Why can’t the BBC handle our chaotic politics? – with special guest Steve Richards
en
January 28, 2025
TLDR: The BBC politics coverage struggles with the pressures of Mail and Telegraph scrutiny, Tory intimidation, and the need for depth in a shallow age. Steve Richards from Rock and Roll Politics discusses solutions for these problems. Discussions also include Kemi Badenoch's Beatles song choice and Keir Starmer's football management style.

In the latest episode of the podcast "Oh God What Now?", host Andrew Harrison engages with special guest Steve Richards, a seasoned political correspondent and creator of the Rock and Roll Politics podcast. Together, they explore the pressing issues surrounding the BBC's political coverage, dissecting its perceived shortcomings and offering potential solutions.
The State of BBC Politics Coverage
Declining Trust and Increasing Criticism
The BBC, historically viewed as the nation's trusted news outlet, has faced escalating criticism over the quality and depth of its political journalism. Key discussion points include:
- Fall in Public Trust: Research indicates that trust in the BBC has decreased over the past decade. Recent polls show that only 22% of people perceive BBC news as neutral, with audiences divided on its political bias.
- Simplistic and Timid Coverage: Many critics argue that BBC's political discussions are overly simplified, focusing too much on fleeting Westminster news rather than engaging in deeper analysis.
The Impact of External Pressures
Richards emphasizes the influence of external factors, particularly newspapers like the Daily Mail and Telegraph, which shape BBC narratives, leading to a perceived bias.
- Fear of Backlash: The BBC's fear of criticism from right-leaning newspapers often results in avoidance of uncomfortable yet crucial political discussions.
- Conformed Coverage: When sensationalized headlines dominate the news cycle, BBC often finds itself pivoting its coverage to align with these narratives, compromising its editorial independence.
Revisiting Interview Formats
Shorter Interviews, Less Insight
The podcast critiques the current trend of shorter political interviews on programs like Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, which often end up being superficial.
- Lack of Depth: Richards recalls his days as a political interviewer, highlighting that thoughtful discourse is sacrificed for succinct sound bites, which serves neither the politicians nor the audience well.
- Audience Engagement: There's a general perception that the BBC is out of touch with audience desire for substantive, engaging political discussions.
Medium-Specific Challenges
Adapting to New Media Landscapes
The BBC is struggling to redefine political journalism in the face of competition from podcasts and online platforms that cater to audience demands for in-depth discussions.
- Podcasting Boom: The rise of podcasts illustrates a growing appetite for long-form interviews and detailed discussions. Programs like Runciman's podcasts delve deeply into topics, showcasing that audiences are willing to engage with lengthy formats if they are substantive.
- Interactive Engagement: Richards advocates for a return to thoughtful engagement that encourages political accountability, rather than sensationalism. He stresses that successful podcasts demonstrate that audiences prefer thorough explorations of complex topics over condensed, fragmented news items.
Audience Insight
Engaging Young Audiences
The episode touches on the importance of connecting with younger generations who are increasingly turned off by traditional media formats.
- Political Discontent Among Youth: Recent surveys indicate a disenchantment with democracy, with a notable percentage of Gen Z expressing preferences for strong leadership over traditional parliamentary processes. This shift hints at a societal craving for substantial dialogue that the BBC must tap into.
- Harnessing Social Media: The podcast highlights the necessity for political parties and institutions like the BBC to engage with platforms such as TikTok, which are being leveraged by political extremists to reshape narratives among younger voters.
The Role of Humor and Light-Hearted Discussion
Although the podcast tackles serious topics, it also draws attention to more humorous exchanges, such as Kemi Badenoch's choice of Yellow Submarine as her favorite Beatles song.
- The Use of Humor: Panelists argue that while such topics may seem trivial, they reflect the need for politicians to exhibit authenticity and character, critical for establishing a genuine connection with the electorate.
Conclusion: A Path Forward
Harrison and Richards conclude that there is a pressing need for the BBC to rethink its approach to political journalism. Key recommendations include:
- Reinvigorating Interview Formats: Moving towards longer, more in-depth interviews that encourage critical discourse rather than retreating into quick hits.
- Embracing Digital Media: Utilizing platforms and techniques that resonate with younger voters to revive their interest in politics.
- Fostering a Culture of Curiosity: Encouraging journalists to prioritize substantive reporting over ratings-driven content will elevate the quality and trustworthiness of political discussions.
This podcast episode serves as an important reminder of the challenges facing modern journalism in a rapidly changing media landscape. The insights offered by Harrison and Richards underscore the critical role the BBC must play in fostering informed political discourse in the UK.
Was this summary helpful?
We're very glad to have support from generous advertisers for our podcasts. They help pay for our team and our freelancers. But we know they're not everybody's cup of tea. If you'd rather listen without ads, you can back us on Patreon. You'll get every edition ad free and early as well. Follow the link in the show notes to find out more.
Welcome to Oh God What Now? The podcast that was just hailing a cab in the middle of a Nazi rally. I'm Andrew Harrison on today's show. Do you find yourself shouting at the BBC when their political interviews come on? It's either a pointless two-way argument or a hasty three-minute chat where nothing gets said except Minister I must press you, or the whole thing is based on whatever was on the front of the telegraph this morning.
The nation's broadcaster still polls as the country's most relied upon news outlets, but trust in the BBC has been falling for a decade or more, and its political output has been criticised as increasingly timid, simplistic and fixated on Westminster power plays. What's gone wrong with politics on the BBC and how can we fix it? We're going to be talking to a very experienced special guest, Steve Richards of the Rock and Roll Politics podcast.
Plus, one thing we know about Keir Starmer is that he loves football, so why can't he learn lessons from the great managers about how to run his team? Let's say hello to the panel. Hello, two political journalist, Westminster editor at the lead, and we discover from Patreon back at BG Davis, the two are envelopes in her name, are not a diphthong, it's a diuresis. That's me told. That's you told. Hello, it's a big run of old. How are you? Hello, very well. Thank you.
So in cheerful news this week, the Times is reporting that 52% of Gen Z people in polled think that the UK will be better if a strong leader was in charge, he does not have to bother with parliament and elections. And 33% thought that the UK will be better off if the army was in charge. Is there any truth in this idea that young people are basically in favour of Britain being some kind of dictatorship?
Probably not. No. I think the questions in the poll were a bit leading. So, you know, who wouldn't want a strong leader? And you can also interpret not having to bother with Parliament and elections as, you know, well, maybe they just got absolutely nailed on every time and everybody just.
