Speaker 1: Welcome back to London, Francine.
Speaker 2: Dave, I missed you.
Speaker 1: Where have you been.
Speaker 2: I've been in New York. So I went there for
Speaker 2: a couple of days of hunger.
Speaker 1: All of the world leaders right, yes, sending at.
Speaker 2: The UN UN General Assembly. It's if you're in New
Speaker 2: Yorker you hate it because there was traffic gridlock. But
Speaker 2: if you're thrilling, everyone's there, did you see? So there
Speaker 2: were a couple of world leaders. Someone who we did
Speaker 2: not see was Rush Souning because he didn't go.
Speaker 1: Didn't go. So Zelenski was there.
Speaker 2: Biden did a pretty impassionate speech, and then we had
Speaker 2: our own Bloomberg event where Janet Yellen really put the
Speaker 2: focus on at zero and what the US will do
Speaker 2: in the couple of years ahead.
Speaker 3: Actually a year ago, I was over there in the
Speaker 3: States watching with goggle eyes as the UK markets went
Speaker 3: into turmoil after the Liz trust Many budget. I can't
Speaker 3: believe that was now a year ago.
Speaker 2: I remember those days of panic. It was chaos and
Speaker 2: the market's just going completely.
Speaker 3: Bank of England had to intervene. I mean it was
Speaker 3: like the UK economy was about to completely collapse.
Speaker 1: I'm from sin Laqua and I'm David Merritt.
Speaker 2: Welcome to In the City, Bloomberg's podcast connecting you to
Speaker 2: the conversations at the heart of the City of London.
Speaker 3: So, this week, on that anniversary of the panic, the
Speaker 3: termold in the UK economy. How lasting is the impact
Speaker 3: from that infamous mini budget that came out this time
Speaker 3: last year.
Speaker 2: So the votes are in and the main message from
Speaker 2: this Bloomberg survey out this week confidence and UK assets
Speaker 2: have not fully recovered from Truss's forty nine day rule.
Speaker 3: And as a general election looms on the horizon, what
Speaker 3: does it mean for labor and what is the city
Speaker 3: thing the prospects of a labor administration. So to help
Speaker 3: us dive into all of these questions, we've invited to
Speaker 3: the London Studio senior economics reporter Phil Aldrich and senior
Speaker 3: reporter and author of the Money Distilled newsletter John Steppek.
Speaker 1: So welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 2: Heks very much, Happy anniversary. It's great, No, it's so seriously,
Speaker 2: it's crazy thinking that it was twelve months ago. I
Speaker 2: mean it was chaos. We were looking at the guild market,
Speaker 2: we were you know, looking at Stirling Fall. Is it
Speaker 2: now much more stable.
Speaker 4: Yeah, everything's more stable than that was crazy.
Speaker 3: I mean it was the brink, right, we thought that
Speaker 3: the economy was about to actually.
Speaker 4: Well, there was this same England had to do that intervention,
Speaker 4: didn't it put one hundred billion pounds on the line
Speaker 4: if it needed it to stabilize markets, which was you know,
Speaker 4: if you think back to how much they spent on
Speaker 4: Rbs and Lloyds in two thousand and eight, or the
Speaker 4: Treasury did, that was more money was put on the line.
Speaker 4: You can if you're going to make those comparisons. But yeah,
Speaker 4: obviously they didn't need to spend that in the end,
Speaker 4: and things did stabilize relatively quickly because it was just
Speaker 4: an isolated UK showing everyone how rubbish we can be.
Speaker 3: But this trust has come out swinging a bit this week,
Speaker 3: hasn't she. She's trying to rewrite history or the record.
Speaker 1: Perhaps, doesn't she.
Speaker 3: No, interest rates are higher now than they were after
Speaker 3: that that collapsed in guilt prices, So you do we
Speaker 3: over exaggerate that Britain was some sort of outlier as
Speaker 3: a result of what happened in the last year.
Speaker 5: I'd say, I'm mons, I think we do a bet
Speaker 5: and I don't think that anyone talks about the pension
Speaker 5: finds enough when it comes to this. I do think
Speaker 5: that one reason that Breton kicked over is because a
Speaker 5: liability driven investment, which was basically the hedges that feign
Speaker 5: benefit pension find side so that when Entrance Street it's spaked,
Speaker 5: they've essentially margin called.
Speaker 1: But she didn't know about right, So it was general.
