This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.
This is Hota Kotby from Joy 101 with Hota Kotby, whether you're calling the wise women in your
life, video calling your girlfriends across the country, or checking in on someone who always
knows how to make you smile, staying connected matters. Those small conversations, shared laughs,
and quick halos are what keep relationships strong, even when life gets busy. Some of the most
life-changing conversations start with just a phone call. That's why AT&T guarantees
a network you can rely on, so you can focus on the moments and people that matter most.
That's the AT&T guarantee. AT&T, connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply,
visit AT&T.com/garrantee for details.
Winning never sounded so good. What would you do if you want big? At Crown Coins Casino,
real people win real prizes every single day.
Hello and welcome to Strong Message here from BBC Radio 4, a guide to the use and abuse of
political language. I'm Matt Ford and before you panic, I haven't travelled down on an
of anti-West Coast to stage your coup. Our mando is under the weather this week, so I'm stepping
into hosting duties. After I admit, I'm a little underweather myself with World Cup fever,
which has been slightly tempered by England's performance against Ghana. This week, I'm
John by Realina. Welcome to the show. What is this World Cup of which you speak? What are you
talking about? Do you know what? Some sort of start-up sporting tournament. I don't think it's
going to catch on. I can't see it working. I mean, you need everyone to agree. You want at least
40, 45 countries to agree. I can't see that happening in today's political climate.
The first thing we're going to look at this week is a swift transition.
Minister Nick Thomas Simons has called for one, so we're going to look into what he means by
that. Cast our eye over the language of Starmas, Kenya, and the rhetorical traits of the potentially
incoming Andy Burnham. So this idea of a swift transition. After the local elections,
there's a bit of a debate about whether we needed a swift or an orderly transition.
The code for swift basically meant "weas", orderly meant "andy". Now "andy" is in the swift
transition group, and "weas" have thrown in behind "andy", but both "weas" and "andy"
use the phrase. We don't want to spend the summer exaggerating our small differences.
So, Ria, do you think this is all basically a pretence to avoid a mess?
Avoid a mess? Sorry, are we not in a mess already?
But they might not want a divisive leadership contest one in government.
Well, I think if we do go swiftly or orderly from here to Andy, you'd be forgiven if you were
an alien and you came down to earth going, "Are you sure that's not the same person?"
Because honestly, you put them next to each other. They are brothers separated at birth.
They're both like casual clothing, they're both like football, both working class.
The only difference, I think, is that Kier speaks through his nose and Andy's a little bit more
relaxed about it. And what about the phrase "swift transition"? As a member of the public,
do you think, "Oh, this sounds like a good thing"? Do you know what? I think it's a transition,
and putting swift in there for me doesn't change the fact that we are changing Prime Minister again.
It's a transition. I think that the fact that it's now most likely to be uncontested
is going to make it better than it otherwise would be if it drags on, swift or otherwise,
it's still going to come with a little bit of mess, isn't it?
But do you think it will resonate with the public? Yes, I'd rather this be done swiftly,
or do you think the public think, actually, if we're going to change Prime Minister,
we want to see some scrutiny of whoever the new person is, some sort of contest, some sort of
legitimacy? Personally, I'm torn. I mean, I don't know about you. I'm torn, if only by the fact
that if we don't have a leadership election, we will have what's known as a coronation.
And I don't know if we need to have a left-wing people comfortable with that. Exactly! I'm very
uncomfortable with the idea of a coronation. How do you feel about this being a coronation if we
don't have some kind of runoff? I always think that I understand why the favourite
wants to just get on with it and get in. Yes. And I think there's maybe a level of public support
for just, if he's clearly going to win, what's the point? I also think that for the good of
the candidate, actually, some scrutiny is good and it's sharpens your thinking and a leadership
contest, forces policy development, forces debate that effectively then is a pre-season for whatever
the general election is. It toughens you up a bit. I love your use of the word pre-season.
I mean, it's one of the, in fact, it is a sporting term I would happily bring into politics.
I agree with you. There needs to be a bit more pre-seasoning. No.
