BBC sounds, music, radio, podcasts. Hello, here is your Friday edition of Newscast, which is a review of the week with some of the best friends of the podcast, which we broadcast on Thursday night on BBC One, but it is today's episode of Newscast. Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. I like Landscast. I don't think I'm being rude. Japping. Unemployed people who are overweight. That is not the agenda. It's a fun police working overtime. A star is born in Milan.
So hurt that America with this hat. Frankly, I think we need a British Trump. Take me down to Downing Street. Let's go have a tour. Blimey. Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast Studio. And it's Chris in the Newscast Studio. And it's Alex in the Newscast Studio. And it's Henry also in the Newscast Studio. Henry, lovely to have you here because normally when I hear you or watch your newscast, you're at home on a Sunday in that TV with Laura and Patti. So welcome to the actual real. Discover it's real. Yeah, is it as comfy as your own sofa?
I'm not sitting on a sofa when I record newscast, I'm sitting on a hardback chair. Exactly, you're not allowing there. So it's significantly more comfy than my usual newscast posture. You can hear Henry on whatever he's sitting on on the weekend episodes of newscast which are available on BBC sounds just like our weekday episodes of newscast.
Right. And we'll talk about John Prescott in a minute, because there's lots to talk about him and his era. But first of all, just the era we're in now, which is increasing kind of activity in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. So at the start of the week, we saw Joe Biden finally, as some people see it, allowing American-made attack on missiles to be launched into Russia, quickly followed Chris by the British equivalent, which is the storm shadow missiles being fired into Russia as well.
Yeah, and we've had this debate, having a very public debate going on for months and months and months. And that's caused, you know, when I speak to senior folk, defense folk here, they've been quite irritated by that. But it's kind of inevitable when you've got President Zelensky of Ukraine publicly making an argument for it. He was saying that to me in the interview I did with the president back in July, had been saying it for quite a while.
already. So inevitably then there was a lot of public focus in amongst the kind of Western allies of Ukraine of folk like us asking folk in government, so what are you going to do then? You know, we saw Keir Starmer go to the White House to talk to President Biden in September. It wasn't the only thing on the agenda, but it was on the agenda. There was people to persuade in the White House. UK was, as it was put to me, forward-facing in its outlook on this. In other words, it was trying to persuade skeptical allies that this was a good idea, that it was the right thing to do.
But the key thing was always going to be how does Russia calibrate its response to this kind of thing? And as we record newscast right now, we're getting the beginnings of a sense of that, aren't we, with these longer-range missiles being fired into Denis Pro? And then the language that we've heard
from President Putin, talking about this sense that the conflict has taken on a global nature now, as opposed to as he saw it as a regional conflict. And the suggestion that military targets in, as he would see it, aggressor countries, in other words, the United States and the UK, would be legitimate targets. Now, that might be rhetoric. It might not be. It's clearly rhetoric at the moment.
that has the capacity to cause concern. Clearly it does. And it's definitely a ratcheting up on where we are in all of those. And it's interesting watching the discussion in America, which with the election of President Trump has instantly switched from, let's support Ukraine. The only solution to this is for Russian forces to leave all the occupied territories of Ukraine. So now you've got, OK, the Democrats and Joe Biden's allies saying that.
But President Trump and his allies who are about to be in power are saying, nope, we've got to have negotiations. Actually, we've got to look at maybe partitioning this country for the foreseeable future. That's what's interesting because there's been quite a lot of speculation as to why Joe Biden gave the go ahead for the use of those attack and long-range U.S. missiles.
into Russian territory at the time he did, because to the point that Chris was making, this has been a point of conversation for a long time. It's been a demand from Zelensky. It's been discussed at the international level. The fact that he's done that before the an upcoming Trump presidency has led some to suggest that it might be
this kind of ramping up before what might end up to be a negotiation, or it might be that he wants to strengthen Ukraine as much as he can during his tenure. There are others that suggest that it is perhaps a response to the presence of North Korean troops now involved in this conflict. So you don't know the reasons. But I think throughout this week, and of course, it isn't just the US allowing the use of those long-range missiles. It's also the fact that they have allowed Ukrainian use of land mines, which is a controversial decision.
in and of itself. So there's been a lot of speculation as to the reason why and a lot of speculation as to the possible Russian response. You've got to remember, I think, the context behind all of this, as this war has gone on now for the period of time it has done, there have been at various points
this kind of pattern where you've had President Zelensky say this is what we need to further our course. You've had the Western allies, if you put it like that, hesitating over whether or not they should allow the use of tanks or jets or at this point long-range missiles. The fear always being the rhetoric from Russia that that would be a red line, that that would be the point of escalation. And up to this point, it hasn't of course escalated beyond Russia, Ukraine,
But the question mark when you've got the Western countries making those decisions is always what if and I think that is still still the question mark now. Well and I think the other what if that hangs over all of the calculations going on in Whitehall and Paris and Berlin and Washington actually at the moment is that.
