A Lawyer, Not a Leader

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

You've got the VPN, the encrypted messenger, the private browser.

But if your mobile carrier is selling your data, those apps are just window dressing.

Meet CAPE, the mobile carrier that never collects your name, address, or data.

Because what they don't store, they can't sell.

Premium service, nationwide coverage.

CAPE is just $99 a month.

Your first month is just $30.

And with code CAPE33, you'll save 33% on your first six months.

Go to Cape.co.

Lock down your network, not just your apps.

A happy place comes in many colors.

Whatever your color, bring happiness home with CertaPro Painters.

Get started today at Certapro.com.

Each Certapro Painters business is independently owned and operated.

Contractor license and registration information is available at Certapro.com.

BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, Podcasts.

Hello, it's Armando here.

Before we get going with the episode proper, I just wanted to deliver a very important message of my own.

New episodes of Strong Message Here are available weekly on Thursdays.

But if you want to be notified as soon as a new episode appears, make sure you're subscribed to the series on BBC Sounds and have your push notifications turned on.

That way, you'll get to hear the latest outpourings from myself and from Helen as soon as is humanly possible.

Thank you for listening, and now here's this week's episode.

Hello, and welcome to Strong Message here from BBC Radio 4, a journalist and a comedy writer's guide to the use and abuse of political language.

I still am Armando Unucci.

And I still am Helen Lewis.

And we're back after a whole week off and, I mean, so much to talk about.

So many

phrases that have come up in

the public discourse, and we're limited to one or two this week.

But I think next week I ought to give a heads up.

We'll look at the whole Facebook fact-checking Musk.

What would you call it, Nexus?

I thought you're going to say next week we're going to look at all language.

But yeah, no, this week we're going to be looking at why Kemi Badnock told Kier Stammer to be a leader, not a lawyer.

Right.

But first, I want to know: have you read any books?

Where do you spend all of Christmas?

Well, Christmas girls are trying to get away from what we do now, I think.

You know, just all this fuss over politics so over christmas i read volume three of tim shipman's account of what happened in the uk in politics from brexit onwards he is if people don't know he's he brings out there are now four

I think 600 page volumes.

Yes, I read that when you put them all together, they're longer, quite twice as long as Lord of the Rings.

Yes.

And they've all got variations of out in the title.

That's right.

So I was reading, he's become, he's the sort of Gibbon's decline and fall

of the Roman Empire of Brexit.

And so I, for my Christmas pleasure, I was reading volume three, which I think is called No Way Out.

And I just came across a phrase, and I thought, that's a really good phrase.

I must use that phrase.

It was in a discussion, an account of how

David Davis, who was the Brexit minister at the time, wanted to persuade Theresa Mayer about the viability of technology being able to give us a frictionless border.

I can see your eyes dripping already, Helen.

And how, you know, technology would actually get round the problem of the backstop, if you remember the backstop and all that.

And apparently in the discussions, he even at one point, or some of the officials, discussing the viability of being able to do facial recognition of pigs.

No, this is just, this is just,

this is just.

I really wasn't expecting that.

No, no one was expecting.

So, but I'm just putting that to one side, because a European bureaucrat was then off the record talking about David Davis and how he, how David Davis thought that Theresa May was agreeing with him by saying, I hear what you say, I'm hearing you.

Whereas, of course, we know, and we've already discussed, that means nothing.

And the phrase that this bureaucrat used about David Davis was, he was listening with the wrong ears.

And I love that phrase, and I'm going to use it practically every day from now on.

Do you think that was translated from another language?

You know what I mean?

That sounds like, you know, oh, isn't it delightful that Finland has, you know, kind of a word for tired, meaning to have lain down in someone else's bed with an elf?

It's got that kind of vibe to it, I think.

I think for me, it's perfect because it's also weird.

It's so many weird images it conjures up.

And David Davis, when you kind of.

Bless him.

Yes.

I have great joy from imagining what the big facial database would look like because I don't know about you.

Whenever you now go through the security gates at Heathrow or Gatwick, off a long-haul flight and you think, oh, this is not capturing me at my best.