But it sounds like it's going to get cut. Yeah, yeah. It needs to get a bit saltier, please.
Yeah, it's a really good point because you do get lots of football phrases
finding them into politics, showing something the red card. I mean, obviously, in Labour politics,
certainly historically, with the trade unions, lots of strikers.
Obviously, one that's been relevant recently that you hear a lot of Labour politicians saying,
we need our best players on the pitch, which actually arguably Thomas Tuckle partially disagrees
with because what he actually says is you need the best players who will work together as a team.
So maybe if Tuckleism was implemented, you wouldn't necessarily have Andy Burnham,
although in a way, he's a half-time substitutionist now. He didn't start the parliamentary term.
Yeah, it's a substitution, right? We're having a substitution in, but I mean, if Tuckleism comes in,
I think they'd also have a much smaller majority. I just always find it odd that given that choices
of the essence of politics and elections of the essence of politics, that you would once become
prime minister whilst avoiding some form of electoral process, that it's just so built into the system
that votes a part of how you get things from the floor of the House of Commons, how you got selected,
how you got elected, all those things. And yet, to become the leader of a party, leader of a country,
there's then a suggestion that sometimes you go, "Oh, yeah, well, we want an election this time.
Let's just get on with it." I think, well, I think legitimacy matters as well.
I hear that very much, especially in politics, but as an actor, the idea of being handed a role without
having to audition, yes, please. That's different. That's based on talent. That's merit.
It isn't always. Sometimes it's based on your social media following, isn't it? But
the parallel to politics. Yeah, that's true. At that point, yeah, maybe it is. The people have spoken.
Okay, let's analyze some of the language from Starmer's speech when he announced that he was
going to stand down. He said, "I don't know whether to do the voice or not." I do the voice,
please do the voice, because I'm going to ask you to do Andy later, so you might as well do
the ear now. Six years ago, I inherited a Labour Party that was politically financially and morally bankrupt.
Strong words, obviously aimed at Jeremy Corbyn, who said it was a disgraceful comment to make,
but doesn't Starmer have to make this point, because in a way, his most unequivocal achievement
is making the Labour Party electable again. You can argue about the job he's done as Prime Minister,
but in a way, I guess that's pretty indisputable. He also said, "I know the question being asked
now, it's not too much best place to change the Labour Party to take us into power. Let's make
it the vital work of improving lives and millions of people." Those questions have been answered.
The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general
election. I've heard the answer my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer
with good grace, which seems to be a bit of a linguistic trick to frame the PLP as the ones
demanding a change in leadership rather than the country. So it's effectively a pre-resignation
speech, and we will get the proper one when he eventually leaves in a few weeks' time,
that how does this compare to other pre-resignation speeches?
I mean, he packed so much into six minutes.
I was making it up from spot-proud.
He really did. I mean, I personally didn't feel that now was the time to separate himself from
the previous Labour Party. You know, with that line, as you did so beautifully, that he inherited
a Labour Party that was politically, financially, and morally bankrupt. I think that given
you're right, he made it an electable party, but I think that also had a lot to do with 14 years
of Tory and government. I think that he could have pointed to the opposition rather than it was
almost kicking half of the Labour Party on his way out. Like, why do that? I mean, part of the issue
of why you were being asked to leave, whether by your party or whether by the country, is because
there was so much discord that you weren't able to unify within your own party. So why kind of
do that little dig? I guess he would say that he's trying to remind people of his key achievement,
which is when he took over, people saying the Labour Party might not even exist in two years' time,
it was under investigation by the Equality's and Human Rights Commission. We'd never seen the
Labour Party get itself into that sort of state. So he's just trying to remind the Labour Party,
I guess at that point, don't forget what I did for you, was that when I took it over, it's easy
now to see, well, repart your government and it's easy to get on, when I took over, that wasn't
the case. And I would have said that six months or a year ago, when he started to really get in
trouble, that was the time to remind us of that. But right now, he's gone up and over the hill,
we're almost at a point where we're not sure if the Labour Party is electable again.