Speaker 2: You can be as patriotic as you want, but it
Speaker 2: was a mess. I mean, you're on right. You speak
Speaker 2: to people at dinner who weren't trading floors and they say,
Speaker 2: I've I used to run an emerging market's currency desk
Speaker 2: and I actually had to step away from that to
Speaker 2: try and help, you know, the sterling traders because they
Speaker 2: just were not used to the volatility. Yeah, so, I
Speaker 2: mean it was absolutely chaos. Now, whether it's right or wrong,
Speaker 2: it was like, we've never seen anything like that.
Speaker 3: And this was what the service says, right, got the
Speaker 3: data here, eighty percent of the survey respondents that we
Speaker 3: pulled at Bloomberg Week said, and these are folio managers
Speaker 3: tried as returning busters. They said that confidence in UK
Speaker 3: assets has not free recovered.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that?
Speaker 5: I mean I don't. I don't disagree with the fact
Speaker 5: that it was a cluster of epic proportions. I just
Speaker 5: feel there's elements of it that are slightly overlooked. I
Speaker 5: think Let's Trust made a lot of mistakes, and I
Speaker 5: think the way that Quasi qua ten came out and
Speaker 5: completely misjudged the tone of the markets at the time,
Speaker 5: which given that you know, he's a clever guy and
Speaker 5: a lot of economics background, probably should have thought of that.
Speaker 5: At the same time, I don't think the bond vigilantes
Speaker 5: were resurrected, and I do think it's interesting that a
Speaker 5: lot of people who would have completely pooh poohed the
Speaker 5: idea that point of vigilantes even exist upuntil that point,
Speaker 5: are suddenly like, oh, you know, Britain really needs to
Speaker 5: watch it. So the fiscal side of things, because the
Speaker 5: fiscal side of things, it isn't the problem, and debt
Speaker 5: to GDP is not particularly worse. In fact, some of
Speaker 5: the middle of the pack, isn't.
Speaker 4: It, the bottom of the G seven Yeah, ah yeah,
Speaker 4: so it's not really.
Speaker 5: I think it's just been dangerous diagnosing exactly what happened.
Speaker 5: And there's a couple of subtle details that actually mean that,
Speaker 5: for example, we could spend more money if we wanted to.
Speaker 2: But John, so if you put into contact and you're
Speaker 2: absolutely right, right, it's all in the nuance. Was it
Speaker 2: the mini budget that freaked people out? Or was it
Speaker 2: also the campaigning a couple of months before that was
Speaker 2: anti establishment, that was anti some of the institutions that
Speaker 2: have run the US faring.
Speaker 3: Of Tom Scholar, those sorts of actions, and they're laying
Speaker 3: into the Bank of England.
Speaker 5: I think that's probably reasonable. Like I said, they didn't
Speaker 5: make good governance decisions, and I definitely agree that the
Speaker 5: tone was wrong. I think low it's a combination of
Speaker 5: that thing of you kind of blundering into your mindfield
Speaker 5: are kind of like, you know, smoking and not realizing
Speaker 5: there's like a box of fireblocks behind you. It's that
Speaker 5: kind of thing. So it's absolutely not saying that they
Speaker 5: were blameless in any way and clearly wasn't very good.
Speaker 5: But it's more I think one danger in misdiagnosing it
Speaker 5: just because and it then restricts ability to actually act
Speaker 5: as a country with better leadership because now everyone's like, oh,
Speaker 5: we've got to go back to stairty.
Speaker 4: Other Wise the.
Speaker 5: Boyd market will exploit and that's not the case anymore
Speaker 5: because the aldized them.
Speaker 4: You know, I think I think I just obviously Liz
Speaker 4: Trust in her speech was saying, obviously interest rates are
Speaker 4: back to where they were, but that's not really a
Speaker 4: fair comparison, is it, Because what we had was a
Speaker 4: premium and everyone called it the more on premium at
Speaker 4: the time, way above all the other markets rates where
Speaker 4: they were in those days. And obviously what's happened in
Speaker 4: the subsequent years, everyone's rates have gone up. So you
Speaker 4: know this that premium is in there. And the eighty
Speaker 4: percent of people who say that we haven't fully recovered,
Speaker 4: I think it does overstate the real picture because what
Speaker 4: eighty percent of the responders are saying is that, yes,
Speaker 4: we're not quite back to where we were, but basically
Speaker 4: we're pretty close about It's a bit like you know,
Speaker 4: twenty ten when the Tory, when the coalition government came in,
Speaker 4: they didn't actually have any decent policies and the fact
Speaker 4: that there was a financial crisis was a brilliant form.