99% of people loved it, so it was the problem. I think the wording of the questions was potentially slightly leading. But there is some interesting truth behind this, which is about the way social media is altering young people's perceptions of politics and the truth and where they're getting their media from. And I've actually got a feature I was working on for the new European that is being published in this week's magazine, which is looking at the way the far right is becoming increasingly adept at using
Intergenerational grievances, so things like young people not being able to get on the housing market, young people, you know, not having as much money or worse job opportunities, worse job security than their parents. And speaking that language on TikTok, so you see these young far-right politicians, people like Jordan Bardaya, for example, or Rita Matthias from the Chager party in Portugal.
talking about stolen opportunities, you know, highlighting material grievances and not being able to buy a house, but in an accessible TikTok friendly way. So in the next video, they're doing a little TikTok dance. And it's kind of changing the way young people are looking at politics and approaching politics. And it actually is presenting this a really important thing, I think, for left-leaning parties, for centrist parties to look at and say, we need to be getting on TikTok because otherwise that void is being filled by
That's right wingers, Nazis. Who are doing a little dance and then saying, you know, your grandparents have taken this from you. Blame immigrants and do a little dance convince people. I mean, I'm willing to blame most things on my father, the drop of a hat anyway. If someone's going to do a dance afterwards, it's definitely. Yeah. I mean, the other thing that social media allows.
the right to do is they can compartmentalise issues. So they can say to older people who read Broad Street papers or whatever, this is why you should vote, you know, immigrants coming and taking jobs and taking communities. But then on TikTok, they say to young people and your grandparents are doing that too. And it's a really sinister way of disseminating their messaging.
Yeah, I mean, I still think that the times going with the headline, most young people are in favor of turning the UK into a dictatorship. Bit of a stretch. I think we can conclude that there's a bit of a stretch. It's not like the times to exaggerate. It's not at all. But, you know, it does get more right-wing as a time goes by, but not that right-wing.
Also with us is returning old school panellists back for one more show before he vanishes again into his glittering career. It's Edinburgh Award winning stand up a hair show. Hello, how are you? Hello, very well. Thank you. Welcome back. It looks like Rachel Reeves is going to back a third runway that he throw on strange convoluted sustainability grounds. I don't understand how it's going to work. Labor has also decided to take environmental watchdogs out of their house building and infrastructure.
planning process, is Labour basically bending the environment for growth? I think that in the particular case of Heathrow, I would be so staggered if this happened before I died of old age. For any manner of reasons. It does seem as though
The government do want to do a lot on planning, particularly house building and infrastructure in a way that I do like in aggregate, I'm in favor of, because I was thinking a lot when I was reading about this sort of thing, is this phrase from the management theorist Stafford Beer of the purpose of a system is what it does.
So as he noticed, there's no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do. And it feels like in aggregate that the purpose of lots of things around infrastructure and planning in this country is simply to prevent this from ever happening. And occasionally that might actually just be stuff that's getting dressed up in languages of the environment. And that's why, sorry, we can't build any houses anywhere near anyone ever for any reason.
and is particularly weird when it's done to stop things like green infrastructure. I sort of hope that there's going to be stuff that gets built that I'm not in favor of, because it would mean that something was getting built at all. Like I can only be upset about a particular project if some projects are occurring somewhere.
So a subset of the things that you like might be in that load of stuff that you don't like. This is a very Douglas Adams analysis of what's going on. An honour for them to be compared. Yeah, but there's a connection between these two themes. See, my guess is if TikTok didn't exist, the young would still be as discontented as they are and you would still get urges for strong leadership because they haven't got the houses. It's true. Yeah.
So the house building is absolutely essential. Now, whether they happen because there aren't the construction workers, there will be disputes about not in my backyard, nimbies, there will be all sorts of problems about where they're built and whether they're in the right place and whether they're affordable and all the rest of it. But God, do they need to be built? I think that for a lot of people, I don't know my mid-30s and for a lot of people, the response to not in my backyard is
You have a back you know i think i hear about a tick tock nazi let's have a look at what was always the part is that it was inevitable yeah you just heard that our special guest today it's steve richard's rock and roll politics podcast he's been political editor in present at the BBC the new states when the independent and gm tv now he is.
in the podmaster's extended political universe. Hello, Steve. Hi, Andrew. I wanted to ask you, what did you make of this Trump starmer loving on the phone call over the weekend? Trump saying starmer's doing a very good job, a very good job. And starmer praising Trump over the Gaza ceasefire. Is there anything real to this or is it like the inevitable symbolism that comes when there's a changing
It's the early days, isn't it? I mean, I've heard political commentators say, wow, this is amazing. A huge boost for Kistama. Well, as if, you know, in the opening phone call, Trump will say, look, you're a bit of a wanker, actually, you know. Yeah, so it's completely unsurprising. It's helpful for Stama in the sense that a lot of the newspapers were writing, or he hasn't spoken to him yet.
you know, what's going on. But it's meaningless in the sense that these relationships are tested by policy and events, not neat phone calls, you know, for 45 minutes. And those tests have yet to come. I really liked that you were like, well, I mean, come on, like, what's Trump going to do? Like call him a wanker in the first phone call and you're like,
Shit, maybe. He's a weird guy. He's ever been a president. Can you imagine the number 10 readout? The President Trump called the Prime Minister of Wanker. Before we get started properly, a small update on the pod. You know, put your emails where we ask our Patreon people for questions to the panel. Well, we've decided to change it a bit. We're going to be asking more than one question a week.
I'm going to open it up to everybody. I'm going to give you some hints about what to ask for in the next show. On this Wednesday coming, we're going to be celebrating five glorious years of Brexit that might even be a cake made of cardboard. And we've got friend of the pod, Anand Menon, of UK and a changing Europe, joining us to explain the past, present and future and the consequences. Anand is a lead United fan, so he's used to being out of Europe.
We want your questions on the EU Britain's relationship with it and let's have some stuff that's a little bit more pointed than when will you join, because everybody knows that one is far away on the horizon. There's a link in the show notes to tell you how to submit your questions, get them in. We'll ask the best ones. I apologize to everybody in Leeds. I love Leeds.
If you're listening on Tuesday the 29th of January, you're probably going to be watching Channel 4 tonight for Brian and Maggie. James Graham's dramatization of the Brian Walden interview with Margaret Thatcher with Steve Coogan as the don of political interrogators and Harriet Walter as the Prime Minister. It's remembered as the interview that destroyed Thatcher. It was emblematic of a time when Sunday meant long, powerful, important political conversations on TV.
interviews that went deep. Now shows like Sunday with Laura Koonzberg seem to have lost faith with the searching political interview, preferring a crowded busy studio and short bursts of talk. Meanwhile, news night has dropped its reporting in favor of a chat format. People increasingly think BBC News and Politics is biased.