So don't remind us that you got us to a point of election as you are leaving because you
have then possibly made the labor party unelectable again.
But also I found this, this kind of made me chuckle when he said that he accepted the answer
to all these questions that were being posed.
He accepted the answer that he needs to go with good grace because he gave this speech
9/30 on a Monday morning, whereas on the Friday, right before the weekend, he was saying,
"If there's a leadership race, I'm going to run it."
So I'm like, "The good grace that your wife had to take you away for a weekend and
go, "Cure, give up already."
Like you're done.
And it's interesting seeing that language change every weekend from I will stand.
I guess at that point, you're kind of bluffing, you're trying to make Andy Burnham blink
or we're streeting or whoever.
I think that if Wes hadn't conceded, then he may well have still hung in there because
then there would have been votes up for grab, I think.
And that's why I think, Wes and Andy said, "We don't want to spend the summer exaggerating
our small differences."
They realized that if they fought each other, that Kier was stood a chance of staying in
power so that one of them had to concede.
Also, I love the idea that the Labour Party wouldn't want to exaggerate small differences.
I mean, if it's one thing the Labour Party exists to do to itself, it is exaggerate the
small differences in policy between one wing and another.
All right.
You mean the politically, financially and morally bankrupt side and then the other.
And the good people, whoever they are.
And the great ones.
Let's compare it to some other pre-resignation speeches at Boris Johnson in July 2022.
As I've seen in Westminster, the herd instinct is powerful and when the herd moves, it moves.
It's not even more poetic than Storma.
Sorry.
Is that the herd moving to get him out or is that how they partied?
Is that how they danced?
Is that the dance?
Are they partied so hard that they heard it against him?
I found that Boris and Kier's resignation speeches were very similar.
I felt that they came from very similar places.
There was that intense feeling of, "This isn't up to me.
I didn't make this decision.
I still think I'm the best man for the job.
This is not my choice."
You must feel like you're only one in election five minutes ago and that this has all happened
very, very quickly and there's language reflects that.
Yes, Boris had also said, "I know there will be many people who are relieved and perhaps
quite a few who will also be disappointed and I want you to know how sad I am to be giving
up the best job in the world, but then the breaks."
It's a bit of levity on the end, it kind of helps.
It does, but also I think it is very levity, levity, levity, levity.
What's that?
Leveritating.
It's very levitating for him to say, "I'm giving up the best job in the world when we all
know how much he struggled on the very small paycheck.
I'm so sorry to be leaving office to go make way more money that I'm actually worth."
So, I can't do the voice.
It wasn't a bad guy.
It was a bad guy.
No, but yours is better.
But do you think Starmer could learn a bit from that?
How do you put a bit of levity?
I mean, maybe you will with his final, final speech.
Has he been leveticious at all?
I'm good.
I'm good.
I'm just going to keep trying until we get a word.
He hasn't, he's never, he's never been very good at mixing.
I mean, we know that Boris is the king of that.
Boris is excellent at being able to weave in his humor and he has far more control of
the room than people think he does with all of the stammering and the stuttering, but
it's, you know, it's all quite intentional.
It's all part of the style and the performance, whereas I think here Starmer's ironically never
been that comfortable performing in public, even though he was a QC.
So do you think actually had he forced himself to have moments of levity that might have
helped in any way?
Had he occasionally said, but then just the breaks might have given him an extra couple
of weeks.
You know what?
It's interesting.
It doesn't quite work.
I think that we all, regardless of how you felt about the job he was doing, we all felt
for him when his voice cracked at the end of that speech.
And he said, I'm going to go and be the best husband to Vic and the best father I can be
to my children whom I'm very proud of.
And I'm sort of, and it's interesting, I found it very interesting that he said, I'm
very proud of my children because when he said halfway through the speech that becoming
Prime Minister was the proudest moment of my life, the first thing I thought was, what
about when your kids were born?
What about your children?
So, you know, he brought it back at the end.
What about all someone in the league?
Oh, well, I mean, he was there.