How is this going to match this to my passport photo?

Just bleary-eyed and kind of still with a neck pillow around your neck.

Do you imagine there's a whole line of pigs who have been sent?

You know, their thing hasn't gone through.

Yeah.

The machine hasn't gone through.

So they've had to go over to a kind of there's a huge row of pigs just waiting in line.

Just bleary-eyed pigs with neck pillows on from the flight.

That's really true.

Do you know what?

That is the only one of the Shipman book series that I haven't read.

Oh, right.

Oh, you skip that one.

I don't know.

I know how it ends, but I won't spoil it.

And yeah.

And and I have to say Boris Johnson's memoir is full of similarly strange sh bits.

There's a bit when he suggests that perhaps we could go oh, there is an idea floated that perhaps we could recover some of the vaccines that are being held in the EU by sending in frogmen.

And then I think someone goes, that would technically be invading another NATO country.

We sort of probably can't do that.

I'm not sure they would have to bring the vaccine back underwater, presumably.

I mean, he hasn't thought it through.

No, I think there were many problems with that.

I am such a nerd that I not only enjoyed those books, but also there are two other writers at the Times and Sunday Times, Gabriel Program and Patrick Maguire, who have already done Left Out, which was their account of the Corbyn years, which I thoroughly recommend.

And they have a new one, Get In.

I mean,

you know, it's very much a formula and incredibly important.

This is about the Dems.

This one is about Keir Starmer.

But actually, the one thing it does do, which I haven't, and it's out in February, so pre-orders, I'm sure, are available now, is talk about the role of Morgan McSweeney.

And, you know, we had a lot of discussion.

I'm sure you and I both have strong opinions on Dominic Cummings and his role in government.

He's certainly a big figure in the fourth shipment book.

But Morgan McSweeney is less well covered, but he's absolutely key to understanding the Starmer project in terms of which voters they decided to win back, you know, which wages they felt lost, you know, weren't with them in 2019.

But also in the sense that that project, I think lots of people feel has kind of stalled.

You know, it was an election-winning coalition that was formed.

But actually, what do all of those people want?

Slightly different things.

That's right.

And much of the election, and we discussed this in greater detail in an earlier episode, was about not saying things.

So about actually keeping to a minimum your promises, other than saying vaguely we won't put taxes on working people and so on.

And which kind of worked in a very, very specific way during the election.

But, you know, the onus on them now to sort of unpack all that over the next five years is proving much more difficult.

You know, another phrase that's current at the moment is now becoming a standard phrase that always kind of comes up every three or four years in politics is, I have complete confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oh, it's nice when that one turns up.

Do you know what I felt?

I felt a bit sorry, actually, for Kier Starmer, because I'm not sure he realised that there was a John Rentel referred to it as the ritualistic aspect of that, right?

And there is something, you know, when we kind of go, oh, isn't it incredible how the Japanese have their tea ceremony and all of these things have been over years, you know, all these traditions for so long that make no sense to outsiders.

And I think there is a similar thing with the kind of, do you expect ex-ministers to serve the whole parliament?

And any normal person would be like, well, no, they might have a, they might go do Lally in two years' time.

Rachel Reese might rob a bank in 2028.

It's possible I may at some point have to fire her.

But unless you say anything other than, Rachel and I will gloriously march on to the future and

I will never let her go.

It's like me saying, you know, do you see yourself still being on Radio 4 this time next year?

I mean, well, it's not up to me to some extent.

Yeah, I'm right.

But as soon as they don't say anything other than a massive hostage to fortune, it becomes Stalma declines to express full confidence in Rachel Reeves.

I know, and that phrase also has just lost currency over the years, because even if you say yes, now people think, well, you mean no, don't you?

Because that's not normally.

