 0:07:33.920 --> 0:07:34.600 you crash the markets. 0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:37.360 Yeah, but is there a question around do all that 0:07:37.480 --> 0:07:40.360 but consult the OBR, versus do all that but don't 0:07:40.360 --> 0:07:41.200 consult the OBR. 0:07:41.240 --> 0:07:42.840 Because that latter. 0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:47.160 Branch on the decision tree was what Liz trusted. That 0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:49.200 was In the end, we ended up thinking, didn't we 0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:50.920 that it was not saying she could have gone away 0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:53.720 with those tax cuts, but it was tax cuts plus 0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:57.240 no referee looking at the numbers. 0:07:57.560 --> 0:07:59.960 Yeah, perhaps I should added that as choice button, check 0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:02.000 check your check your measures. 0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:05.680 And don't sack your senior civil So indeed that as well. 0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:08.000 You cannot choose those in the game, but maybybe next 0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:09.040 budget we'll add in. 0:08:08.960 --> 0:08:09.480 Those, Joe. 0:08:09.560 --> 0:08:11.040 I mean, there's been a lot of hints of what 0:08:11.080 --> 0:08:13.280 we could see in the budget. What are you expecting. 0:08:13.840 --> 0:08:16.240 I think personal tax cuts are going to happen. So 0:08:16.240 --> 0:08:18.680 there's going to be either an income tax cut or 0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:21.440 a national insurance tax cut, maybe even both of at 0:08:21.480 --> 0:08:25.000 least one percentage point of income tax. Hunt and Sunak 0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:27.000 would like to do more. I mean that they say 0:08:27.000 --> 0:08:29.320 themselves they'd like to do say two pe of income 0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:32.680 tax cut, but they're waiting to see how the numbers land. 0:08:33.160 --> 0:08:34.559 That's the big things to expect. But there will be 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:36.920 other stuff around the sides, you know, perhaps help on housing. 0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:39.720 They talk about ninety nine percent mortgages that could come 0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:41.280 in the In the world of the city. We have 0:08:41.400 --> 0:08:43.880 the British Ier, which your friend talks with. The chances 0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:45.840 we are about. That's very likely to come as well, 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:49.360 potentially reforms around the lifetime ier the chances looking at 0:08:49.679 --> 0:08:51.640 pension funds, how to encourage them to invest more in 0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:54.640 the UK equity markets, so reforms there. But the thing 0:08:54.640 --> 0:08:55.920 the big things to look up for is those personal 0:08:55.960 --> 0:08:56.319 tax tis. 0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:57.559 I think that's right. I think one of the things 0:08:57.600 --> 0:08:59.720 that we tend to think about Hunt is that he's 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:01.800 on the left of the party because he's relatively social 0:09:02.080 --> 0:09:04.400 socially liberal who's anti prectic, But when it comes to 0:09:04.400 --> 0:09:06.360 things like tax cut, he's actually just pretty much a 0:09:06.400 --> 0:09:09.160 small government conservative. He's a He's a Thatch right of course, 0:09:09.200 --> 0:09:12.320 as as Sunak is, so that would be their their instinct. 0:09:12.880 --> 0:09:14.640 They're not the leveling up wing of the party. They're 0:09:14.720 --> 0:09:17.040 very much let's let's cut the state, let's let the 0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:19.839 free market operator as much as possible, lets people, let 0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:22.080 money fructify in the hands of the in the pockets 0:09:22.120 --> 0:09:23.760 of the people, and that sort of thing. So I 0:09:23.800 --> 0:09:25.680 think that you're right about that. 0:09:26.160 --> 0:09:29.400 But it's tricky for him and them because it isn't 0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:32.200 obvious at the moment with public attitudes what they are 0:09:32.520 --> 0:09:36.200 that necessarily tax cuts are where people are at. 0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:37.760 But I think they think it's the right thing to 0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:41.640 do for conservative to the economy, and so certainly form well, 0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:45.760 yes they are, You're right intellectually they have went