Speaker 4: They could just rally behind this disaster and say, hey,
Speaker 4: we've got a policy here. We're going to get the
Speaker 4: public finance as an order blah blah, fixed the fixed
Speaker 4: economy and basically Liz Trust screws it all up. And
Speaker 4: then obviously Richis has a very single objective to demonstrate
Speaker 4: that he is credible. Obviously he's carrying a lot of baggage,
Speaker 4: so that has been sort of useful for his own I.
Speaker 3: Mean, he's got a small window that has any The
Speaker 3: other interesting I thought result from the survey was that
Speaker 3: two thirds of the respondents actually think labor would be
Speaker 3: better for markets, for UK markets and image now, so
Speaker 3: it's part of this just the kind of general fatigue
Speaker 3: with this conservative administration and a kind of optimism that
Speaker 3: whoever else comes in it's going to be better.
Speaker 5: I mean, I would think, Saul. I mean, it's the
Speaker 5: Tories have been in power for like thirteen years with
Speaker 5: dms NO, and they are obviously entirely so obviously did
Speaker 5: with every single catastrophic decision that has been made along
Speaker 5: the way, and so it's not remotely surprising. Certainly, I
Speaker 5: don't think anyone really the people in this setting are
Speaker 5: back in label because I think it's for it's of
Speaker 5: reflets with the rest of the countries kind of feel
Speaker 5: into a great extent always political fatigue.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but then you can't take away from labor that
Speaker 4: they are they are actively making a big effort to
Speaker 4: get the city on side here and none of they've
Speaker 4: got a Labor in the City group, which is basically
Speaker 4: to you know, have these endless conversations with market makers.
Speaker 1: Story podcast, Thank you for listening.
Speaker 4: And they've been sort of oiding and dining all the
Speaker 4: business they've had, all these breakfasts and rachel reeves and
Speaker 4: kids have made, you know, difficult decisions. This is the
Speaker 4: thing they have to demonstrate that they can be tough
Speaker 4: on themselves, to prove to this city and the business
Speaker 4: community that there will be prudent on the public finances.
Speaker 4: And they roll back the one hundred and forty billion
Speaker 4: pound green Plan, they're the two child benefit cap, they're
Speaker 4: persisting with it. These are not popular policies, particularly among
Speaker 4: the labor. But what they are doing is demonstrate into
Speaker 4: that to that floating voter, particularly in the city, that actually, yes,
Speaker 4: thirteen years of Tory rule should come to an end
Speaker 4: because these guys are not going to be Jeremy Corbyn.
Speaker 2: Phil Is there a danger first of all that you
Speaker 2: can't really tell the two parties apart come election day
Speaker 2: and we're still thin on policy, so we don't really
Speaker 2: know what they'll do with carried interest. Labor's wooing business,
Speaker 2: but they're not giving business a lot of details of
Speaker 2: what they plan to do.
Speaker 4: Well, they've provided that you know, there will not be
Speaker 4: a wealth tax. They've also said so I think Reeves
Speaker 4: said that there will not be further tax rises above
Speaker 4: what I've already announced. The carried interesting, I think is
Speaker 4: part of one of those that they've done. I'm not
Speaker 4: hundred stent sure, but the other ones are the things
Speaker 4: that vat on school fees or private school fees.
Speaker 1: Then the non bombs around the city probably that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but I think people can wear it, I mean, right,
Speaker 4: but the U and then yeah, the non doms is
Speaker 4: a is another one where they're going to crack down.
Speaker 4: So there are I think I've added it up to
Speaker 4: like there's a b seven billion of tax ris six
Speaker 4: to seven billion of tax risers that they have got
Speaker 4: in the works, which gives them seven billion to spend
Speaker 4: on other things. Basically that's above and beyond what the
Speaker 4: what the Tory plans are already.
Speaker 3: I mean, really, they're just gott to not screw it up, right,
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, you know, Johnson talks about the
Speaker 3: huge win that he had and that majority.
Speaker 2: They also to inspire.
Speaker 3: But I mean it was, I mean, last time, it
Speaker 3: was Jeremy Corbyn, right, who people were allergic to. They
Speaker 3: just need someone who's saying.
Speaker 5: I mean he's kind of move I mean, twenty players
Speaker 5: on the tailor all the time now and you know
Speaker 5: that's kind of the sense that they've moved back to
Speaker 5: the can of Blaby world rather than the Corbinate world.