So they then had to kind of back it up with someone, a spokesperson afterwards.

and what he means by that is throughout the whole term until the next general election i know and then of course he you know he had confidence in tulip sadiq until there was pressure applied to say you haven't technically broken the ministerial code but nonetheless maybe you're anti-corruption minister that's a massive punchline for us we don't want to keep walking into that particular rake for the next couple of years thanks so we go back to Kemi Baddock who certain phrases do punch through though if they kind of align with our kind of unconscious image of the person who's being criticized or attacked and Kemi Bandenock in the last week's Prime Minister's questions talked about Kirstama being a lawyer not a leader and that that kind of resonated I thought it really did with me one of the best columns on Stama recently was by Patrick Maguire in the Times which said that the difficulty is he approaches things like a lawyer he if you give him a brief and a case he will prosecute it and he won't deviate from it he's very good at sticking to the line you know he will go out and argue something but that's also a kind of failure to be a manager to some extent or to be a visionary.

And in a way, you know, my long-running theory about prime ministers is that what we start off loving them for, we end up hating them for.

So Tony Blair, very charismatic.

Oh, is he insincere?

Whatever it might be.

Theresa May, steady, boring.

And I think with Kier Starmer, this is quite a potent attack because being a lawyer to some extent, is it a profession you have particularly warm feelings towards?

I sort of think I'm kind of neutral.

I haven't seen both of them.

I don't have the number of a good one, but

you don't particularly want to be using them all the time.

Right.

And I think, particularly in the the context of the grooming-going scandal, which might have been revived by Elomos, but has been playing out over more than a decade now.

His loyalty background is a vulnerability.

He makes a very good case that, as director of public prosecutions, you know, he toughened up some of the things.

He really wanted mandatory reporting, for example.

But nonetheless, that has been a consistent weak point of his.

The idea of what decisions did you make in that role?

And also, I think it's something I think he chooses not to do is supply a narrative to the decisions being made and the policies so that you get some sense of where this is going.

Or if, in the case of Kebby Badino asking for an inquiry into grooming gangs, him saying no,

there wasn't a sort of, not just an intellectual and a political, but an emotional argument as to why that was inappropriate.

I'm not agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but I didn't get the sense that he was arguing his case effectively because he was hiding behind just the bare facts and a sort of deafness to a lot of calls from people saying there are certain victims who still haven't been heard or feel they haven't been heard fully.

Yes, I think what makes a narrative sing is when you supply a motive behind it.

So, so I think what became a very potent problem for him was the suggestion, I don't think, true, that he doesn't want to have an inquiry because he would be implicated.

It would reflect badly on him.

And as soon as people go, oh, that's why you don't want it.

Oh, because you don't want.

And you could say, well, actually, the Conservatives were in power during the time that a lot of this stuff was coming out.

Yeah, um, one of the allegations about a Home Office memo from the late 2000s that was supposedly issued under Gordon Brown seems to be completely baseless.

That doesn't, you know, actually, Keir Stummel was not in government during that time.

Yes, he was DPP, but I think, as he pointed out to political journalists, that is a public role which has scrutiny at the time.

Yes, the way debate's conducted now has so radically changed that if you don't appear to be answering the question effectively, if there's room for doubt, that room for doubt just grows and grows.

So hence Elon Musk and all things in the end come back to him.

So that's exactly what happened in the case of Kate Middleton, now the Princess of Wales.

And why isn't she in public?

Why isn't she in public?

Why isn't she in public?

And then the answer to that turns out to be really sad and mundane, which is that she's suffering from cancer and she's in treatment and she doesn't really want to go and, you know.

Which was sort of then forced out of her because her initial reaction was to keep it private.

But there is a kind kind of feeling that builds up about why aren't we being told?

Why aren't we being told?

And then actually, sometimes there are non-conspiratorial reasons.

I think that's the thing that worries me about some of the attack lines now is that they sometimes do go into that conspiratorial tendency of thinking if there is uncertainty, it can only ever be malevolent.

And that to me is the hallmark of a kind of conspiracist.

That's right.

I mean, I've stopped it now because it never produces anything positive.

I used to monitor Elon Musk's Elon Musk.

Do you know, I'm going to give him five different ways of pronouncing his name.

Elaine Musk.

Elaine Musk.