In May 2023, Hugo's public opinion tracker said only 22% of people thought the BBC was generally neutral. That was lower than Channel 4 and ITV. And while 38% of conservatives thought the BBC was more favorable to the left, 46% of labor supporters thought the BBC was more favorable to the right. So what's gone wrong with the BBC's political coverage and what should the corporation do?
to fix it. Steve, you've got a long term beef with the format of Sunday politics. What are the problems in your eyes? Yeah, and I speak when I was a BBC political correspondent for many years, and I presented ITV Sunday program for 10 years, which was their political program. And even then, the interviews were shrinking. You know, you would have about four hours with a team discussing the interview that you were about to do. And I would say, well, how long have we got for the interview? And they said, oh, we've got ages, eight minutes. That's what we've been talking for four hours.
And you're going to give me eight minutes. And you can see with Laura Coonsburg, she's got pages with her. And I know what they are. They're all pre-prepared questions, which the team have been discussing for days. And then she tweets the day before I always do something with the tweet. She always says, a packed program tomorrow.
And there are eight guests sometimes. I just put too many guests. I don't join in the sort of onslaught against her. But the format is ridiculous because you get six minutes per person or something. Now, the Warden thing was really interesting because you still got new stories, if that's what they want, but you've got a bit of theater and excitement. And the one that's been dramatized with Cougar was a kind of historic moment. Warden, it was not as good as people say he is.
Um, he was quite good and he was very compelling. He was a labor MP, a very good orator actually, um, who became an interviewer, but he had space and you need space for politics to be interesting. It's so ironic at the BBC. They obsess about how do we make it more interesting, especially for young people? And they kill it by making it unsurprising, predictable, following a news agenda so that Sunday papers, mail on Sunday, Sunday, and the other thing they do now
which is really annoying, is they say, well, we've had an email from this viewer who hates you kind of thing, you know? Well, who is this viewer? You know, is the viewer someone who supports another party? You know, why do they hate this person? And you get on this today, probably with one or two of their presenters, what our listeners want to hear.
Well, how do they know what all their listeners are doing here? I'm your listener. I don't want to hear this. Me too. Me too. How do they know what we all think? And why do they say we all think the same thing? So, a huge support of the concept of the BBC, I think it's going through a really weak phase at the moment in terms of news and current affairs. Well, I looked at the Kinsberg program this weekend, had Rachel Reeves and Kemi Bodenach and the Dean Zahawi, plus Beeb and Kidrin, who's at the Payette,
Super features of Dragon's Den and Paul McCartney. I'm like, this is a bloody live aid. Can you actually do anything? And any one of them would make a good hour. Exactly. Exactly. Even Beeman Kidron, who's like, very much like, not top of the bill here. Like, why are you putting all the effort in?
Yeah, and I was very interested, Paul McCartney hasn't given an interview, he says, oh, this would be interesting. And he got what was, I didn't time it, my guess is six minutes, and they interspersed it with the cliche clips of the Beatles, which everyone has seen about a thousand times. And he said, oh, you know, AI is kind of could be good, but could be bad. Paul McCartney, thank you very much. And on they went to, you know,
It's just like something about Monty Python many years ago. Yeah, is it just that they don't have faith in viewers' attention spans anymore? Because I get the sense, obviously, not programs like this, but whenever a media product gets committed, suddenly everybody starts telling you things need to be short of people aren't really unpaying attention.
It's largely that. And it's very patronising, you know, so you get people from Osbridge and stuff sitting there thinking, no one can pay attention for more than 25 seconds. And it's also partly accidental. The BBC is running a very curious way. There aren't clear lines of, you know, levers being pulled by someone high up saying do shorter interviews, but it sort of just permeates down.
I want to really be interested in this cougar drama, because it's like a relic from a different age. But I'm old enough just, just to remember it going out, because I remember the loss of resignation at each moment. And it felt big, you know, there was a sort of bigness to it all that you just don't get now. Zoe, I mean, do you think it's just the urge for like a tight news line that can run out to the BBC website? Somebody said something on Coonsburg that's making them do this.
Yeah, I think there's two things. I think the first is what Steve touched on, which is this perception of what the audience wants. So it's this kind of crowded 24-hour news cycle. If you're going to cut through, you need to get a line that people repost or a clip that people put on their feet. But I think the other thing is that, and this is maybe somewhat to do with cuts to media and the pressures that media is under, that
They're sort of cutting back on specialist journalism. So you tend to have fewer journalists asked to do more, asked to cover more, produce more stories, produce more content, do all these different things. They can't possibly have a great detailed understanding of every single subject area they will cover. And when you look at interviewing particularly politicians, you could cover anything from AI,
to social care, you know, in one interview. The idea that a journalist, and perhaps it's slightly different if you're talking about Coonsburg's show where she has a load of producers behind her and lots and lots of research, but I'm just thinking from my perspective as a journalist, the idea that I could cover every single topic of relevance in great detail is very, very difficult. So I think it's a mixture of both what the audience has perceived to want, but also the pressures that journalists are increasingly under as the landscape becomes more congested and less well-funded.
We're also constantly told that the BBC and political output has to reinvent itself for the podcast era, you know, on demand, doing what we're doing, kind of thing. But that mini interview sound by approach is the absolute antithesis. Yeah. You know, we go on and on for ages on that. You know, for us, like a reasonable length of interview is a half hour. That's short. When we do the bunker, that's short interview. You know, it just seems like they're actually not imitating the thing they think they're imitating.
Yeah, and it's not helpful because if you really want to get into something that's really, really important and serious, take for example, social care, you know, why is there no really good, cohesive policy that has the backing of all sorts of parties on social care? You need to get into that for a long, long time because everybody knows why we're not talking about social care, you know, it's politically too difficult and they ask ministers why and they say it's politically too difficult and they say, okay, let's move on to artificial intelligence.
And it doesn't offer anything of use. And actually, there is an argument that there is a diverse media ecosystem. And actually, if you wanted to know a lot about social care, there's probably tons of really good podcasts that you could listen to. The difference is they don't maybe get the people sat down there that they really need to talk to. A really good podcast on social care might not get the Minister for Social Care on it.
But it might get a big minister of sorts of, yeah. And it might get some really good people who know the policy inside out on it. Well, we're constantly told that, you know, young people don't have an attention span. The biggest podcast in the world, Joe Rogan, is routinely four hours long. I think I could just, I could listen to four hours of somebody talking to Kevin Beitner, because you know, you would pay the onion, you'd find something in there, wouldn't it?
I also think politicians now that they're used to this format, they're very guarded. So I think you would struggle to get a politician to sit down and say, we're going to grill you on the BBC for an hour. I just think they'd say, I'm not doing that.