We still don't really know what kind of Trump presidency is going to turn up on January the 20th, and it's entirely possible that Donald Trump doesn't quite know his appointments to the positions in his government, which would have a say in how America handles the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
spam pretty much the full spectrum of modern day Republican opinion on intervention overseas and Russia and Ukraine from entirely supportive of Vladimir Zelensky and the Ukrainian cause to intensely skeptical and the suggestion that Ukraine and the EU more generally in NATO were the aggressor here yielding an inevitable Russian full-scale invasion. So there is this sort of funny thing when you talk to people in the government here.
they are preparing as best they can and, you know, preparing frantically and feverishly for a Trump presidency and trying to get as close as possible to him and game out what can happen in different scenarios. But they really don't know. And that is clearly, I think, fueling an extra layer of complication to the diplomacy and the military thinking here. And there's another layer of complication, which is
precisely what kind of settlement might President Zelensky settle for when you get to the point of some kind of negotiation or there is a loss of appetite for the ongoing pursuit of war.
Because when I was speaking to him back in July, he was not saying, and he hasn't been saying since, definitively, as much as he might like it, that he would return to a pre-2014 scenario, in other words, where Russia leaves all of what was previously sovereign Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. So once there's that acknowledgement that that's highly unlikely, then what does a solution with which the Ukrainians can at least put up?
Well, it's interesting. There is a school of thought that says the discussions about territory, of course, crucial and speak to anyone in the UK government. And they say that would be a decision for Ukraine to make, whether or not there is any territory ceded. But beyond that, what potentially has more lasting consequence.
is whether or not as part of any potential agreement, and we don't know if obviously it's going to get to that point, about whether Ukraine can pursue NATO membership, i.e. this idea about whether there has to be some sort of neutrality clause in there. So some big, big questions and some very, I think, complex, difficult moments to come.
The thing I've been thinking about this week is this clash between diplomacy or military action and democracy, because on the one hand with the storm shadows thing, I'm thinking about what James Landale, James Landale, our colleague, the diplomatic correspondent was saying on Monday, when he was talking to all the military types about storm shadows saying, no, they don't want to like do some like press release to go, Oh,
launched the storm shadow missiles. It's just that's not how war fighting works. It's not like a minute by minute update on social media. But then I'm thinking about a conversation had yesterday with John Foreman, who's the former British military attach in Moscow and in Kiev. And he said, well, actually, John Healy, the defense secretary in parliament, when he was asked about this, maybe shouldn't have stonewalled and said, Oh, it's secrets military. Maybe there should have been a more open, transparent thing about what the government policy is.
And again, you then apply that to the whole Ukraine end game, and you've got ministers going, well, no, the war will end when Russia leaves Ukrainian territory. But actually, we know behind closed doors all the different matters of saying, well, there's all these different options for how this could end. Yeah. And when the conservatives were asking John Healy this week about what might have happened,
They were doing it in a knowing way that acknowledged that whilst it is their kind of democratic duty to seek information from the government, there was an acknowledgement that a government in that instance is not likely to offer much publicly, not least because, yeah, they don't want to be
doing a running commentary or be seen to be somehow indulging in this moment and instead emphasizing that this is a Ukrainian military decision around the deployment of something a bit of kit that's been given by the UK. And also you've got to say it's a Ukrainian thing to reduce the risk of Putin thinking it's okay to strike targets outside Ukraine.
the couple of points is there's this sort of operational military considerations i.e. how much of a heads up do you want to give someone when you're about to do something on a military in a in a theater of war but then there is the second one about how much do you want to be seen to be ramping up rhetoric or leading towards a potential escalation or i think they're all the calculations that are going on inside the mind of ministers when they when they decide how to approach this question about what the uk hasn't sanctioned
And then, sorry, go ahead. Although, of course, the U.S. decision did leak while Kiyastama was on a plane to Brazil. It wasn't announced by the U.S. government, but it leaked and it was reported authoritatively very quickly after that. And, you know, not to hammer the same point, I think it does emphasize for as much of the energy as it occupies of people in government here, rightly,
is a reminder, parochial, parochial as it may sound, that we are, the UK is a kind of smallish cog, supportive as it has been of Ukraine in the Western context, a smallish cog in a much grander thing where decisions from other countries do matter more and the UK is often sort of operating kind of downstream of that in quite a serious way.