When he retires to Florida, he'd hate that.

His attack on Samuel then became an attack on Jess Phillips.

And I, on X, I supported Jess Phillips, not in her decision to not go ahead with inquiry, but just in her general brief and career outside Parliament as well as in, but has been very much, she's one of the last people you would accuse of.

Yeah, before politics, she was involved in Samwell in running a women's shelter.

I mean, that's her professional background, is helping victims of male violence.

All I did was, you know, to say that, you know, you're really picking on the wrong person.

But that just turned into people having a go at me for also being a grooming, a child rape grooming enthusiast, you know, and given my career at the BBC, where we all know what goes on at the BBC hint, hint, and I must have known clearly.

But that's narrative, isn't it?

Because what happens is if you even contest any details of the narrative,

you know, and it happened, I think, with, you know, maybe the kind of racial reckoning of 2020.

If you say this particular story isn't true, yes, I take your point generally.

This story isn't true, this detail isn't true, then people would say, Oh, you don't care about racism.

Exactly.

And I think the same thing has happened now.

If you contest individual facts, people say, Oh, you don't care about grooming, or oh, you don't care about paedophilia.

And you go, The role to me of a journalist is to be the one who awkwardly kind of goes, Can I just stop you before we get there?

That you know, um, and that never ever makes you any friends, ever.

No, and maybe a platform where you're restricted to 140 characters or 240 characters is not necessarily the platform.

Well, you're not anymore, you've got to pay for it, you've got to pay for it for X, X, and then you could go on for pages and pages and pages.

People do.

And people do.

Can I talk to you about some bad attacks?

So we talked about one I think that is quite potent there.

So Rachel Reeves has been in trouble this week with the perception really that the economy is not picking up.

Although everyone, I mean, the government has full confidence.

Right, okay, yeah.

True.

For the next voyeur.

She will be in place until 2019, apparently.

That's fine.

But she was extraordinarily lucky in her opponent on the Tory side, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mel Stride, stood up to question her.

And everyone thought, oh, this is going to be spicy.

She's in a lot of trouble here.

And instead, let me read to you what he thought he would end his peroration with.

This is the Hamlet of our time.

Is it?

Go on, guess the way in which you think it's the Hamlet of our time.

Rachel Reeves is, is Hamlet or Gertrude or Ophelia?

She's killed her father and married her mother.

That's what's happened here.

She's not the fool.

She's Danish.

Yeah, no.

Okay.

They promised the electorate much while pouring the poison into their ear.

And at the end, you can feel the end, the chance to flailing, estranged, it seems, from those closest to her, those about her failing, the drums beating ever closer.

To go or not to go, that is now a question.

It's just a brutal disregard for the

fantasy.

Suffer the stings and arrows of stings and arrows.

Yes, exactly.

Barrows of.

All right, so she got off.

And basically, everybody went, everyone went, oh, you've muffed that.

No.

No.

Was somebody clever in Melstride's office writing that down, thinking you'd say this.

No, this will get a laugh.

It's always a high-risk exercise, politicians trying out jokes.

I remember this is way before your time.

Margaret Thatcher, world leader of the opposition, James Callahan, still in power.

So we're in the sort of mid-1970s.

And there was a crisis, economic crisis, energy crisis.

Somebody had quoted Jim Callan talking about the forthcoming election that was looming, saying he sees himself a bit like Moses, leading the people to the promised land, but not getting there himself.

So Margaret Thatcher, at her conference, party conference speech, said, My message to Moses is keep taking the tablets.

And it got a huge, you know, quoted next day.

But apparently.

That's a dad joke.

That's a real dad joke.

Apparently, and Simon Holger, this is Simon Holgett, who was a lobby correspondent correspondent for many years at the Guardian, The Observer, tells this story about her advisors had presented her with this line in advance.

And she famously didn't have a sense of humor.

She looked at it and went, Can I change tablets to pills?

So my message to Moses is keep taking the pills.

And it sort of had, she had to be walked through how the joke works.

What is there?

Two meanings of the word tablet that we're relying on for comic effect here, Margaret.