into 0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:48.960 politics to cut taxes and to let people make decisions 0:09:48.960 --> 0:09:51.920 with their own money, both of both Richie and Sunak 0:09:52.000 --> 0:09:52.959 and Jeremy Hunt. 0:09:53.000 --> 0:09:55.760 That's true. But there's this blend at the moment where 0:09:56.120 --> 0:09:58.880 you could backfire. You know, how much is the right 0:09:58.880 --> 0:10:02.240 amount to give people of their own money back for 0:10:02.320 --> 0:10:04.880 them to think it's worth it, versus that sense of 0:10:04.920 --> 0:10:07.880 a crumbling public realm where people are fed up with 0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.080 the fact that, you know, when they take their mum 0:10:10.080 --> 0:10:13.160 to hospital, it's miserable, and that's that, And that is 0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:16.600 the sort of it's almost unknowable how people would react 0:10:16.640 --> 0:10:19.040 to yes, you get another few hundred quid back, which 0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:22.760 is not nothing. But you know, the opinion polets are 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:26.559 consistently showing rather than a couple that are manipulated, you know, 0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:32.280 they're consistently showing people are quite aware of the tax cuts. Yes, 0:10:32.320 --> 0:10:35.800 you give us a tax pot versus versus well, firstly 0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:38.120 versus what's what's the trade off? But the other thing 0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:40.320 that I think people are quite sophisticated about is this 0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:44.040 idea of the sandwich, so you know, you get, yes, 0:10:44.120 --> 0:10:46.400 this might be that moment of tax cutting, but you 0:10:46.520 --> 0:10:48.920 put it up massively the other day, and there's other 0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:51.400 things that are coming up in the in the years ahead. 0:10:51.520 --> 0:10:54.560 So there's a there's a sense of the kind of 0:10:54.600 --> 0:10:59.840 electra is very sophisticated around what's being done to them. 0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:03.040 But is the a sense that if they don't get 0:11:03.120 --> 0:11:06.400 tax cuts they will be confident that the NHS might 0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:08.760 be better or their local services might be better. I don't 0:11:08.800 --> 0:11:09.520 think there's that either. 0:11:09.600 --> 0:11:16.520 No, No, are you use the budget for together right, 0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:20.240 especially if they have an election after the Conservative Party conference? 0:11:20.320 --> 0:11:22.000 Or is it actually appealing. 0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:24.199 To new voter as I think the overriding thought for 0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:27.000 the Primeister and the Chancellor is this budget is to help 0:11:27.000 --> 0:11:29.000 us win the election. It's it's kind of as simple 0:11:29.040 --> 0:11:31.079 as that. So it's it's targeted at voters, I think, 0:11:31.200 --> 0:11:33.680 And I think the reason why personal tax cuts are 0:11:33.679 --> 0:11:36.160 so attractive is because they want to set up an 0:11:36.160 --> 0:11:39.240 election campaign that is fought on the dividing line that 0:11:39.280 --> 0:11:42.120 they want, which is we're a tax cutting party and 0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:44.319 labor are not label put up your taxes we're the 0:11:44.360 --> 0:11:46.120 ones who've been cutting them, and that they think that 0:11:46.200 --> 0:11:49.120 is the best strategy. They have the entire election around 0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:51.599 that kind of narrative, and that's why the abolition of 0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:55.120 the non dom tax status is now also being considered, 0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:58.560 because they know that by doing that that also spikes 0:11:58.600 --> 0:12:02.240 Labour's guns, because labor have various spending commitments that are 0:12:02.360 --> 0:12:05.280 attached to using the revenue that you'd raise from a 0:12:05.400 --> 0:12:08.760 non tax tax status abolition. But if if the concern 0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:10.600 has already done that, then Labe, you have to find 0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:13.120 some new measure to raise the funds to pay for 0:12:13.160 --> 0:12:15.280 all those spending commitments. That's exactly what the toys want. 0:12:15.280 --> 0:12:15.880 The toys wants. 0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:17.920 This non dom money is going to pay for an 0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:19.760 enormous amount of stuff exactly. 