It's really hard because it's not just that you know you have one minute before someone tries to interrupt you. It's also that you're competing with a lot of other strong personalities, strong characters, and you're right, you have to almost, you've got given a topic, you think before, if I've got two points I want to make, I just have to make those, which doesn't create a good flowing debate. It just creates four people saying four different things on the same topic.
And the reason that happens is the BBC, a lot of it is fear. Oh, God, we might miss out story and we'll be attacked by the manager above us and that or that editor is worried that the manager above that person will go for them. So as a result, they cram the running order with, say, six topics, don't they, that program?
and there's four guests at the beginning and then you arrive about 15 minutes beforehand and you've told they're adding another topic because they'd be worried that they might miss it and that someone would be down the line on that topic. And I sometimes say to them very politely when I'm on not as often as so but I do go on sometimes. So you do realize that's about on average about 45 seconds per topic per guest but they don't think like that they just think everything must be covered in case we get in trouble for missing something. So it's a very
defensive moved at the moment. Whereas there was an era under the darts, General John Burr, who instantly founded really the Brian Warden program when he was at LWT, where there was a kind of robust sense, right? The BBC has got a mission to explain. His famous phrase, we are bias. We're going to address the bias against understanding and space was created to do things in a way. And they didn't lose younger viewers. You know, the viewing, I mean, it was a different era, less competition.
But I agree with you, Andrew, they haven't learned from the podcast thing, where clearly young people want to listen just to let these things breathe and then you're surprised and then you learn things and you think, oh, wow. And they can still get their rouse, which the BBC love now, you know. I hear you're like me. You're much more of a viewer than a participant in these shows. Do you feel like you're getting what you want? Or do you even find yourself going to these shows?
It was interesting because when you said that this was going to be something that we were going to discuss, I thought to myself, oh, that might actually end up being tricky because I don't really get any of my news from certainly the TV element of the BBC. And then you're like, oh, no, but that's exactly the problem. And so what is it that's done that? Because for instance, I used to watch news night religiously, like a lot of people who are listening to this, I'm sure. And then that sort of was gutted. And that's the thing that
I've now stopped, right? And it's not to say that this isn't possible to find, and possible to find through other BBC channels, right? Like if you're talking about long-form interviewing or everything, you've got like Nick Robinson doing political thinking, or if you're talking about going further in depth into a particular topic, David Oranovich doing the briefing room or something, these things.
do exist and perhaps not coincidentally given that we talk about how podcasts have sort of changed the space is happening more through radio and happening more through but really on the TV front beyond the fact that okay well this is where i'm going to watch pmq's every week.
It was just like, yes, as you say, I'm going to get 45 seconds of someone just saying aloud the same thing that has been briefed to every newspaper. And then the 45 seconds are up. And as you're saying, Zoe, it can feel a bit Peter, you've lost the news. That's exactly what I was thinking. Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, do you think that, you know, we talked about how they've been capturing the need for ratings. You know, you've got to sort of fight your way through just ever more crowded thickets of news and comment. But something has changed, which is the arrival of GB News, which how they're still allowed to be on the air have no idea. They break every off-com rule going. And yet they're still there. They make their presence known through incendiary quotes and extremely partial stuff. They play off the online presence and the TV presence really, really cleverly.
It's the BBC with it's kind of straight jacket of balance and having to be vaguely anchored in the truth. Can they actually compete with that sort of but i wonder if with something like gb news it's. A similar sort of thing to like why does the BBC get so into the rabbit hole of what in the grand scheme of things are pretty minute elements of like.
Westminster, nitty gritty stuff that doesn't actually have really, you're like, oh, there are major issues we could rather than who said what to who today that's going to be forgotten tomorrow. But in, I guess, the lives of the people who are making this stuff are very, very close to it and very aware of it. So it takes an outside significance as a consequence. And you read that something like,
GB news, I would imagine, I don't know the viewing figures and things off the top of my head, but I would imagine looms a lot larger in the heads of people making these decisions and making these programs than its reach actually justifies in practice, I think would quite possibly be, it seems quite likely to me. Right, so it's the sort of like,
Buggy man that you've scared yourself into believing is going to be this thing that's going to eat your lunch in much the same way that I think people say, oh, well, no one's got the concentration span to listen for more than 25 seconds to a point when there's evidence of the country all around and anything that doesn't vastly underestimate the audience ends up doing pretty well as a consequence.
Well, Steve, here brings up something that you've talked about on rock and roll politics quite a lot, which is the way that BBC politics allows itself to be led by the nose by external agendas. So the male will run for 12 days on the fact that Kistama is having a beard during COVID, even though it's a total nothing burger of a story. But the BBC will eventually be brow beaten into covering it. Also, somebody in there will say, well, it's in the mail and must be something in it.
Yeah, so that's a really good example. There are lots. So, you know, the mail put it on the front page, I think, 12 days running. But day one, BBC didn't follow data, but by day three, they succumbed and started looking at what will happen if Starmer has to go. It goes out into those kinds of weasel words of questions of being asked questions of being asked by you. Yeah. And again, it's something that they really do try and be impartial. And I don't think they feel threatened by GB news particularly. I think they are like us with that, wondering how the heck
this channel is being allowed to broadcast in the way it is. But these newspapers, they're scared of the newspapers. They're scared of being attacked by the newspapers. I know someone who was involved in the Gary Lineker drama when he tweeted about Sweller Braverman saying stuff which had echoes of the 30s when he famously was dropped from match of the day. And this person told me that the senior manager at the BBC, this person was part of the Lineker wing of that thing.
We're just openly saying, you don't know what it's like having the mail on your back. Well, Linica does know what it's like having the mail on your back. But it's very revealing that they are so worried by these papers and the criticisms from these papers. I think they are scared of them. And that does seep into the output in the end. And sometimes it's inadvertent. You do come in if you work for that Laura program on a Sunday. And there's the mail on Sunday. There's the Sunday telegraph.
We better follow this stuff up. We might get bothered if we don't. And so there are all kinds of ways in which people don't buy newspapers, but they remain very influential in the BBC. And of course, most of them are on the right and in a very noisy way. And it does influence the BBC. I want to ask you about perceptions of buyers in the BBC, because on the one hand, we're constantly told that there's this kind of liberal left middle class
Oxbridge bias on the news world which sort of sets the tone and it's the way everybody thinks the way everybody behaves. And on the other hand, we're told the management's full of conservatives like Robbie Gibb, who used to be Theresa May's director of communications, Emily Makeless called him an active agent to the Tories in the BBC and that the commanding heights of BBC news managers is full of these Tory sleeper agents. It can't be both, can it? Well, can it?