A pun?

Or play old words.

That's funny.

I think sometimes politicians think that there is a kind of big moment and they need to rise into the big moment.

Because there was one that I actually sort of will allow, which was during Boris Johnson's troubles, David Davis, our old friend, stood up from the back benches and did a quote from the Rump Parliament.

He said, You have been here too long for all the good you have done.

In the name of God, go.

Yes.

And I thought, actually, do you know what?

If I was a politician, I would think at some point I do want to just stand up and go to someone, in the name of God, go.

It must feel really great.

But it was kind of, I mean, it was slightly self-important, but it also was a moment in which he was in genuine trouble.

There was genuine anger.

Yes, and it was quite stark as well.

In

their reaction,

political speeches like lawyers' letters are better when they're extremely short.

This is what they will send journalists about lawyers' letters.

They send you a long letter complaining about everything.

Just, okay, just skim through it.

If they say, we're going to sue you on X date, prepare for this.

You go,

ah, right.

Yeah.

My phone just buzzed.

Another data breach alert.

It was a reminder that VPNs and encrypted apps can't fix what's broken at the network level.

That's where CAPE comes in.

CAPE is a secure mobile carrier built with privacy as its foundation.

It doesn't collect names, addresses, or personal data, so it can't sell what it never stores.

Use the code CAPE33 to get the first month of premium nationwide service for just $30 a month and 33% off the first six months.

Go to CAPE.co.

Privacy starts at the source.

Talking of legal legal letters, we'll come up to Liz Truss in a minute.

But just going back to Kerry Badenock's a leader, not a lawyer, it did remind me of the Blair, again, when he was in opposition, saying to John Major across the dispatch box, I lead my party, he follows his.

And that kind of, I wondered if Kemi Badenock was trying to get into that kind of, because that, again, was a very effective one.

And similarly, David Cameron, as opposition leader to Tony Blair, said, shouted, he was the future future once.

Such a great line.

Such a great line, because genuinely, really wounding.

And I suppose that is one of the things you can take about political attacks, is that there comes a point when they

long-held feelings about people suddenly that have been actually bubbling along, burst out.

Yes.

And when people are on the downswing, suddenly someone crystallises in some way a feeling that everyone has really had all along.

It's when they go for an emotion or a flaw that no one else has ever picked up on that they feel odd.

But if they actually seem to shine a light on something that we were quietly thinking anyway, well, that's why I sort of mourn the demise of political cartoons, which is print papers have gone down, because they were often quite good at picking out a sort of single thing

that then became a kind of visual trademark.

So I'm thinking about the fact that Steve Bell and The Guardian used to depict Tony Blair with one eye sort of getting bigger and bigger, which was, I mean, he was literally portraying him as kind of swivel-eyed, kind of like this sort of sense of certainty about him.

You know, and they would literally depict John Major as being grey.

So there was just a kind of inability to just instantly give you one image that said, here's actually everything that we don't like about this person.

And that's what the best political attacks in words have to do.

No, have political attacks now got less witty and more

sort of used mouth.

Steve Bannon the other day was criticising Elaine Musk.

And I thought this would be interesting.

What's he saying about her?

He said, he's truly evil.

That was his critique.

And I thought, we've come down to that.

We've come to very base insults now, haven't we?

I quite like that one in the sense it wasn't egregiously, gratuitously foul mouths, right?

Which some of them just are.

Or it wasn't just kind of Europedo.

It was actually expressing a kind of

a straightforward moral judgment, which you may or may not agree with, but it's kind of, you know, he's actually, there is an actual criticism there about the way that this, I mean, funny to come from Steve Bannon, who's also extremely right-wing, extremely opposed to immigration, that this is the kind of issue that's ended up completely dividing them.

But I don't mind strong attacks.

One of them I have to say that does bother me is there is a tendency to refer to Rachel Reeves.

Now, there are kind of questions about her CV.

There are questions about passages in her book which appear to have been lifted from elsewhere.

But they call her sometimes Rachel from Accounts.