What about when you got Taylor Swift tickets, didn't have to pay for it?
The glasses, the jacket.
Come on.
How many proud moments do you like?
♪ Crown coins to see home ♪
Winning never sounded so good.
What would you do if you won big?
Hi, this is Michael from Georgia, I won 40k and finally renovated my home.
Visit crowncoins.com, sign up in seconds, enter code Crown and get a free lucky wheel bonus.
You may win up to 10,000 sweeps coins.
Crowncoins.com, that's C-R-O-W-N coins.com, no purchase needed.
Code ballot for new users only, we're prohibited by law, 18 plus terms and conditions apply.
Crowncoins to see home.
Bite into a stacked sandwich made with hero bread, or a fully loaded bagel.
And the only thing you'll think is delicious.
You won't think it's up to 19 grams of protein, but it is.
You wouldn't believe it has 11 to 32 grams of fiber.
But it does.
Hero bread makes loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels, and noodles packed with taste, but without
all the net carbs.
We're talking 0 to 5 grams net carbs per serving.
With hero bread, there are no compromises.
Just flavor.
There's none of the stiff baked goods you expect from, better for you brands.
There's just the soft, fluffy bread you crave.
Plus small batch drops of indulgent favorites like the popular 2 gram net carb hero croissant
and the 3 gram net carb hero panoshakala.
And right now, hero bread is offering 10% off your order.
Go to hero.co and use code iHeart@Checkout.
Let's code
[email protected].
All figures per serving of hero bread, see nutrition facts on hero.co.
So let's contrast him to Andy Burnham.
What can we look for in Andy Burnham's style of communication?
Well, I mean, they do communicate very differently.
We've just heard you do care, Starmer, through, you know, that whole burn knows all kind
of thing.
How does Andy Burnham differ?
So my burnham impression isn't one of my best.
He has quite a soft, quite a slight sort of hesitancy, isn't there, Rhea?
You know, he will ask himself questions a lot won't he?
You know, and I think one of the things we really need to do is improve things.
Don't we?
And I think having conversations like this really helps, doesn't it?
And that can sound consensual, can't it?
But it can also sound quite unsure as well.
And he will also go, you know, from levity to serious very quickly, you know, nothing
I love more than, you know, coming on area and then talking to you and, you know, having
a laugh and, you know, talking about language, you think it's great, but, you know, in all
seriousness, if, you know, if the hoothies don't stop doing what they're doing, we will
use lethal force.
And you know, the pivot, just to do that right.
Whoa.
The pivot is fast.
So look out for that.
But he has certainly a more, quite a gentle way that he speaks, quite soft and pleasant
voice.
I mean, I think you're right.
And I think linguistically, him and Starmer are quite similar in many ways in that there's
a sort of nervousness about them.
They don't have that assuredness that, say, Blair had.
Yeah, they don't, I mean, they don't have that public school boy field to them.
Do they?
And I think that that's why, I mean, Andy Brim, of course, King of the North, Man of
the People.
These are all phrases that we would very much associate with him and, and with his
way of communicating because he comes across as a real person.
I think Kier Starmer, Kier Starmer people start with, first of all, because, of course,
he is Sir Kier Starmer, you know, for, for his service to the country, but it separates
him from the humble beginnings that he came from.
I don't know if you know this map, but his dad was a tool maker.
No.
Yes.
Yeah.
And his mom was a nurse.
So I know he's just one of us.
Should have mentioned it.
He really, I think he would have bonded with him more.
He might still be Prime Minister if he did.
So they do have a lot of similarities, you know, there is that, there is that certain humility,
there's that lack of bumpacity.
But I do think that there is still, you know, within the scale of labor, there is a difference.
And I think that, that Andy is representing.
And I think Wes probably even recognizes that he's a little bit too slick.
And I, and I, and I think Wes, you know, on the balance of it went, I'm probably closer
to Kier Starmer than Andy is.
And if we want a hope of being reelectable in up to two and a half years, then, then maybe
Andy is, is the person that I need to throw my weight behind, sort of like in a go theorist
kind of way 10 years ago.
