 Mae'r testau yn ymdangosol, ond y byddwch yn ymdangosol y pandemig. Ond mae'n meddwl i'r ffordd, a mae'n meddwl arall oherwydd eu hunain european. Mae'r regerau hefyd yn ymgyrchol yng Nghymru, i 100,000 testau y ddweud ar y ddweud ar y dyfodol. Ond ymddangosol, y ffigur ar y dyfodol ymgyrch yn 18,000 y ddweud, ac mae'n ddweud ar y ddweud, yn 19,000 testau y ddweud. Ymwan yw'r regerau hefyd yn ymgyrchol ydw i'w hyfforddiadol ar y ddweud ar y dyfodol 8 diwrnod yma i'r 180,000 testau y ddweud, i 100,000 testau y ddweud. Ond mae'n meddwl i'n meddwl i ddim yn ddweud, ac mae'r regerau hefyd yn 40,000 testau y ddweud. A'r regerau hefyd yn ymgyrch yn dweud. Mae'r regerau hefyd yn ei ddweud, a'r regerau hefyd y ffigur ar y dyfodol y ddweud? Y regerau hefyd yn ei ddweud, There's capacity for 40,000 tests today and I think it's really important that we fully understand what the first Secretary just said. Because that means that the day before yesterday 40,000 tests could have been carried out, but only 18,000 tests were actually carried out. Now all week, I've heard from the front line, from care workers, those who are frankly desperate for tests for their residents and for themselves desperately... I thought that was pretty good, right? I mean, it wasn't as surprise to me that that was pretty good because, I mean, the thing Keir Starmer has going for him, his whole pitch was to say, look, I'm going to be OK at the dispatch box. I was a top QC, I'm the kind of guy who can, you know, ask questions which put people in a difficult situation and I thought he kind of managed it there, so, you know, it made Dominic Ra... He's sort of real Dominic Rabin to saying that, you know, ystyod wrth ei ddweud hyn yn cyfeirio ar holl gwybod. Mae'n cyfeirio ar holl gwybod, ac ar holl gwybod. Mae'r sefyddo chi wedi am fynd eich roi mwy familyllau i wych yn cyfeirio hyn. Felly mae'n cyfeirio ond mae'r cyfeirio ond mae'r cyfeirio yn cyd-i gwaith, yn cy fe fyddwch i'r cyfeirio i hyn, a'r cyfeirio i gael. Ac rydyn ni'n gwybod lle rwy'n ei ein bod yn gallu, oes y byddwch chi'n ddiwethaf, dwi'n golygu proses o'r gaelgol, ac mae wedi gweithio ni'n gwybod. Rwy'n gweithio i chi'n gweithio. Felly, rydyn ni'n aelod? Rydyn ni'n gweithio i chi, mae'n ddiwr. Mae'n gweithio i chi'n gweithio. Mae'n ddweud i chi'n gynghwm i'r Gwyrdyn i chi! Mae'n gweithio i chi'n gweld yn gweithio i'r gwyllgor. Mae'n hon i chi'n gwneud yn ysbryd o'r gweithio ar gyfer ysgrifennu, mae'n gwneud i'r gweithio ar gyfer ysgrifennu. I'm not going to dain to offer an answer now. I think one thing with the reaction you sort of had a lot of sort of blutic centrists or anti socialists. Actually, that's the better word for them. A lot of them say, oh, wow, he's, you know, we finally got the leader we need. We deserve what they need to understand is that parliamentary questions. PMQs don't really matter to most people. You know, in my lifetime, there's probably been two or three moments in parliament PMQs where the public really sees what's going on. There's a cut through maybe once there was one interaction between John Major and Tony Blair, there was one interaction between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, you know, there's maybe one interaction between Cameron and Corbyn, where Cameron monstered Corbyn. But Jen and even there, but even then that's like 40 percent of the population kind of vaguely remembers seeing something to do with it. They're not pinned to Twitter or to Facebook or to BBC Parliament watching the stuff. So it's great. He's good at that. It's great. He's authoritative. But that in isolation isn't going to win you an election. It's important that most people don't think that, you know, it is just a select group of several dozen sort of times columnists and evening standard political diarists. I'm going to go to I'm going to go to Lara in a moment. But first of all, I want to go through some of the tweets from commentators and MPs from yesterday because they I mean, I don't know if it was if it was that they all organically came to the same description for Keir Starmer's performance, but their their reviews definitely all looked quite samey. Julia Hartley Brew, a very strong start from Keir Starmer, his first PMQs. All fair and reasonable, put with forensic accuracy. George Eaton, friend of the show. That was pretty forensic by Starmer, Christian Rednedge. Already so forensic on detail. Liam Ford, he's from the Liverpool Echo. Starmer straight into it. Already looking pretty forensic, Ian Martin. Good forensic first questions from Starmer. He's from reaction. The right wing side with this sort of odd name. Lewis Goodall. Again, I like Lewis Goodall. He's also gone for forensic poor