Another international story brewing on Thursday afternoon was the International Criminal Courts issuing an arrest warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister and the former Defense Secretary. How does the UK government handle that? Because presumably, we as a multilateral country is in favor of institutions like the International Criminal Courts, but we're also, as a country, allies of Israel.
Yeah, so the short answer to your question is awkwardly, is how they react to that. So there was plenty of questions for the Prime Minister's official spokesman around this this afternoon along the lines of, oh, so what does the UK government make of this? To which there was an acknowledgement of the independence of the court and that it should be able to get on with its work. But aha, so what would it mean then if
Benjamin Netanyahu visited the UK because the UK is a signatory to this court. When we'd be obliged to, or our authorities would be obliged to arrest him. Indeed, in theory, although we're told that there would have to be a sort of domestic legal process to sort of work through the niceties of that. I mean, ultimately, with this sort of stuff, it's kind of a political decision. And so basically came there, none. There are plenty of examples of people who notionally should face arrest on arriving in an ICC member country who have not
face that. So President Putin, for instance, was in Mongolia, ICC member country, wasn't arrested, for instance. But it's a question to wrestle with around how you approach something to which you are a signatory in an international context whilst also dealing with an
with an ally, because it's kind of easier for the Americans, because they say, well, we haven't signed up to the jurisdiction of the court anyway, so they can say, they can just disapprove of it, and it's a bit clearer. We should also see the ICC's issued an arrest warrant for the military commander of Hamas as well, having issued previous warrants for Hamas figures who've since... And it's not clear if that particular figure is alive.
Right, let's talk about matters truly domestic and actually a bit historic now because tributes flowing this morning to John Prescott, former prime minister. What were his years in office? Former prime minister. Sorry, in his mind. Sorry, I mean, in the summer, in the summer, when Tony Blair was away, he was acting prime minister. That was the name.
He was an MP from his years 1970 to 2010. 40 years. He just an MP and then he went into the House of Lords. So it was a long time. Hull East was his constituency.
And also just, I mean, it's very hard to talk about John Prescott's life without being quite cliched, because actually, it was the story of an era, like the fact that he started off serving, like one of his first jobs was serving Anthony Eden on a cruise liner. So he was like, as Anthony Eden was sort of like going to exile from Britain after Sue is. I know we fall over on various privacy programs, plugs for things you can see on BBC Sounds, but
or here on BBC sounds. My corporate speak is not quite in line, but there was a brilliant documentary from 2007 called Prescott at Your Service, which tells the story of that trip to New Zealand where he was a waiter and Anthony Eden, who just resigned as Prime Minister, was basically trying to get away from it all and also convalesce because he wasn't well. And you have a 19-year-old
future Deputy Prime Minister waiting on a very recently former Prime Minister. And the kind of Lord Prescott saw it, the upstairs, downstairs, bottom class, upper class, they were his descriptions of that dynamic. Whilst also he was full of warmth and praise
for, so Anthony, who he thought he just got on with very well. He gave him the prize in a boxing competition, which meant that he got several hours over time. Yeah, yeah. Did he say that he used to, when he did go into the Commons, that people used to sort of, the conservative peers used to sort of reference his time serving on the ship and asking for a drink, asking for a gin and that kind of thing. Like it stayed with him, I think, all the way through. Well, that class element, I do think, has been really striking in so much of the tributes to John Prescott and the obitories about him today.
Because people keep saying, and I'll double in cliche here as well, you know, he was a bridge between old labor and new labor. And clearly that was true. And he sold modernization to a skeptical parts of the labor party and the labor coalition in a way that Tony Blair couldn't have done. But it also feels like he was a bridge between two kinds of Britain. This was the deputy prime minister who was there at the Millennium Dome as Britain moved into a new millennium. But when he came into politics, he was fueled by
forces which really are not that much of a thing in British life these days. You know, he was clearly fueled by a sense of fury that he failed the 11 plus. And now, you know, there are still some grammar schools in England, but far fewer than there were then. So that wasn't that great moment. You know, he then left school as a teenager to sail the world in the merchant Navy. Again, it still exists, but it's not not the thing the same way. Working class auto died act came up through the trade union movement. Well, trade unions are less of a force.
for people who aren't also didax themselves. That's somebody who's basically educated themselves. Right. I mean, he did go to university in his 30s, first at Ruskin College in Oxford, which is a sort of trade union university college, and then University of Hull, which I think is why he became the MP there. But
You know this is kind of a man who it's quite hard even though they weren't wildly different in age quite hard to sort of think of oh actually he was there at the same time as Tony Blair who feels like such a more 21st century figure you know lawyer much more like politicians are like now that's the thing actually someone who stalks the corridors of Westminster now.