Oh, well, that is a calculator chest moves, aren't they, depending on when you think you
can win them, and when you think you can't, something you said, I think, is really interesting
is that think the, the language we're using around Andy Burnham, King of the North coronation.
Tony Blair said something really interesting a few years ago about whenever I lead a
comes in, the sort of seed to their downfall, or always quite visible, that whatever the
things are, you know, these things will escalate eventually, you can always sort of see what
the pitfall might be.
And I just wonder if having that sort of regal language around him, however light hearted
and however sort of flippant it is now, if there's a sense that he didn't have to stand
in a leadership contest, the King of the North, the coronation, where there actually that
could calcify into something a bit more negative around him, whether we start to see him as
a kind of distant individual rather than the one we're quite close to.
Well, that's interesting.
I mean, it's been one of the worries of Andy coming in, for example, of something that
we were going to talk about Manchesterism, you know, he's very tied with the success of
Manchesterism, and is he going to bring this with him down
south down to Westminster, how is that going to work? Is there too much of a north south divide?
Are we in the south going to be like, we don't relate? Or, is it actually going to work? Are we
actually all feeling in the south that we do need a little bit more togetherness, that we do need
a little bit more of a feeling that the government sees us? Because that's one of the things about
Manchesterism is that the people felt seen. They felt acknowledged. Manchesterism being
primarily vibes, primarily a feel, isn't it? It's a feel rather than something you can put
your finger on, because when you start to dig into the actual numbers of what Burnham achieved
while Mayor of Manchester, it's not like this wonderful, clean slate of amazing achievements.
There's some highs, but there are also some lows, and there's some successes, but there's some
big failures as well. And identity is easier in a smaller place.
Is that Manchester has a very clear identity around whether you're a man, say you're a man,
you know, the stone rose as they're seeing their oasis, whatever it is. Britain is obviously by
definition wide and there are more diverse things. So does he pivot to UKism? Does he try and
scale up Manchesterism? Well, does it still get called that? Would it be divisive to people
down south want Manchesterism? Whatever that may mean? I think the beauty of it is, is that if
somebody goes, that doesn't work here, he'll be like, no, that was just for Manchester. This is
this is the Ism part. And if it does work, he can go, yeah, well, because it worked great there.
So I'm bringing it down. So I think he has some flexibility with how he uses that phrase
and how he clocks up wins and failures. But you're right. It is, and we kind of saw the same thing
with Boris. Boris went from being Mayor of London to an MP and he did struggle with that transition
of the change of role of representing a location of being able to be proud of where you come from.
I mean, we come back to the men's world cup, of course. It's much easier to be proud in our
identities when we are faced with 47 other countries. But when you zoom in on the micro and we see
that England is so broken up by so many different identities right now. Yeah, I'm not sure if Andy
will be able to bring them together. And what do you make of it being an Ism around a place rather
than thaturism, Blairism, where the politicians name is the foundation of the ideology with him
is rooted in Manchester rather than burnemism. I think partly because as you just said burnemism,
it's not a good word, is it? Burnemism. You can't burnemism. That's not going to work. It's like
what did he do? Did he set them all on fire? Like burnemism. What is that? Yeah, it does sound like
some old medieval policy for witches. Yeah, you know, it went through burnemism and that was bad.
It's not done. Yeah. It's so true. It's an interesting one for me, especially because
he comes from Liverpool. And one of the things we all know about is the Liverpool Manchester
identity divides. So here's a man from Liverpool who's managed to win the hearts of the greater
Manchester area with great success, even winning a by-election in Makerfield, which contains
Wigan, which is still one of the poorest areas that he never really, he never was able to raise
them up out of poverty as he was promising to do. So he's achieved many great things. And it might
be a clever move that he's using Manchesterism as an identity and separating it from himself.
So that A, if it fails, wasn't me, it was Manchesterism, but B, if it succeeds, there's still room
for him to grow into what burnemism might then become. So he's leaving himself open to it,
where Starmer, from the very beginning, had to do Starmerism, didn't he? I mean, that was it.