Speaker 5: And to be fair, I mean, I mean, you're right,
Speaker 5: kiss Slam has done a very good job given that
Speaker 5: he was, you know, near the top when Jeremy Corbyn
Speaker 5: was their candidate for PM. He might have essentially pub
Speaker 5: to the party of the kind of hardcore Corbinates or
Speaker 5: converted the ones who wear healthcore any reasonable sounding kind
Speaker 5: of politicians and the and Rachel Reeves Chross Ferriber was
Speaker 5: a shadow Chancela and kind of I would say, probably
Speaker 5: an economists.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that is the sort of I know what I'm doing.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So there's a sort of mainstreaming of it away
Speaker 5: from what it was the last time, which I think
Speaker 5: probably helps a lot.
Speaker 2: But Sar starmin that inspire. I mean you talk about
Speaker 2: Tony Blair, the know they have a leader of the party,
Speaker 2: he's young. Does he just need to be more bold?
Speaker 5: I think that I don't disagree with. If you can
Speaker 5: get an inspirational leader, that is great, but if you
Speaker 5: if you, if you're running the risk that you may
Speaker 5: he really isn't one of those games now. But it's like,
Speaker 5: just don't see anything really stupid and you want to
Speaker 5: and then you could be inspiring.
Speaker 4: Cooper, who's a who's upposed, who was posted for David Cameron,
Speaker 4: who's been working with Kist. He talks about the Roy
Speaker 4: Jenkins quote about the ming VARs where you're walking across
Speaker 4: the slippery dance for carrying him invass you just want
Speaker 4: to be extraordinarily carefully, don't fall over and break it.
Speaker 4: And that's what and that's the sort of that's the
Speaker 4: labor sort of policy approach at the moment. But he
Speaker 4: he does point out that actually, although there's this big
Speaker 4: vote against against the Tories, there hasn't been an equivalent
Speaker 4: big rise in sort of support for labor among in
Speaker 4: the polls, which is, he says, is much like the
Speaker 4: twenty ten election, where you saw a drop in the
Speaker 4: labor people backing labor, but not a big increase in
Speaker 4: the toy So then you ended up in the coalition.
Speaker 4: So that's where to the point of an inspiration that
Speaker 4: they fall short on laboor body will fall short on
Speaker 4: inspiration and that could mean that they don't get a
Speaker 4: government of their own, have to end up in a coalition.
Speaker 3: And actually digging into this the so a little bit more.
Speaker 3: The way it's phrased is the preferences for a clear
Speaker 3: labor victory. So it's just remembering, you know what it's
Speaker 3: like to have a hung parliament. Obviously that would be
Speaker 3: a bad outcompany markets, right if there was no clear
Speaker 3: winner whenever the election comes and there has to be
Speaker 3: some sort of coalition stitch together and the SMP comes
Speaker 3: into play and all these questions, that could be the
Speaker 3: most negative of all supermarkets.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think that's a really good point because
Speaker 5: then you do get an awful lot of uncertainties coming
Speaker 5: into it, because if you get labor, you know roughly
Speaker 5: what you're getting. If you get the Tories again, you
Speaker 5: know roughly what you're getting.
Speaker 4: Then, I mean, to.
Speaker 5: Be fair, if if there was a clean slate behind
Speaker 5: Richy and Jeremy Hunt. Then there wouldn't be you know,
Speaker 5: they would kind of be much of a muchness between them,
Speaker 5: because I mean, I think the problem is that, I mean,
Speaker 5: as you're saying, Fraten, there's a lack it inspiration because
Speaker 5: there is a sense that we don't have very much
Speaker 5: to work with, and the problem is that all the
Speaker 5: radicalism and this is actually, guess the problem with politics
Speaker 5: in general. The radical ideas are almost universally unpopular the
Speaker 5: things that we need to do, at least with some
Speaker 5: lobby groups. So we need to have you know, yes,
Speaker 5: in my backyardism, but that you know, the nimby is
Speaker 5: only we need maybe think about building HS two at
Speaker 5: some point. But you know that's kind of difficult to
Speaker 5: get done as well. So I think that's why that's
Speaker 5: what I'm trying to think of what Keo Stomach could say.
Speaker 5: They would be simultaneously inspiring and radical and vote winning,
Speaker 5: And that's the sort of difficulty this stage, when you've
Speaker 5: got so much money in the pot.
Speaker 2: Does S and P have a crucial role to play
Speaker 2: in this?
Speaker 5: I hope not.
Speaker 3: To say that they might be the king makers.