Well, maybe the private views of people at the BBC are pretty mixed. It's certainly not weighted to the left. That's for sure. If you look at the Robbie Gibb era, he was the editor of Politics Programs, the presenter was Andrew Neil. At one point, he was presenting six programs a week, and he's not known as a lefty, Andrew Neil, and his editor was Robbie Gibb.
But there are some who are more left inclined. Andrew Maher is now political editor of the New Statesman, having been a frontline presenter. But when I was a political correspondent, I worked with Guido Harry, who went on to work for the Tory Boris Johnson, and there were a couple of others then who went into the Tory party one way or another. But one went into Tony Blair's Downing Street. So it is mixed, but in terms of the top management and it seeps down,
the many hierarchies. It's the fear of the right, which influences the output more than anything else in terms of this external factor. And there are some. It is weird. It is a bit like the civil service. When I was a political correspondent, I didn't know what half of them felt privately. You just don't discuss it. I mean, it's a weird place in that sense. You're covering huge political stories, and you just didn't talk like normal people do. And you're slightly mad, actually.
Zoe, the license fee is endlessly troublesome and endlessly controversial. Lisa Nandy has just indicated, ironically enough, on the BBC, that the license fee will probably go, but the BBC will not be funded out of general taxation. She said the license fee was deeply regressive, but she hasn't ruled out a subscription model. It's like, OK, so you're not going to have a license fee and you're not going to put out a general taxation. I'm not sure what leave is you going to pull. Just what kind of ride can the BBC expect out of labor, do you think?
So I don't think Labour are going to be as overtly hostile towards the BBC as the Conservatives have been, but I think Labour are still going to be very aware that the BBC is still this kind of culture war hot topic in many ways. I think they're much more sympathetic to wanting to keep the BBC going. I think the conversation is going to be more one of constructively reaching a conclusion rather than perhaps some in the Tory party who almost saw it as an existential will if the BBC can't survive in this modern day and age. Perhaps it shouldn't survive.
kind of approach and i think you know she has a point and it's been pointed out by the show of com has been pointed out by MPs on the right as well that the license fee is in some ways quite regressive in that if you are working single mother you would pay the same for your license fee as a high flying executive in a different part of the country.
And it's also worth pointing out that we know that the way the license fee is enforced, which is by door stepping, inspectors mean that women are more disproportionately more likely to be prosecuted for nonpayment. So it is a real issue. It's a live issue politically on both the left and the right. But I do think that the Labour Party is more committed to the existence of the BBC.
Those conversations are going to be difficult because obviously subscription services are a big threat to the BBC. There's many on the right who question the BBC's bias and viability. So they are going to face pressure, but I think they will probably breathe a sigh of relief with a Labour government in charge rather than, as you say, the bra beating of the Tories.
So I'm going to ask you all, you've got a magic wand to improve the BBC's politics coverage. Mine involves getting rid of question time. Or it's just a zoo. It doesn't help anybody. It just pumps misery and division into the world. And here, what's your magic wand to improve vision?
On this, I don't, when we were speaking earlier, you said that our question time, it used to be sort of different and everything. It used to be good. What the thing is, is that I looked this up when you texted this and the Harry and Paul sketch sending up question time is from 2012, right? And so it's clearly, like by 2012, it was baked in enough into the national consciousness that this is what this program is for it to be a punchline to a still very famous. I was going to the 1980s.
I'm a little, a little gladest one between me and see the guys. This guy thinks 2012 a long time. I'm talking Robin Dator in the good old old school. I hate to break this to you, but there are people who are now in high school who were not born when that sketch came out, right? Sorry, I'm just having your feelings now for the sake of it. But I think that my magic wand thing would probably be
I think that people are, and this goes across lots of things, very, very keen to underestimate audiences and things that don't underestimate audiences end up doing really well. And everyone's like, oh, how can we, as though it's some sort of secret code, how can we possibly crack the secret code of why this thing that gives time and space and goes in depth is doing incredibly well?
Oh, it's probably just because we've not clipped it up enough for reals. And I would just be like, why? Why do you think that? Why? Good point. Zoe.
I think for complex policy issues that are a live wire for the British public, say for example, immigration, the BBC needs to stop trotting out for Raj and the Reform Party chairman and start bringing in genuine experts or at least have a more diversified group of voices talking about it. So occasionally you could get someone from the left on to talk about what they think about immigration or you could have an immigration expert on talking about how you deal with things like safe and legal routes.
I know, again, it feels like they're searching for clips, they're searching for views, they want to get a news line, but I just don't think it's helpful for public debate. Yeah. Yeah. Steve, put us lot in charge. I know you're not joking. I'm not joking. It comes, you know, they've still got some decent presenters and interviewers, although they lost a hell of a lot. And again, I've spoken to some of the people who run use gun
you know, what happened when you lost all these people? Remember Andrew Marl, it was good all, I mean, made less. And recently, Michelle Hussein, who was a great interviewer. And there's no accountability for why all of that happened, but they've still got some good people. It just needs a sense of what are we for? And how do we make it interesting and have sort of intelligent discussion within that organization instead of this thing? What 22nd clip where two people are rowing and full stop?
It's got to be more than that.
While we're talking about the BBC and the Koonsburg show, Kemi Badenock caught hell over the weekend when Laura Koonsburg asked her for her favorite Beatles song, because they had Paul McCartney on the show, and she said, yellow submarine. And there was a deluge of outrage from six music dads who went, what a rubbish choice. That shows you've got no hint to love, disgraceful, disgraceful. I have my opinions. What do we think? I hear the potential future Prime Minister of Britain, she thinks her favorite Beatles song is yellow submarine, bad thing of good thing or whatever.
I think they're just going to say something. It's like when Gordon Brown was told that he should say that he liked the Arctic Monkeys. See, that's a thing that happened quite a while ago that I referenced. The new band, the Arctic Monkeys.
they're never going to answer. I remember an interview with Keir Starmer a little while ago in which he claimed not to have a favorite book or poem or to dream. And lots of my friends were like, isn't this a book? What sort of guy is this? He doesn't even, he's obviously lying. Because there is no answer. If you're like Prime Minister, what do you dream about? And he's like, well, I'm either shagging or being James Bond.
I'm in the cabinet room and I forgot to put my clothes on. It's just like you're just asking a question to which the person is just going to say whatever they think would be least offensive or can be bad, not definitely trolling in that.
She loves a troll and yellow submarine is 100% a great troll. That's why wife points to that. Yellow submarine is integrating different communities to live together in a yellow submarine. She's done a bit. Well, maybe she can. Well, like I said, I have thoughts. Zoe, what did you think?
I mean, I actually immediately thought, okay, what would I say in that scenario where it's a really high pressure interview and I'm in this parallel universe, leader of the conservative party. And I might, I mean, I might very well be thrown off guard and not be able to think of anything. And then the news line becomes, oh, they don't even, you should don't even know the Beatles. What sort of planet is she on? I'm sure Kamehameh Beynon was prepped, well, I hope she was prepped by someone that they might ask that since Paul McCartney was on the programme.