And Starmerism failed within two and a half years and now that's his legacy.
And actually, interestingly, and this is a crucial difference between them is,
Starmer was very resistant to even accept that Starmerism was the thing that it would
exist. You know, he was one of those politicians that you meet and some of them exist in the
late party. So I don't want to be pigeonholed. I don't want to be seen as old Labour or new
Labour and classic Labour, you know, even resisted the idea that Starmerism existed. And I think
I understand why politicians are doing that when they're trying to become leader of a party.
But it actually helps the public to be clear. You say, okay, you're one of those left-wing
Labour people or you're a right-wing Labour person. This is just shorthand phrases that allow
the public to go, okay, if you're on the Blair I End, you're going to be pro-business to Funcrime.
If you're on the Corbyn End, you're going to have different priorities. And it's not ignoble
for the public to want to know where on that actually quite broad spectrum you would see it.
And I always got the sense that Kirstauma didn't want to have that conversation of sort,
whereas Burnham perhaps a bit more keen to define himself.
I think Burnham is right to want to define himself, but I feel that also he's keen to do it because
he is seen from Starmer that by not doing it, it could be your downfall. Because what is Starmerism?
You turn, like what is it defined by the winter, the winter fuel allowance? I mean, from his
leadership race all the way through to now, he keeps changing what Starmerism was. He started on
10 leadership pledges. Then he had five national missions. He had three strong foundations. He had
six planned for change milestones, six first steps, four reset pillars, three fiscal tests,
two chiefs of staff, and one poor Lee chosen ambassador. He went through so many identity shifts
and we're like, just pick a number and stick to it. Usually actually we recommend prime numbers.
So a lot of the no wonder they failed, but you know, what is Starmer? I still actually, I'm not sure
what Starmerism is. I feel like I understand what Manchesterism, which is just a vibe. I understand
it better than I understand Starmerism. Like what is it? What is it? You know, I don't think people
mind the odd relaunch or the reset. You know, if you get things wrong, they just cause people expect
that. And obviously, when Tony Blair first came, you know, he's seen now as a very clearly defined
political creed at the time. His nickname was Bambi. It was all government by folks group. He didn't
stand for anything. Actually, history has judged him to be a deeply ideological leader. I'm very
single-minded of one particular issue. So I don't think people mind it when you first start.
Which one was that? Reminding us. Oh, it was something to do with recycling, I think.
But over time, politicians can sort of end up in a position. No, I don't think people
mind that. It's just that I guess you're right. With Starmerism, it never felt like it was,
never felt like it was coming from something. You know, with Tony Blair, you knew who's a modernizer.
So at least you knew who was coming from there. And Corbin, you understood he was on the hard
level, you know, thatcher and major that you sort of understood the traditions they came from.
Whereas Keirston were probably more than any of the labor leader in history. It was so keen
to reject the sense that he was from any particular wing. But then I guess, who were your allies?
No, well, precisely you add to that the number of times that he backtracked or had to you turn,
which I think was inexperienced as much as anything. And it actually became the overriding
flavor of who he was as much as I hate to agree with Blair. He wasn't wrong in his, in his 5,000-word
essay that he wrote a couple of weeks ago where he said, you got to stand for something. It doesn't
matter who leads the party, you need to stand for something. And I think again that that's probably
been taken to heart by Wes and Andy, which is why they said we mustn't exaggerate our small
differences and saying small differences. They're not small. They're, they're quite substantial
their differences. But they're recognizing that if the labor party doesn't nail down
five or seven or three things that they are standing for, that they will lose in the next election.
Stomas language was quite interesting over the years. And I just wonder which bits
you might have liked. I mean, there was a phrase he kept using sticking plaster politics,
which I never felt I understood what he meant, the idea that you don't want these quick fixes.
But it never really conveyed the magnitude of the job at hand.