And I find that a little bit sexist and belittling, that it's actually, she's not a real Chancellor.

She's just, she's just, it's by definition a sort of lady's job, right?

It doesn't, that, yeah, if an attack doesn't work against a man, it doesn't, because no one would say it's Steve from Accounts.

It sort of doesn't,

it sort of sets off my tingling antenna.

It's not used internally.

That's not something someone would say in a speech publicly.

No, that's been something that's been in briefings, right?

Yeah, and now they've now there's been a move to calling her Rachel the temp, which has been on the basis.

But it also kind of speaks to the idea of something that happens often with political attacks is that there's an attempt to turn them into a self-fulfilling prophecy, right?

Right?

That, oh, somebody's really, you know, you know, on edge, and that's when you get that sort of weird alchemical buildup.

Oh, yes, it's

that thing of you must ever say,

I'll only go if I become the story, because that's a cue for every outlet to meet you the story.

And then it becomes less, I'm resigning because I did X, Y, and Z wrong, but more, no, the headlines and the websites are all full of critiques of me.

And the only way to stop it is for me to disappear.

But that becomes easy then, doesn't it?

And I do worry that what's happening now is the way we've processed stuff is accelerating so that we demand now instant and very big responses to events within 24 hours.

So it's not so much, oh, we'll be watching the performance of the Chancellor over the the next year to 18 months, really, to see whether the economy will grow as she says it is, or whether she's failed.

But it's now, no, she's got to go now.

She's a lettuce.

You know, they bring back the Liz.

It has to happen now.

Yeah, I think that acceleration has been really bad for politics.

And if you talk to people within it, they really date it back quite a long way, actually, to the beginning of kind of 24-7 rolling news.

Yeah.

Because there was just a lot of airtime to fill.

And one way to fill it was with speculation.

And I mean, you know, also personality-based politics has taken over.

It's tricky now sometimes.

I'm trying to find out what a given bill actually contains.

And you have to dig a bit below the surface of political commentary to kind of find out those kind of gritty details.

I mean, I think that's probably due to my diminishing attention span

as much as anything else, right?

No, I think, I mean, if you do far more research than most people, and if you can't get to grips with it, then I think also, again, I think we mentioned this before, legislation now is now about capturing the headlines as much as putting through policies that are good for the country.

There was very much, in say the last three or four years, there have been bills brought before Parliament or orders or amendments that are responding very much to the headlines of the past week.

We even had Yvette Cooper come to the House last week after three days of Lanan Musk

saying, why isn't there an inquiry?

outlining what proposals from the recent inquiry into

the J report that concluded in 2022.

Yeah.

Announcing that certain things were now going to be enacted pretty quickly.

So it seemed like a reaction to

loud shouting.

I think there might be a bit of surprise actually when the current education bill that's passing through the Commons gets really closer to being enacted.

Because the way that was covered was there was an amendment put on it for a new inquiry into grooming gangs, which got voted down because Kirstam has got a massive majority, which again is another thing that people seem to kind of forget: is that we don't have so many knife-edge votes.

Now you've got a government that's got a really sizable majority that, for the moment, is working in sync.

The coverage of that was very much like, you know, they voted down this amendment to it.

And therefore, that sort of squeezed out all the consideration of the stuff that was actually in it, which is, you know, as far as I understand it, unwinding a huge amount of the academization process, you know, the move in schools towards these much more independent models, which I think when people see it at the other end, they're going to go, My child school is doing what?

And kind of feel like, again, which is something I don't know if you hear it, I hear it all the time now as a journalist.

Why wasn't I told about this?

Yes, exactly, exactly.

I mean, for example, the rollout on the ban on smoking so that eventually people born after a certain year just will not be.

No, sounds great.

I'm all in favor.

I'm dead against.

You're anti-smoking.

I'm anti-smoking.

I hate cancer.

I mean, it's, you know.

But it was brought in by Rishi Schunak, not because it was in the Tory Party Manifesto.

It hadn't been discussed in Parliament.

This was a kind of...

I think he picked it up from New Zealand or Australia or somewhere, didn't he?