But I mean, I just think these questions, they're kind of a bit silly, in my opinion. I don't think we really need to know what Cami Bade knocks over Sago is. I think really what we need to do is spend that extra time looking at her policies and asking her why she hasn't come up with any yet. And, you know, I think whatever she picked, the whole point of it is to take the mic out of her.
I don't know, you know, because the fact that can be beaten up says yellow submarine is the only thing I've ever liked about there. Because maybe it evokes a childhood memory. Why not pop music should you need me to have a interlandist not on a level? Do you know what I mean? So I'm going to give her that one.
The one time I've had respect for somebody when they answer one of these questions was when they actually asked me to assume that what his favourite food was and he said sandwiches because I believe that was a really genuine answer because I too love sandwiches and I know what he means. A really good sandwich is great. And everyone said, oh, we couldn't think of anything. What a stupid answer. We can't say foie gras, I can't even get into trouble. There is no world in which that man's favourite food is not by any worry. He did not fair it off.
Now, a little bit of a change for the podcast. We've been doing the high and low points of the week for a while. And now we've realized that things are one big low point right now. So we're going to change it up in the interest of optimism. Welcome to High Point of the Week where one of our panel is going to give us a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Zoe, Grunavald, you're starting with High Point of the Week. What is it?
OK, so there wasn't a great lot of good news last week as you pointed out, Andrew, but this was a little bit of kind of positive economic news for the UK government that obviously was only really reported on by the Guardian and ignored by pretty much everywhere else, which was that.
The UK's climb to second place behind the US is the most attractive destination for investment, and that's according to an annual survey of 5,000 global CEOs done by PWC. It's as highest ever ranking, and they think is on the back of the IMF recently upgrading the UK's growth forecast to 1.6% for 2025.
citing Labour's increased investment spending, improved household finances, and anticipated interest rate cuts. So ministers were quite pleased about this at Davos last week, and it kind of got- That's interesting. That's a bit different from, oh, all the millionaires are leaving, and the star was collapsing, but interesting. A little bit different, didn't read about that in many places, didn't we? No, I told you to cancel that telegraph subscription. For my own health there, how unusual.
Finally, if you know one thing about Kestama is that he genuinely loves football. He's an Arsenal season ticket holder. He plays five aside on Sundays according to my sources. He takes it very seriously indeed. The eyepaper described him as perhaps not the most skilled but a good captain, an effective organizer and a tenacious player. And that sounds like the perfect CV for a prime minister. So why does Starmer keep failing to follow the example of the great football managers?
The men who keep wayward diverse talents pointing in the same direction and keep their eyes on the prize. His labors problem, maybe not the messaging, so much as the fact that Starmer really needs, say, the fire of a Brian Clough, the madness of a clop, the ruthless will to win of a Ferguson, or the emotional intelligence of a Bobby Robson. Steve, content warning, you're a Spurs fan and Starmer's an Arsenal fan. Yeah. You and I are possibly a bit more football fan than here in Zoe. Is it weird that he doesn't take inspiration from football, do you think?
Well, I think he does on one level. He is incredibly competitive when he plays football, and he is incredibly competitive in wanting to win in politics. In the early weeks, I'm told after the landslide win,
Whereas some of the people around him, you know what labor people like, we're in agony over the fact that it was only on 33% of the vote. He was really up for it and telling foreign leaders how to win with a landslide. So he's very competitive as he is when he plays football.
But in terms of these managers, he's got so much to learn because they are partly political. You mentioned Brian Clough, who I just used to find fascinating. I remember one game when he was managing forests, and they lost three nil in a European type. And I thought, how's he going to deal with this post-match interview? And Brian, how do you explain that? We were absolutely magnificent. And by the end of the interview, you thought, wow, it was fantastic.
Now imagine in August when Keir Starmer went out into the garden and said everything's going to be terrible and then it's going to get a lot worse. He said the equivalent of, but we are magnificent. We're going to be magnificent. In other words, sort of Trump like in self-confidence. And other managers are very
political and what they say after games. And some do it by being entertaining, others by being very dower, and they kind of frighten the interviewers. A lot of the interviewers are scared of these managers. And so there are techniques that Kiyastama could learn. He is genuinely passionate about football, unlike other primers. Drew was at Cameron, who pretended to support one team, and he got it wrong. Exactly, he got it all mixed up.
Some are like Brown, you know, authentic football fans. And so they could learn a lot from these managers. Because he's often accused of being sort of in authentic and a bit plastic, isn't he? And this is actually, I just don't know why he doesn't show this a little bit more.
Yeah, but it's one thing being genuinely passionate about football, which he is. Another is to learn some of these managerial techniques, because these managers, under the kind of pressure they're under, are actually quite authentic figures, and they are quite distinct. I mean, he, if you want a comparison with a manager, is a bit David Moyes-like, quite defensive, quite sort of serious.
You don't, I don't know what he's like privately, but you don't go for a moist interview for laughs as you do with one or two others. Well, he was a terminal on the outside, doesn't he? Moises is constantly sort of in, it can be consulted with the pressures of the job. Yeah, and can't hide it. And Kirstammer at times,
He's not an actor, and he can't hide it when he's feeling pressurized. The riots during the summer, he very tentatively read a script in number 10 when he was dealing. And so he can't hide it when he feels under pressure. And in a way, as a leader, like a manager, you need to be partly an actor.
And he's not that, even though he follows these managers obsessively. I really now want there to be an interview with Starmer where he just goes, well, to quote Stormzy, I come to your team and I fuck shit up. I'm David Moyes. Zoe, I don't want to make sexist assumptions here. How footbally are you?
No, it's not sexist if it's accurate and not fubbly at all. When you look at it from the outside and you see that, you know, a picture of him in an England show with a pint, you know, does that strike you as the authentic starmer or does it feel stunted up as, for instance, when I don't know, we see Michael Gove doing his whatever.
I think it seems authentic because the one time you see his face really light up seems to be when he's got a pint in his hand and he's wearing a football shirt. The thing about Kissed Armor is, and we all obviously know this, but he is a public servant. That is his background. And being a public servant, it is not about you. It is not about your personality. It is a managerial role where you are looking at what is best for the country, what is best for your organization, and you're implementing it. It's quite evidence-based.
I think that can sometimes come across as disingenuous, or he can come across as fake or flip-flopping, because he doesn't always show a extremely kind of passionate, authentic side of himself. But I think that's kind of trained into him from his background. And I think that was a really good antidote, especially during the Boris Johnson years, to what Boris Johnson was offering, which was just only personality, and lots of ill-thought-out policy and just wanting to be popular.