Yes. And it's, and it's not something you can shy away from when you only have five years. I
mean, don't get me wrong. We always wish we could go back in time and agree with and get Nick
Clegg to do this, you know, energy plan that he had because we'd be close to being complete with it
if we'd all gotten behind it. But in five-year cycles, you can't actually achieve massive change.
And I think he needed a few more wins under his belt. A few more sticking plaster.
He needed to go up before he, before he would have had the trust in the faith of people to be
able to do deeper, deeper changes. He also said he wanted to main line AI into the veins of the UK.
He also talked about rewire, fundamentally rewiring the British state at the tepid bath of managed decline.
Am I right? The Stomas stole one of your jokes?
Well, I think, I think to be fair, I think his writers did. But I often do times radio with
Darryl Moros. And I did the show one night. I think it was on a Saturday or Sunday night,
midnight to 1am. And we were talking about the plan to reintroduce national service. And I said,
it's going to be like a dad's army of teenagers. Like, what is that? What's that going to look like?
And then literally the next day on the Monday, he gave a speech and he of course said,
it's going to be like dad's army of teenagers. And I went, that's that's my joke. Like, what?
I said that last night. And I messaged Darryl and I said, what is the chances that I say that
on the radio? And someone else happened to think it over the weekend. And he said, no, they listen to
the show. His writers listen to the show or his advisors. I was like, wow. So I've written for
Keir Starmer. So I mean, sometimes comedians will have material lifted by other comedians.
How does it feel to have been jokes themed by a world leader? I mean, it's on my resume.
Because this is all you can do, isn't it? Is claim the right? So I've written for I've written
for Keir Starmer. Yeah. I want you to make it clear now that you're free. If you have any other
writing needs, you have to go to the circuit. I like to eat. So that's perfect.
It's a bit of a fan favorite here on strong message here.
What do you make of the phrase the tepid bath of managed decline?
I mean, do you know what is the fact that a tepid bath does not change temperature,
but decline is a change and tepid isn't.
And you go, well, if it's a tepid bath, it's a terrible temperature.
And the only way to make it better is to heat it up.
But decline is decline.
So the only bath that declines is your hot bath as it gets colder.
Yeah.
That never makes sense to me.
And therefore, the state must intervene.
Turn on the hot tap.
Turn on the hot tap of investment to stimulate the tepid bath of managed decline.
The redox of international agreement to stimulate the bath all I think.
I'm using your big toe to stem the trickle down.
Or is it just that when it comes out of different people's mouths, it makes us feel different?
My Tony Blair said the tepid bath of managed decline would be said, actually, I've got
a real urgency to it.
I can see it now, the tepid bath and I don't want to get in it.
Or we are in it.
And well, do you know what's interesting?
I would have said it's a terrible phrase, but now that you've done it as Tony Blair,
I'm like, oh, actually, maybe it is the, it's all in the delivery.
It's like comedy.
It's all in the delivery.
I think that Kira Stark, you know how some people are just tone deaf and they cannot
say no matter what, I think that he's just a little bit tone deaf because what you use
that other one that I like, which is a mainlining AI into the veins of the of the.
Right.
AI into the veins of the UK into the veins of the UK.
I mean, that that's some real forcible language there that very much sounds against my will
as a woman.
It very much brings back the argument that the COVID vaccine injected us all with 5G.
I just thought it's very poorly chosen to conflate medicine with technology given that
it took us ages to get over convincing people, no, you're not going to suddenly be a radio
tower if you get vaccinated.
That is such a good point that actually the sort of driver in that sentence actually is
actually quite authoritarian.
Yeah.
You know, there's no choice about it.
The motivation is this will be imposed into your body.
Yeah.
Against your will.
You know, it's just just just just shoot me in the head with the chip and get on with
it.
Like, you know, it really is quite violent.
So what she said, the effervescent tablet of AI that you can choose to dilute in water
whether you like it like a broker.
Yes.
You can choose the broker of AI.
The broker of AI.
Okay.
Let's focus on forage.
You mentioned Tony Blair's essay forage been writing for you as well.
And he's rather grandly titled blog essays to Britain.