This is a kind of want to do something radical before the election.

Let's do this.

So no discussion of it.

And then Keir Starmer picked it up.

I think it was in the Labour Manifesto, but there was no real discussion or debate about it.

People felt like that about Assisted Dying too, which was brought ahead as a private members' bill.

It's tacitly supported by the government, but it was a bit like, well, hang a minute,

this came out of nowhere.

Why have we not had a opportunity?

And I think that's where people's frustration and then disassociation from what's going on in Westminster.

occurs because they feel that the topics being discussed there are not well actually they feel there are topics being being enacted there that have not had discussion.

Whether you're on the left, right, or middle, it's leading to a wider and wider sense of disconnect from

politics.

Before we go, do you have a favourite political attack?

The one that may have been unfair, but you ordered.

Well, it is very personal as well, actually.

So it goes against, but it did, it was going back to, you can see my favourite era was the 1970s, the dying days of the Callaghan government.

Geoffrey Howe was Margaret Thatcher's

translator.

Yes, yes, yes.

And he was a very meek-looking, mild-mannered, even though he enacted, you know, savage.

I think I know where you're going with this one, Donald.

Johnny Seely said

debating with Jeffrey Howe was like being savaged by a dead sheep.

I always thought that was Hestletheim, but I think I'm getting confused with him Hestletime being nicknamed Tarzan and grabbing the mace from the House of Commons and sort of waving it around.

Yeah, I mean, it was one of those things where people go, oh, we live in unprecedented times of political turmoil.

And you want to say, I'm going to stop you there.

The 1970s, everybody

was off the hook.

People were doing

some of the pay rises people were getting were insane.

Some of the stuff that was happening was crazy.

And some of the jokes that people were making were some of the jokes would not be bear repeating now.

We haven't discussed Liz Truss.

Well, that's because she silenced us on Monday with her extremely effective lawyers' letter saying that no one must ever again say that she's crashed the economy.

So we won't.

We'll just think it very hard, but not say it.

Yeah.

So she's very much a champion of free speech.

But Kiostama saying that she crashed the economy, she's trying to get lawyers onto.

Yes.

Someone hasn't heard of the, there's a very famous thing on the internet, which I'm sure you've heard of called the Streisand effect, which was based after Barbara Streisand said, basically, don't say anything about X or I'll sue you.

And everyone went,

and it became a huge thing.

And exactly the same thing has happened here.

Yeah.

I mean, those lawyers that she went to should have said, Are you absolutely sure this is going to help?

And what happens if people do continue to say she crashed the economy?

I saw one legal analysis of it saying the trouble about crashed, as in crashed economy, that's very hard to define.

Yeah.

As in, it could be an expression of opinion.

Maybe if she gets some really rich people to say it and sue them, huge damages, we might actually be able to get the economy moving again.

This could be her way to uncrashed the economy.

Rachel Reeves is on the line saying this.

This sounds great.

100% tax on people saying mean things about Liz Truss.

That's it.

All our problems solved.

Drew the economy by 5% through legal disputes.

I'm going to read a lovely comment we received from Australia, which is very nice.

I say lovely.

I mean, it could be horrible.

Terrible comment.

I'm enjoying the podcast enormously from Melbourne, Australia.

Plenty of resonances with the sorry state of Aussie politics, says Ben Brooker.

One suggestion for you, getting the balance right.

I don't know how much a part of the UK discourse this awful phrase is, but it's virtually ubiquitous here, as in, we think this ex-policy gets the balance right.

Often it seems to be Labour, that's their version without a U, speak for almost nobody will be truly happy with X policy, but we feel it's sufficiently beige to give the appearance of us doing something without annoying either vested interests or the electorate too much.

Centrism in in a nutshell, I guess.

We'd be keen to hear your take on this.

I don't, I'm going to counter Ben here by saying I don't really mind getting the balance right because that is essentially the job of politics.

I don't think you can really hold it against people not being extreme.

But then that's maybe my,

that's my, my vanilla.