But now we're in a state where the country is crying out for something passionate and radical and something that's going to really change things and they're sick of 15 years of decline. And I think that's where starmers personalities are a bit jarring because it can come across either like he doesn't really care or like the government isn't doing an awful lot when really behind the scenes they probably are working very, very hard.
The irony is that actually the person who did what Steve just described, come up with the big railroad, was Tony Blair, who sort of purported to be a Newcastle United fan, did go to the game now and again, but wasn't really kind of super connected to it, but he was able to play that manager role of, you know, effectively sort of, you know, figuratively going into the national dressing room and just, you know, getting all the players all razzed off and ready to go. I mean, I hear you do fall at sports. Do you feel like we're missing a part of the Druun here here?
Well, but I think that this can be quite like compartmentalized with people who do and I think that people who like sport will get this right where you have people who are otherwise pretty shy or aloof or quiet or reserved in whatever way who then all of a sudden you will hear screaming at the top of their lungs from the terraces hugging total strangers when it goes like this sort of thing and that is a thing that exists in the world right and I think that
maybe people who aren't into it are like, well, why isn't he like, how could he be passionate about this thing given that he's not passionate constantly? You're like, well, it's just not how it works. And like, I think about the fact that like my best mate is also a barrister, like Star Wars background. And I've very much I've seen him in barrister mode. And I've seen him in sport mode. And they are very different guys. Right. But they both exist.
And that's the other, he is a figure of real contrast. So you're absolutely right. He is reserved really as a public figure compared to Johnson or whatever. But a exuberant, when he's watching Arsenal, he clearly has a capacity for friendship outside politics. I know some of the people he goes to Arsenal with and they adore him. And yet in politics, he hasn't got political friends. He hasn't been there that long.
And I think one of the issues for him, actually, he hasn't formed allies or friendships rising to the top. He's there at the top and then having to choose people who he doesn't really know. And it goes wrong, as we saw with Sue Gray, who he knew a bit, but clearly not well enough to judge whether it was going to work or not. But he did have the management
quality of being able to ruthlessly sell her to Galatasaray, as it were, when the moment came. And also, the ruthlessness of suspending Corbyn, right there and then at the moment when he said what he said about the anti-Semitism issue, that was very kind of...
That was Ferguson dressing room stuff. He's in ruthlessness terms. He's Ferguson. I always used to find it fascinating with Ferguson. There are a couple of others. You saw him at the end of one game embracing a player, you know, as they tend to do, you know, when things have gone well at the end of a game.
and drop him for the next game. And you think, my God, how does he do that? And Starmer's like that. So Starmer's got that Ferguson streak. That does bring me to in football management terms. Who is he? I mean, I sort of wanted to be Arsene Wanger because, A, it's Arsenal and it's true to him. But also, Wanger was the kind of quiet revolutionary, you know, it was, it was all for suddenly very science and reason-based. Did things like that in the place meeting Catcher.
He's going to turn up to PMQ's wearing a gigantic coat. He also has no more Mars bars allowed in the cabinet. He's going to say, I did not see the incident. He'll like that comparison. Let's see about the revolutionary bit. I know what you mean with Venga. He transformed the way people stopped drinking at Arsenal, didn't they? Which was miraculous to themselves. The state of Arsenal before he came on board was they were in absolute shambles.
And he changed all of that amongst many other things. And he was quiet and studious and dogged and and star was quiet and studious and dogged too early to tell whether he's quite the transformative force in politics. My fear is that he might be Gareth Southgate like the decent guy. Good communicators speaks well to the nation, which is not quite.
Rise to the Titanic challenges. What about Badenach? I suspect she's marinio. Horrible big mouth. He doesn't think before she speaks splits the team. I would absolutely adore for any politician to in a press conference say, I prefer not to speak if I speak, I'm in big trouble. I think it would be brilliant. It's like, because you can tell a lot of the time you're clearly thinking it. Maximum respect, if you say that.
I've been extending that thought. I would like of any politician when asked a question at Prime Minister's question time to say the reason the seagulls follow the trawler is that it would be just beautiful. So he's like, what the hell are you talking about? It's fine. I get the gerbil jest, yeah.
We've reached the end of the show, so it's time for escape routes. We're going to ask the panel what are the books, films, music, TV, whatever that have helped them to keep reality of Bay and sanity in sight this week. I hear. What's yours? I think that having followed traitors to the end is too obvious and everyone's a big traitors head. So I will say that I've been really enjoying the new series that David Runciman has done on his past present future podcast about the history of revolutionary ideas.
All right. That's open very interesting so far, episodes on the idea of revolutionary ideas and on Socrates, Christianity and Islam. And if you are looking for an escape route, then why not go to Ahirashar.com and see if my tour is coming to a town near you. I actually have a book at the end for your tour by all means.
Yes, that sounds like a jolly good idea here. Zoe, what's your escape read? So my New Year's resolution was to read more, but specifically read the classics or some of the classics, because I actually am not a very good reader, despite being a journalist. So I'm reading, I've been reading some of the Brat Pack, but I'm reading The Secret History by Donna Tartt. Oh, yeah. And it's very good. I have to say, it doesn't remind me of my university days, a bit different, but I am enjoying it. It's, you know, it's
My wife takes it on holiday and re-read it pretty much every other year. Yes, I do that with Into the Wild. I just found that a very captivating book. Anyway, another escape route for you there. Pretty good, yeah. Steve, what's your escape route? Well, again, listeners, before your tour kicks off, can come to my first live show of the year at King's Place and the main concert hall on Monday, if they want to. This coming Monday. This coming Monday, February the 3rd, if they want a high point.
I'll have already done Dublin and Belfast by that point. You are a little baby. I'll put lips into the show notes. There's no need to get so competitive to see lips in the show notes. But yeah, my high point is unequivocal. I have always been keen to go to the cinema and watch films. I nearly always come out thinking, you know, five stars by Peter Bradshaw and The Guardian. I come out thinking, what a load of rubbish. What a load of
clunky, cliched nonsense. And I kind of reached the conclusion I was watching them in the wrong way. So, at the beginning of January, I signed up to a contemporary film course where we look at the films coming out in the Oscar season. And it has been brilliant. And I've seen some films which I've actually liked, which is a kind of miracle.
And I've just actually, last week, we would analyze the brutalist, which I wouldn't have even gone to see, because I won't go to see anything over two hours. And this goes on for about 95 hours. But it's brilliant. So it's been a high point for me to sort of really talk with others about films we've never done before. I have with books, politics, football, but it's great. It's really great to talk about films.