Here's the cliche. They don't make them like that. But they quite literally don't Britain doesn't. Although plenty of new Labour MPs elected in this election had a trade union background. So it's not like that pipeline has completely disappeared. And you think of John Prescott's upbringing and say Kia Starmer's upbringing. Now, granted Kia Starmer went off to university at age sort of 18, 19 as opposed to that kind of stage of education. Well, he passed 11 plus.
Well indeed, yes, I mean, that's the last few years. That's true. That's true. But for me, the class element, which is so interesting with John Prescott, is it was the prism through which he saw so much. Now, you can also say, you know, to point to the sort of biographical facts, but that, you know, through which he saw so much. When you look at Tony Blair's memoirs and you hear Tony Blair reflecting on
John Prescott's capacity to see slights and snobbery, and I'm telling you about it, and obviously found it quite funny all of that, and a lot of those who John Prescott felt had slighted him didn't even realise they'd done it, but would then be pursued by John Prescott because he regarded it as such as an injustice.
Also, Alex, I've been thinking today, are we still in a slightly old-school way of doing people's obituaries? Because we've... I've just finished one. I've been a bit wounded here. No, but... Well, I mean, I've just got some notes, actually. But are we in a world now where... I mean, we've all been raised to, like, you don't speak of the dead. But actually, there are, like...
some negatives to John Prescott's career and his personal behaviour. I think there's always a slight danger that when some time has passed between someone leaving a kind of elected public office, as he did in 2010, so that's now 14 years ago,
and somebody who was quite clearly a very big figure, an influential figure within the Labour Party in movement, someone with a very big personality and a presence, and someone who clearly had an instrumental role in the party, not just for getting some of their modernisation reforms through, not just for that idea of keeping the old and the new, not just for the idea of keeping Tony Blair and Gordon Brown on the same page, he clearly did a lot, right?
But I do think there is a danger that with enough time passing that you forget that he was also had some really difficult things. He punched someone. You know, now people sort of look back on that and laugh. And at the time, even Tony Blair said, you know, well, John will be John or whatever the sentence was. After a night of anguish, don't work out what to say.
But in the middle of an election campaign, if somebody egged him, he did give him a left hook. I think most politicians would say that you can't go around lobbying people, right? And he also had an affair. And that again was a very difficult moment for him. With a quite junior staff member in his private office.
as an elected MP. So I think it is very important to remember the influence and the influential role and the impact that John Press got had and that he has been flooded with tributes for the difference that he made to the Labour Party and the impact he had as Deputy Prime Minister and also some of the stuff he did around devolution and climate. But I think you should never airbrush parts of a politician's career.
We're talking about the punch, which inevitably we're going to now do for longer. I was trying to, Lord Mandelson about this because he was on the podcast episode of Newscast on Thursday, talking at length about like the decades that he had sort of tussled with John Prescott. Going back to when actually John Prescott hired him as a research shadow transport team in like 1981 and also provided a reference for him to get the job that ended up with Mandelson co-creating new labor.
Anyway, so I asked Lord Madison about the punch, and yeah, about the agonizing that Tony Blair had done overnight about just how to handle that bizarre moment. I remember Tony calling in Harley Paul, and he said, have you seen what's happened? And I said, well, difficult to miss. He said, what do you think we need to do? What do you think I should do? And I said, I said, what are people saying? He said, well, some people
Think that it doesn't matter and other people think he'd really got to stand out you can't have the deputy prime minister throwing punches at the public. And we talked about it. I said, well, give it a while, but then just see how the story unfolds. It could go in either direction. Yeah. What would happen today?