Speaker 5: Well, I suppose that's the thing in Scotland. If we've
Speaker 5: lost enough popularity and Labor basically gets back all the
Speaker 5: votes they lost in Scotland, that's them on the path
Speaker 5: to a clear win. So hopefully the SNP's clear role
Speaker 5: is that they lose all the to says. But if
Speaker 5: they did come out as you know, some sort of
Speaker 5: coalition part that that would be very tricky because obviously
Speaker 5: they have much more kind of radical policies that are
Speaker 5: essentially mostly about disrupting the political process down here rather
Speaker 5: than anything helpful.
Speaker 3: And can ask about has prices John, because you came
Speaker 3: on this podcast and think it was probably perfectly tired, right,
Speaker 3: and we asked you for your prediction. It was a
Speaker 3: pretty punchy one for the dropping hat now that's we're
Speaker 3: in the middle of it now, right. House prices are
Speaker 3: falling fastest place for years. You called it, right. The
Speaker 3: survey predicts that they're going to go even further down.
Speaker 3: What's your view now on where house prices are headed?
Speaker 3: Because that's pretty dead to everyone's heart listening to this.
Speaker 5: I was quite surprised because we had so the question
Speaker 5: was like, do you think the peaks and the troughs
Speaker 5: and do you think it's going to go down ten
Speaker 5: percent nomenal, ten to twenty percent norminal on more than
Speaker 5: twenty percent, and most of the most of the readers
Speaker 5: actually went for between ten and twenty percent nominal, which
Speaker 5: I think is actually quite point you because I ringed
Speaker 5: thirty percent roughly, but in real terms, so inflation. So yeah,
Speaker 5: that's kind of in the middle of those. But you know,
Speaker 5: like Bloombergy Economics thinks ten percent down nominal, A couple
Speaker 5: of dollar consultancies think about that, So I thought, actually,
Speaker 5: they're much gloomier than I expected.
Speaker 1: How gloomy are you feel?
Speaker 2: And that's never gloomy, it's just.
Speaker 4: Happy roles, superpositive. Yeah, I think I think ten ten
Speaker 4: percent is phenomenal. Basically, the big sort of unknown is
Speaker 4: what's going to happen to the economy in terms of unemployment,
Speaker 4: because if you do get that pick up, and we're
Speaker 4: already started to say it, if we get that pickup
Speaker 4: in unemployment, and that's when everything starts to get wrong.
Speaker 3: I mean, John, you've I think you've written in your
Speaker 3: newsletter about UK stocks are cheap and correspondents racking they're
Speaker 3: not cheap enough. It's this market going to keep being
Speaker 3: under battery versus it's.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean I tend to think that what will
Speaker 5: happen is that that it will be about the Bank
Speaker 5: England anterest rates speaking. And then what it's interesting because
Speaker 5: also the markets team at Bloomberg have gradually been coming around,
Speaker 5: and you know, lots of analysts are gradually trickying and
Speaker 5: and saying, gosh, so the UK is really cheap. Even
Speaker 5: if it's terrible, it's cheap. And even if it's yeah,
Speaker 5: you get this sort of ton of their holding the
Speaker 5: noises and going yet but that is really cheap. I
Speaker 5: kind of think that price kind of wins out eventually
Speaker 5: over time and can't any number of catalysts could come along,
Speaker 5: like you know, inflation's peaked, I mean, the footy two
Speaker 5: fifties up to day on the hope that the Bank
Speaker 5: of England is going to hold interest rates at least
Speaker 5: they're going to peak at a much lower level than
Speaker 5: we thought two months ago. And given the governments, although
Speaker 5: everyone's still very negative on it, you know, the next
Speaker 5: parliament is going to be led hopefully either by a
Speaker 5: Labor government or a conservative government, both of whom are
Speaker 5: relatively kind of centrist in terms of policies. So I
Speaker 5: suspect the hangover from the whole listrust era will fade
Speaker 5: over the next six months.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's also belief in Europe filled and actually the
Speaker 2: UK is getting closer to them, so it's not quite
Speaker 2: coming back into the EU, but close enough.
Speaker 4: I mean in terms of getting close to pause bricksit
Speaker 4: in relations with their opinion, it definitely seemed to be
Speaker 4: moving that way. I mean that it's one of the
Speaker 4: good things that Richie Senech has achieved was that the
Speaker 4: Windsor framework and then moving back with Horizon Front texts
Speaker 4: would become members of the sort of border.