All the phrases he uses is the uni party effectively to to climb the labor and the stories
together.
Do you think that's the sort of a tagline that would cut through the public?
I'll be honest, it is brilliantly chosen as a word.
The word uniparty, it's silly.
It's frivolous.
It brings to mind unicycles and unitards, none of which are serious things.
It's a brilliant, brilliant phrase to achieve what forage wants to achieve, which is to undermine
any kind of seriousness of both the labor and the Tory party.
I can see what he's trying to do in terms of calling them the uni party and saying they're
all the same.
They're all the same.
But I think what Andy's going to be very successful in doing is differentiating them
again.
In fact, if anything, I think the uni party is blue turquoise turquoise.
I think those three parties, Tory reform restore, those are the ones that I'm like, I can't
tell where one of you ends and one of you begins.
You are not discreet colours.
You are definitely a dulex colour chart of just blending together.
That's a really good point.
Given the sheer amount of Tory defectors he's received, to accuse any other party of any
other two parties of being a modernist, you've got a bit of a cheek.
The Lib Dems tried this in 2010 when they were the challenger brand of that election.
They did a campaign called LabServative where they put together the logos of the Labour
Party and the Tory party.
So it was the Tory party tree with the Labour Party stand and they did these party political
broadcasts, the LabServative party.
This idea that it's always one of these two that wins and that's given them a bit of
a kicking.
So it's a strategy and they did a right in that election, they ended up in government
on the back of their showing.
They did.
Maybe for artists.
I'll let that go for them.
Well, you could argue that they didn't manage the victory as well as they managed the campaign,
but maybe for artists look to that until you know what, that's a strategy that worked
for Clegg, maybe I'll copy it.
LabServative, though, it just sounds like a new breed of dog that's going to be seen
at cruffs.
Doesn't it?
What have you got?
I've got a labServative.
Yeah, no, it's hypoallergenic.
Well, that brings us almost to the end and we need some words for the furnace.
Well, it's your first time hosting, so I think you must have some words for the furnace.
The one that's crept in and I first noticed it after the election, particularly on social
media with newly elected Labour MPs, all of them say it is the honour of my life.
It's the honour of my life to be the new MP for bankers, field and whatever it is.
It's the honour of my life to serve the people of this and they all say it now.
It's the honour of my life to be in Prime Minister, the honour of my life to be nasty.
I think, you know what, I don't understand about it.
Why would you want to say the same thing as everyone else?
Wouldn't you want to stand down and differentiate and I've never understood why you would want
to follow trends in language because then you just become part of the blob.
Pick a new form of words, show that you can express yourself rather than just copy and
paste. The honour of my life.
Yeah, but don't you also find sometimes as a comedian that when you're too far out there,
nobody comes with you.
Frequently, yeah.
Thanks for listening to Strong Message Here, it's been the honour of my life to host this
show.
Orlando will be back next week.
Make sure you subscribe to Strong Message Here on BBC Sounds and while you're there,
turn up this into my show, The Matford Focus Group, which on occasion also features a fantastic
realina.
Thanks for having me.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Hi, I'm Phil Wang and this is a podcast, podcast trailer for a different podcast than this
podcast that you've listened to or are going to listen to.
But nonetheless, I'm talking about another podcast that you should also definitely listen
to.
I'm talking about is Comedy of the Week, which takes choice episodes from BBC sitcoms,
sketches, podcasts and panel shows, including my own show and speaker pool, and puts them
all into one podcast.
Maybe I'll trail this podcast on that podcast, who's to say, I'll do what I like.
Listen to Comedy of the Week now on BBC Sounds, podcast.
I'm Tristan Redmond, one of the hosts of the Global Story Podcasts from the BBC and
on today's show, we speak to a climate scientist who's worked for the US government predicting
extreme weather events, like this year's El Nino.
Of course, I'm worried because I know these extremes impact people and you can't not
be worried about that.
And as you see coming, search for the Global Story on BBC.com or wherever you get your
podcasts.
PodcastTranscript AI