Well, for starters, the person who egged in would not have got anywhere near as close. I mean, that's one thing I was struck by having just covered a general election campaign, watching that. That is someone, a senior politician, the second most senior politician in the land, campaigning within, you know, plain sight of dozens, perhaps more. Yeah, I mean, he got off the bus and crossed the road. I mean, you know,
The one exception I might say is that's Nigel Farrah. Exactly. I mean, he was one of the only party leader in the campaign just gone, who did, certainly up to that point, campaign a bit more organically. But now, for understandable security reasons, I should stress, election campaigns are much less impromptu, much more sanitized. You go to different parts of the country, but you deliver speeches to kind of pre-screened crowds. We've come a long way from the soap, so it wouldn't happen in the first place.
I suspect, though, the public would end up with a similar reaction. Yeah, I think the reaction to these things up to a point is grounded in the existing perception of the character at the heart of it. So, you know, could Robin Cook or Jack Straw from that era have got away with punching a voter? I'm not sure they could.
But John Prescott, I think Robert Cook's punch would be quite as powerful as much smaller. Because that sort of sense of something is in character. I think in a political sense, there'd be a separate argument sometimes around all sorts of legalities and all that kind of stuff, potentially, in a hypothetical scenario. But I always think politically, the prism is to think to what extent is this in character or not?
Although I wonder if there are any politicians now that would get away with it.
Good question. Let's leave that hanging there. Do you know what? Do you know what a prime minister wouldn't get away with spending 12 hours working out how to respond to it? Because as you were saying, like, 20-plus basis, he slapped on it to see which way the wind was blowing the next. And Mandelston said that to see which way the wind was blowing the next morning. And it's like, no way would you have 12 hours to sort of think about a response to something like that. And then he responded at his daily press conference, which was still a feature of general election campaigns back then. And it's absolutely not now, alas.
Let's get one more clip from the archives. This is a documentary from the BBC about Ken Clark and his love of Ronnie Scott's The Jazz Club. And then there's a hilarious cameo from one of his opponents who happens to be John Prescott. I've wound up debates against John and I can't go to sleep when I wound up a debate. The adrenaline gets going and I've left debates and the driver's driven to Ronnie's when I left the house. He knew I wasn't going to go home and he dropped me off here and I spent the night unwinding and relaxing.
Hey, have you closed any more hospitals then? Not in your patch, but good to see you on neutral ground. And jazz is classless. Jazz isn't classical music in a way. It's part of our social structure of class, quite frankly. But jazz isn't. And I think it's because that people tend to look down on it. It doesn't get a good opportunity to have it expressed. And that's something I just feel we should do more about. Jazz is about rebellion.
My main takeaway from that is how high everyone's voices are when they're much younger, like how low are our voices going to be when we're that? Actually, because we dug out a clip from the archives of you once, and it sounds exactly the same, so I think you're going to be fine. I don't go to a lot of jazz clubs though, but much prefer an early night. You know, back to our class conversation, even there in reflecting on what he regarded as a classless genre of music, he was still looking at it through the prism of class.
Yeah. I think it's only when you come from that experience, though, that that is, it stays with you. Yeah, yeah. Or at least it did for him, didn't it? Yeah, absolutely. Not to be super lazy, but is Angela Rainer, the John Prescott of 2024? Well, she spoke about this today. She gave an interview. That's why I feel so justified asking the question. And the word one. Yeah. And I think, I think,
I think it's fair to say that she herself was drawing some parallels about the way she's tried to approach the role in terms of being authentic, in terms of being herself, in terms of the advice that she says that John Prasscott gave to her. She says she was regularly in contact with him, and he would say, use your voice and be an advocate for the people of the parts of the country that you represent in both of their cases in the north of England. And I think so, there were definitely some parallels, not least by the fact they've got the same job, Deputy Prime Minister in both cases.
And I think straightforwardly, both of them have acknowledged that kind of connection, in terms of similarity of background, doing the same job, offering a different take on the labour movements, if you like, than the person in the big gig.
As prime minister. Yeah, I think there is a straightforward comparison. I think there's something in, again, that Angelina was talking about, which is about not trying to shape or mould yourself to the kind of world of Westminster that you enter. And I think Angelina has very consciously not done that. She has tried to be herself and speak in her own voice.
And I think that was exactly the same with John Prescott, which is another parallel. It's sort of deliberately, I think sometimes there is a habit or a tendency, and I'm guilty of this myself, is that when you come to London from wherever you come from, and you go into Westminster and people speak in a certain way, or the way they're discussing this is a certain way, that you sort of mold yourself in that vision to get on a bit, because you think that's what you should do. And I think Angela Rayna and John Prescott have both almost prided themselves on not doing that, on being who they are a little bit more.