0:12:20.400 --> 0:12:22.400 And now if they don't even have that Nondon money, 0:12:22.400 --> 0:12:23.719 oh my gosh, you know what where's it going to 0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:25.480 come from? So I think we have to view it 0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:26.360 through that election lens. 0:12:26.400 --> 0:12:29.240 It's also interesting if they do that because that's traditionally 0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:31.960 been seen in British politics as the way you would 0:12:31.960 --> 0:12:34.160 signify that you are for the many, not the fear, 0:12:34.200 --> 0:12:38.440 and so on, which which which would be a you know, hitherto. 0:12:38.480 --> 0:12:40.600 I think the Conservative Party said, well, you know, we 0:12:40.640 --> 0:12:43.520 don't have to signify that, we we assert it. But 0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:47.120 I think if they feel that actually the fundamentally there 0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:49.040 aren't many pots of money that they can go for, 0:12:49.120 --> 0:12:52.079 that's part of the problem, isn't it That it's I'm 0:12:52.080 --> 0:12:53.840 going to play your game with interest, but there aren't 0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:55.840 actually are there. There isn't sort of lots of kind 0:12:55.840 --> 0:12:59.120 of hidden cupboards with with with bags of golden no exactly. 0:12:59.559 --> 0:13:02.640 And the wright also that many pots of public sentiment 0:13:02.679 --> 0:13:04.439 they can go for. Nobody's really going to vote for 0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:06.160 the Conservative Party because I think it's going to give 0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:09.280 them a better national health services compared with the Labor Party, 0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:09.960 So they should. 0:13:09.720 --> 0:13:13.240 Stick to the text, right or you know, certainly on 0:13:13.280 --> 0:13:15.200 the Conservative side you hear a lot saying, look, there's 0:13:15.200 --> 0:13:17.800 a lot of undecided voters. And when you're on that 0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:20.839 ballad on your own in that cubicle, what do you 0:13:20.920 --> 0:13:22.840 think about? I mean, do you think about inflation like 0:13:22.920 --> 0:13:25.800 you know, the food prices? Do you think you actually 0:13:25.800 --> 0:13:30.839 probably think about your household and your personal situation right, 0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:33.680 rather than the Tories have messed it up for last 0:13:33.679 --> 0:13:34.199 thirteen years. 0:13:34.200 --> 0:13:37.400 It's a blend, Isn't that? That's the thing. It's a blead. 0:13:37.440 --> 0:13:39.240 You know, people stand in that ballot box and they 0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:43.400 make decisions based on family and their identity, and you know, 0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:45.120 the kind of person they think they are. It's not 0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:46.720 always homoeconomicus, is it. 0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:48.600 But then what have they got to offer? They offer 0:13:49.040 --> 0:13:51.640 a vote conservative because we don't crash the economy like 0:13:51.640 --> 0:13:54.839 the labor people. That that one's gone. So there's really 0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:57.640 very little that they can say is distinctively conservative. 0:13:57.760 --> 0:13:59.920 I mean, we've heard it before, but it's finished the job. 0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:02.240 So it's if you think that inflation is coming down 0:14:02.240 --> 0:14:04.280 and you like that, you like the fact that, you know, 0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:07.240 food prices don't feel so kind of strangulating and all 0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:10.160 of that, then you know, why would you switch right now? 0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:14.559 And now? Yeah, yeah, that's an argument. The opposing argument 0:14:14.640 --> 0:14:17.080 is yes, But in the eyes of some people who 0:14:17.120 --> 0:14:17.640 cause that. 0:14:17.960 --> 0:14:20.600 We don't switch horses in midstream is a bit difficult. 0:14:20.600 --> 0:14:21.880 If you've been in perfect. 0:14:23.600 --> 0:14:26.600 Yeah, and the poles are so far apart, what would 0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:28.720 make a difference. Are there undecided voters? 