What was it that to an extent, the way that you said that did feel a bit, I used to think that two plus two equaled four, but now I've won the victory over myself and I love big brother. Well, to be honest, that is a bit of that to it. So I went to the Bob Dylan film and thought, yeah, we were wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. I thought, what a load of bloody rubbish.
So you're right that the enemy still doesn't really like film, but I really am loving this kind of course where we're looking at the releases. I like this. I mean, I should start going on courses to make me like things I don't like. Maybe I should start running courses. Everybody comes to my comics reading course. Well, my escape route is I know we shouldn't encourage people to listen to other podcasts until they've listened to ours.
I've discovered an amazing podcast. It's been running for ages. It's called Dead Planets Society, and it is a strand of the new scientist's podcast. They do one every month or six weeks, but a couple of years. And what they do is they pose an insane question, like, could we put out the sun?
Or could you extract all the iron from Mars with the giant magnet? Or what if he planes the surfaces of the earth down so that it was a cube? Could you ball through the center of the earth and what would happen? It is brilliant. He's got these two fantastic presents. They're really, really funny. But they answer these questions in entire seriousness. And I've discovered things like you can't drill through the earth because temperature increases by 10 degrees for every 10 kilometers or something. So at the time, you're even 30 kilometers and you've melted
So you can't. And the fact that the center of Jupiter is made of metallic hydrogen. So it's very hard to get through that as well. The pressures you would be crushed to a micro loss. It's called dead planet society. It's blowing my mind on a daily basis. And you should only listen to it after you've listened to our podcast.
Well, I'd say it's sure. You are never going to draw through the core of the earth with that attitude. How will we ever get to see the dinosaurs when we don't draw through the earth? That's the end of the Jewish edition of Oh God, what now? Thank you. So you're going to roll. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, here's Sean. It's all about the tour, but you've already done that.
Thank you. Come back. Don't be a stranger. Yes, of course. And thank you, Steve Richards. It also says tell us about the show, what you've already done. Right. We could talk again if you want. Links from the show notes, people. Do not miss these amazing events. Oh, God, what now? We'll be back on Thursday for our backers and Friday morning for everybody else. Thank you for listening. We'll see you next time.
Oh God, what now? Was written and presented by Andrew Harrison. With Zoe Grinavold, I hear Shah and Steve Richards. He was produced by Chris Jones, with all day of production by Robin Lieberne, and art by Jim Parry. The managing editor is Jacob Jarvis, group editor Andrew Harrison. And oh God, what now? He's a popmaster's production.
Why aren't men on the pill? Why are we drawn to people who are evil? Why do so many seemingly stable people join cults? Why do some people cry much more often than others? Find out with me, Emma Kennedy, on why the new science and psychology podcast from the team behind Oh God What Now and The Bunker. It's out now in your favorite podcast app. Why not have a listen after this?
Hello, it's Andrew Harrison here. We live in a complex world and sometimes it feels like the problems surrounding us are insurmountable. But they aren't, as you will find out, in how to fix a brand new podcast that we've made with the University of Leeds to celebrate incredible innovations that can solve society's biggest challenges.
In every episode, How to Fix talks to scientists and researchers at the cutting edge of technology, medicine, engineering and climate and social sciences. And it explains the amazing breakthroughs that are changing our world for the better. There's a brand new episode out right now and it looks at how we can meet the demand for protein in our diet with less meat or maybe not at all.
What's in these new alternative proteins? How do we make them not just healthy, but tasty and affordable as well? And how can we make the whole process sustainable? Listen to how to fix for a fascinating journey through the future of your diet, from plant-based protein to lab-grown meats and even insect protein. And to find out how alternative proteins can transform agriculture with brand new jobs. That's how to fix a podmaster's production for the University of Leeds. Such how to fix on your favourite podcast app now to listen.
Okay, I want to tell you about a podcast. It's a great, great podcast. Everybody's saying it, they're saying it's the best one you're going to listen to this year. It's called American Friction. Out every Friday, it tells you everything you need to know about the golden age of the United States of American terms, even kiss, starboard can understand. He's a very simple man, very simple man.
It'll make you feel like you got the bigliest brain in the world as ever. No nearly as big big as mine. That's American friction, American F-R-I-A-C-T-I-O-N. Out every Friday wherever you get your podcasts.
Was this transcript helpful?
Recent Episodes
Trump's America – Cloud Coup Coup Land

Oh God, What Now?
Donald Trump and his evil nerd henchman Elon Musk continue to “flood the zone” with new harmful executive orders and bullshit headlines. How do we figure out what matters and what doesn’t? Plus, Reform UK has – somehow – topped a poll as the UK’s most popular political party. Should we stop paying so much attention to polls, and letting them set the agenda? Plus in the Extra Bit for supporters: research suggests some people get as many as two scam phone calls a day! The panel discusses how to spot them and whether they’re putting us all off from answering the phone. We’re on YouTube!: https://www.youtube.com/@ohgodwhatnow www.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnow Go to proton.me/ohgodwhatnow to receive a 38% discount on Proton Mail Presented by Dorian Lynskey, Jonn Elledge, Ros Taylor and Matt Green. Producer: Chris Jones. Audio production by: Robin Leeburn. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
February 07, 2025
Appetite for Disruption

Oh God, What Now?
As Keir Starmer visits Brussels for a meeting with European Union leaders, Trump has the EU in his sights. But Trump says Starmer is “nice”, so will Britain get away unscathed from new tariffs? It’s quite the predicament for the British PM – will he have to choose between one or the other? And what’s with all the DISRUPTION? From electoral politics to business to popular culture, we’re told that “move fast and break things” is the way to go. Is that why we’re knee-deep in loads of broken stuff? • Send your questions to BUT YOUR EMAILS • We’re on YouTube!: https://www.youtube.com/@ohgodwhatnow www.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnow Presented by Andrew Harrison with Zoë Grünewald, Rafael Behr, and Seth Thévoz. Audio production by: Robin Leeburn. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
February 04, 2025
Happy Birthday, Brexit! – 5th Anniversary Gala Celebration!

Oh God, What Now?
Special guest Anand Menon discusses the effects of Brexit on Britain, assessing its impact on the UK, Tory party, Labour, and European Union over the past five years.
January 31, 2025
A Dictator from Day One

Oh God, What Now?
Reed Galen of The Lincoln Project assesses Trump's aggressive first moves on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, Paris Climate Agreement, WHO, and pardons for Jan 6 rioters. Discussion explores the state of resistance against Trump.
January 24, 2025

Ask this episodeAI Anything

Hi! You're chatting with Oh God, What Now? AI.
I can answer your questions from this episode and play episode clips relevant to your question.
You can ask a direct question or get started with below questions -
What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?
Sign In to save message history