One difference is that what keeps coming up in Tony Blair's interviews with the BBC today and his memoir is how much he valued John Prescott's advice. They ran against each other for the leadership in 1994, but it was always pretty much a foregone conclusion player was going to win. But after that, I think there was no question that Prescott was ever after the job. He relied on his loyalty 100%. I'm not saying if you ask Keir Starman now, he'd say anything different about Angela Rayner, but it is fairly well documented and acknowledged that certainly in opposition,
They did have their rocky moments. They did have their differences. And, you know, the role of Deputy Prime Minister, and they're the only two Labour politicians ever, by the way, to have helped that title formally, but the role of Deputy Prime Minister.
is not something that sort of properly formally has to exist in our constitution. It is a function of what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister make of it at any one time. You know, Angela Rayna has a huge department. She is tasked with delivering the most, pretty much the most important policy of Kistam's government, housing and therefore growth.
But whether they yet have the kind of relationship which Keir Starmer would talk about in his memoir one day as Tony Blair did of John Prescott, I'm not sure as far as I can tell from people who talk to me from inside them. Not sure they're quite there yet. Although you could also draw the parallel in that I suppose Angela Rainer and John Prescott are both there in part to reach parts of the party that their respective leaders don't or can't naturally speak to. And then the other party political point in terms of the structures of the Labour Party, whatever that relationship
is and the however it functions. Agile Reyna's deputy leader of the Labour Party has that direct mandate from Labour Party members, so that doesn't guarantee necessarily anything within the structure of a government, but it makes it quite hard, as it did for Tony Blair, not that this is something that he needed to consider to
shuffle them off into outer space. The thing that stuck in my mind from the conversation with Lord Banderson that I did on Thursday morning is, you know, he's running to be Chancellor of Oxygen University. You see, he's never mentioned that. I know, falls closed very soon and I feel like 50% of the people giving tribute. Lots of people have had incentives to be on TV, but I know full list of candidates for that role are available to be.
I think anyone cares. He was saying, so he's been back at university a lot. He's basically been living in culture and he's been talking to all these like 19, 20, 21 year olds, even though they don't have a vote. So I think he's just enjoyed hanging out with the youth. But he's saying that actually the new labor years have kind of taken on a sort of politically legendary status with people of that age who are a very long way from actually living through them.
And I just think that's intriguing because actually I always found as a political journalist at Westminster. Westminster is still as a group of people transfixed by that era, even if actually lots of the people at Westminster now weren't adults or weren't there for that. It's amazing the grip that that period still has on the collective political imagination. And it's just like the grip that Thatcher's premiership has as well, even though there are even fewer people around who are actually there for that.
But you could say it's by virtue of the fact that they won successive elections, you know, the kind of new Labour government and the Thatcher government and not every government does, right? So they're in power. And there were very stable periods compared to what we've lived through previously and since. And also that period in government means obviously you get a chance to do things that actually end up changing, you know, sort of have a lasting impact, which agree with it or not. You'll definitely say that the Thatcher government had lasting impacts in some structural ways and as well, the new Labour government.
And I think it's sufficiently far back that enough water has gone under the bridge, that it's sort of novel again to talk about it, as opposed to the thing that's just finished and people might think just in terms of their intrigue around politics. Well, let's focus on the now and the recent past has gone. Fast forward.
10, 15 years. And you can imagine an equivalent intrigue around the Brexit period, which at the moment, a lot of folk in and around politics are quite glad to be not talking about because we talked about it. So basically, there's a four-year-old in their beds tonight, who in 15 years time is going to be like, oh, that's a reason, eh? She was a ledge. She was, oh, they don't make them like that anymore. I think I'll just have to read those for saying that within about six months or as Johnson's succeeded. And let me say, Adam, the Moltau's compromise.
Oh, those are the days. Those were their days. Right, let's shut this chapter of Newscast at any four-year-olds listening to this in 15 years time. I hope you enjoyed that conversation. I don't know what I'll be doing. I'll probably have a much deeper voice. Right. Thanks, everyone. Love it to see you all. Cheers, pleasure. And thanks for listening to this episode of Newscast. We'll be back with another one very soon. Bye-bye.
Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. From one newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Science? Tell everyone you know and don't forget you can email us anytime newscast at bbc.co.uk or, if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp.
0-330-123-9480. Be assured, I promise we listen to everyone.