0:14:29.720 --> 0:14:33.200 There are undecided voters, yes, and how they break is 0:14:33.240 --> 0:14:35.960 obviously a key question for the election. But I think 0:14:36.280 --> 0:14:38.800 Even then when they do these you know, large poles 0:14:39.240 --> 0:14:42.760 using sophisticated techniques, and they say, imagine if all the 0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:46.680 undecideds broke for the Conservatives, even then those poles still 0:14:46.680 --> 0:14:49.600 show labor winning and majority. So I mean, that's one 0:14:49.680 --> 0:14:51.880 hope the Conservative Party have, and it shows how how 0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:54.400 child tough the task is for them. I just say 0:14:54.400 --> 0:14:57.640 that the danger of the sticks to the plan narrative 0:14:57.760 --> 0:14:59.760 is that you risk going into election being the party 0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:04.760 offering change, and that is dangerous. And uh, but even 0:15:04.800 --> 0:15:07.960 then they still think that it's probably our best approach 0:15:08.040 --> 0:15:10.160 we have, just given how much a bindery it mean. 0:15:10.200 --> 0:15:12.960 Notice which tried the change narrative at the party conference. 0:15:13.000 --> 0:15:15.400 Remember that, but that got very quickly junked because they 0:15:15.440 --> 0:15:17.480 realized it's it's so hard to kind of almost with 0:15:17.520 --> 0:15:19.440 a straight face, make that claim given that you, like 0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:21.760 you say, Adrian, we have been in power for so long. Okay, 0:15:21.800 --> 0:15:23.840 let's go back to the old narrative of sticks of land. 0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:26.360 You know, labor are dangerous, We're the safe guys. 0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:29.280 What would be in a labor budget. 0:15:32.000 --> 0:15:32.360 I mean. 0:15:35.800 --> 0:15:38.440 School face and then everything else is tough. 0:15:39.120 --> 0:15:41.320 I mean because at the moment, so much of labors 0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:43.840 position is our economic stance is the same as the 0:15:43.840 --> 0:15:46.600 Conservative Party because they don't want that divide because they 0:15:46.640 --> 0:15:48.840 know that the Tories always exploit that. And and Rachel 0:15:48.880 --> 0:15:50.480 Rus when you ask her, always says, well, we have 0:15:50.480 --> 0:15:53.000 to see what the fiscal situation is come that time. 0:15:53.400 --> 0:15:55.720 But you know, if they were to win power, they'd 0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:59.560 have to address all the public service I think situation 0:15:59.640 --> 0:16:02.280 that we have, they'd likely have to raise some taxes 0:16:02.280 --> 0:16:05.800 you'd have thought to fund increasing investment in public services. 0:16:05.800 --> 0:16:07.840 But the Ritard is we never say that at this 0:16:07.840 --> 0:16:09.840 point because they don't want to give Torri's ammunition for 0:16:09.840 --> 0:16:11.840 the election. So yeah, very hard to say. 0:16:11.840 --> 0:16:14.560 What being a labor jet, you could argue that, you know, 0:16:14.680 --> 0:16:17.000 there's nothing that you can really do without doing something 0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:20.680 radical to change the calcus of this country. And one 0:16:20.720 --> 0:16:22.760 of the radical things you can do is to start 0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:26.600 to charge people for using the NHS, or at least 0:16:26.600 --> 0:16:29.640 find them then turn out for their appointments, open that thing. 0:16:29.840 --> 0:16:33.400 And that might happen under labor. It couldn't happen under conservatives, 0:16:33.440 --> 0:16:35.800 I think because because of the dynamics of politics. But 0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:39.440 you could see something very interesting coming from from from 0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:42.440 labor in order to just shake us out of this, 0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:45.080 this this inertia that we have at the moment. 0:16:45.240 --> 0:16:50.360 Yeah, and we're streeting who's their health? Does talk in 0:16:50.560 --> 0:16:54.720 in innovative and different ways. Just the question will be 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:58.240 how quickly you go from this sort of conservative in 0:16:58.320 --> 0:17:01.160 fighting to labor in fighting where they've tried to do 0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:04.359 something radical, which, as you said, suggest they need to 0:17:04.359 --> 0:17:06.919 do and maybe only they can do. And then and 0:17:06.960 --> 0:17:09.040 then you know what did the Union say? What does 0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:10.720 the left say? What a Corbynist to say? 0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:14.680 But I can't see anything that can shake us out 0:17:14.720 --> 0:17:19.840 of this situation of deteriorating public services and marginal right 0:17:20.560 --> 0:17:23.040 without something really radical new income. 0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:25.800 Joe, I mean NHS is at a lunch pin. I 0:17:25.840 --> 0:17:28.320 mean does that how many votes does that give you 0:17:28.400 --> 0:17:28.920