The other thing people use is when they enact policy and say, I did it because it was the right thing to do.

As if that's the end of the discussion.

I love that.

That is a close twin of what one we've talked about before, which I make no apologies for.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's a variation of that, isn't it?

Yes.

I want us to turn to an email here from Nicola.

It's not her, is it?

No.

Time on her hands.

No.

Dear Helen Amanda, I'm enjoying your podcast very much.

I felt moved to get in touch.

It's definitely not Nicola Sturgeon.

There's a particular word often used in a business or political context that's made me wince ever since I first heard it a few years ago.

It continues to exert a true nail scrape down the blackboard effect on my person.

When did lessons turn into learnings?

Why?

What is ever gained by using this abomination?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Might you share some lessons on the use of learnings?

Is this new?

I feel like it's a bit part of.

If it was one of your characters, I feel that this would be like Terry Speak.

It's a bit like saying, our next station stop.

It sort of kind of falls into this weird rhythm of that kind of corporate blander sphere.

Use it in a sentence then.

Help me here.

What learnings?

Learnings, as in the learnings we have.

There are lots of learnings.

We should make sure there are lots of learnings from this.

That's horrible.

I mean, yes.

You're right, Nicola.

It's just an abomination.

Yeah.

Yes.

But it is one of those things that just, you know, I think it's, or a bit like that sort of version of weird police speak.

You know, there's a way to sort of just slightly put something into an artificially formal register to say you're really taking it seriously.

That's right.

It's when your statements are read out and said, I then approached the, you know,

approach that, you know, people just go up to.

Yeah, I was proceeding down the street.

Exactly.

To me, it's got that police formality, which is to make things sound like, you know, we didn't just go like, we ran up, grabbed him by the of the neck and chucked him in head really gone through the events with a fine tooth from him and laid them out this is a kind of i think this is a corporate version right of that that's like saying you know i'm currently microphoning

you are and and desking i feel like learnings might appear in a a pitch deck along sort of kpis you know key performance indicators like that kind of it's got some something five learnings yeah something that you see on a powerpoint at 4 p.m in the afternoon and it makes you slightly want to die i always used to be obsessed with the word kindled but only because

it used to be in opening ceremonies of Olympic Games it was always the sports commentators who and of course they had to commentate on something that was completely outside their range of knowledge because it wasn't a sport it was people in strange weird tracksuits walking up and down with flags you know then forming the shape of a giant moon to the music of Enya you know and they somehow had to deal with it I always remember David Coleman then going really quiet and going and now the torch kindled from the flame in Athens you know and I always would look out for every four years, I just would always look out for the, you know, John Motson

saying the word kindled and thinking, why am I doing this?

Yeah, why am I here?

Show me some coal bolters, please.

When does the running start?

Well, that's a nice, that's a very nice, after a programme on attacks, that's a lovely moment to end on.

It is indeed.

Thanks for listening to Strong Message Here.

That's all for now.

All our episodes are available in our feed, so make sure you subscribe on BBC Suns.

Goodbye.

Goodbye.

Hello, I'm Robin Ince, and I'm Brian Cox.

And this is the Infinite Monkey Hedgerow.

He was unable to write a funny joke for the introduction.

That's basically the point.

The new series of the Infinite Monkey Cage.

Science with funny bits.

Science with bits.

Funny science plus bits.

So the reason that the Neanderthals died out, you're claiming, is because they weren't astronomers.

Yes, exactly.

That's why.

This is how we investigate cybercrime.

We look for the yachts.

The new series of the infinite monkey cage.

From BBC Radio 4.

Listen now on BBC Sounds.

My phone just buzzed.

Another data breach alert.

It was a reminder that VPNs and encrypted apps can't fix what's broken at the network level.

That's where CAPE comes in.

CAPE is a secure mobile carrier built with privacy as its foundation.

It doesn't collect names, addresses, or personal data, so it can't sell what it never stores.

Use the code CAPE33 to get the first month of premium nationwide service for just $30 a month and 33% off the first six months.

Go to CAPE.co.

Privacy starts at the source.