Speaker 3: Storms in Paris this week, right and then yeah, well
Speaker 3: they've resurrected this idea of concentric circles of the EU.
Speaker 4: In twenty sixteen, they came up with this idea, which
Speaker 4: is basically that there would be a core group of
Speaker 4: Eurozone members and then you'd have these kind of rings
Speaker 4: outside of where they weren't quite as tied into the EU.
Speaker 4: And it seems that it's being re envisaged, which was
Speaker 4: always which is always a good punt, and so Labor
Speaker 4: maybe they or whoever is the next government will be
Speaker 4: able to negotiate something similar.
Speaker 2: To that but would they get really much closer to
Speaker 2: the EU? I was interested. You know, Macaront actually invited
Speaker 2: here storm at the Eliza. I mean, it's very unusual.
Speaker 2: I've never seen like a French president invite the leader
Speaker 2: of the opposition. And I don't know whether it's a
Speaker 2: stance on Europe that also makes them feel closer.
Speaker 4: I mean, obviously Kir Starmer has made it very clear
Speaker 4: that we're not going to renegotiate the Brexit. We're not
Speaker 4: going to sort of have enough friendum revote on the
Speaker 4: on the Brexit deal. But what we could do is
Speaker 4: basically have a much closer relationship, which was always you know,
Speaker 4: there were degrees of Brexit, weren't there There was hard
Speaker 4: breaksit soelf Brexit, no deal Brexit. There were all these
Speaker 4: ways of coming back in do we go fully back
Speaker 4: into the customs Union in the single market? That seems
Speaker 4: a bit of a stretch, frankly, I think.
Speaker 3: But Keir Starmer used to argue that, right, didn't he
Speaker 3: There was when it was all being debated his position
Speaker 3: was the single market option, right, it was, it was
Speaker 3: the Norway. But I mean then he flip floped on
Speaker 3: that right when it became clear that a lot of
Speaker 3: the Brexit voters didn't want to go for it. So
Speaker 3: I mean he's wobbled on this, isn't he.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I suppose what you could say is that he
Speaker 4: moves carefully.
Speaker 1: He's a cautious mood, not breaking down. Yeah, exactly, he was.
Speaker 4: It was too strong to say I want Norway. But
Speaker 4: and now he's kind of edging.
Speaker 2: Back there wheel with that, Benfaz, I mean, it's the
Speaker 2: course back to that thing and being careful and not
Speaker 2: missing things up.
Speaker 5: And also it's not I guess it's probably not clearly
Speaker 5: people I like you said it was kind of like
Speaker 5: craw basically going back to remain whenever that seemed like
Speaker 5: a vote winner. But it's become very clear that actually
Speaker 5: put at this stage, a lot of people would much
Speaker 5: rather that Briggs. It just kind sorted itself out graduate
Speaker 5: rather than having them and spending five years arguing about
Speaker 5: it again. And it is interesting that you kind of
Speaker 5: started talking about that because in a way that's kind
Speaker 5: of what the conversation would ideally have been in twenty
Speaker 5: sixteen after the vote. But clearly there were lots of
Speaker 5: other political factors in play, which are fair enough, you know,
Speaker 5: you can't walk out and then expect to pick and mix.
Speaker 5: But seven years, eight years later, and maybe everyone's a
Speaker 5: bit more, will you. There's a point here.
Speaker 3: But if you want to bowld policy from labor, I mean,
Speaker 3: that would be the one to is joining.
Speaker 4: Macron would put on the table what the rest of
Speaker 4: the EU would put on the table? That's say, any
Speaker 4: thing I wonder because obviously he's always been a bit
Speaker 4: more progressive than the members of the in terms of
Speaker 4: having relationship with you, all.
Speaker 2: Right, and the Kings and Paris always finally going, that's exciting.
Speaker 1: Cock.
Speaker 2: There we go, it's happening. Thank you both for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks for listening to this week's in the City.
Speaker 2: We'll be back next week.
Speaker 3: But in the meantime, if you like our show, please
Speaker 3: do head on over to wherever you listen to podcasts
Speaker 3: and rate, review and subscribe. It helps people find the show.
Speaker 2: It does review, it will be forever grateful.
Speaker 3: This episode was hosted by Me, David Merritt and Me
Speaker 3: from Sinlaqua. It was produced by Summersadi.
Speaker 2: Additional editing by Blake Maples and.
Speaker 3: Special thanks to Phil Audric and John Steppack. And be
Speaker 3: sure to check out John's newsletter, Money Distilled on bloombog
Speaker 3: dot com