wars gone for forensic. And now I think the next one we can look for is what all the MPs have said, which is also very similar. So now you can see all the different labour MPs who've given exactly the same description of all the pundits in there as well. Do you think are you in an EC WhatsApp group? Did anything go around to say, can you please tweet that? Keir Starmer was very forensic at the dispatch box? Or do you think it was a coincidence? Oh, I don't know the. I guess it's good that this kind of thing is going around like I saw people going, why is everyone complaining because people were saying things about Corbyn that were bad, like good things are going around now. Just leave it and I get it. But I mean, I wasn't as impressed as as as others of on his PMQs thing, because I think Rab kind of fucked up in a bit. Oh, can I swear on this? Yeah. OK, he kind of messed up because he got into that trap, you know? So I think it was like, OK, exchange, but I don't know. I agree with Aaron that not many people watch it. So we've got to be aware of that and how it how it fits into a wider kind of political scene that we're creating. And I think my highlight of PMQs under Jeremy Corbyn was him reading out name things in terms of people's stories and how politics and policies were affecting them and how he got angry about situations. And I really want to see that passion and anger from Keir about injustice and what's going on. So, yeah, I think it was OK, but I don't think it was amazing and forensic. And I think there's this kind of image that people have set for Keir as like this amazing lawyer and, you know, hopefully he plays up to it. But I'd like to see some of that rather than just sort of the lawyer side, you know, the passion about that he says, you know, about doing the right thing, about justice, the reason why he's explained that he went into law and stuff. So hopefully we'll see that. But yeah, I don't think people watch PMQs and I don't think they will. It's fairly boring for people not involved with politics and they don't understand how it affects their daily lives or their political outlook around them. So, yeah, I didn't think it was that amazing. Was it too constructive for you? That's sort of like some of the conversation answers that this is Keir showing off what constructive opposition can look like. I mean, I was kind of annoyed because I feel like the the left critiques of Keir Starmer were portrayed as we want him to be more angry. Whereas my problem with Keir Starmer was I wanted him to ask genuinely difficult questions, which I what the reason why I thought his PMQs there were quite good was because the questions he asked were hard and they were about the things that people care about. So, yeah, there wasn't there wasn't that image of him standing up and saying, you know, like I'm the tribune of the people and I can speak in a sort of passionate, inspiring way. But he did get Dominic Raab to answer in an unconvincing way about testing. He got Dominic Raab to answer in an unconvincing way about the depths of care workers and he got Dominic Raab to answer in a very unconvincing way about personal protective equipment, which was a massive improvement on the week earlier where he was saying, can you publish your exit strategy and the Tories were incredibly comfortable because they were saying, no, we're not going to publish it because we're in the middle of a lockdown and most people listening to that were like, that sounds reasonable. It sounds like the Tories want to protect the NHS and the Labour Party are being a bit difficult, whereas I feel like you couldn't portray him as that yesterday, so I thought that was a real. Yeah, we've definitely improved from last week, but I think it's pretty low bar like I think the Tories are doing disasterously in this situation and if we're able to call them out on their failures like they have been actually lying at some stages and I know you can't say that in the House of Parliament, but yeah, so I think this is this is the bar where we shouldn't be at like here making talking about the mistakes that they're making, so it shouldn't really be that hard to make them fall into traps because they're making the traps themselves in literally lying in their cotton. So I don't think that's a particularly hard thing to do. Yeah, it was bad last last week or whatever, and we've moved forward from there from talking about the exit strategy, which I just don't understand. I literally have not heard an NHS staff member talk about that. They've all been talking about testing in PPE. So I'm glad that he's shifted his focus, but yeah, the bar, we're now doing well instead of bad, but not amazing. Can I say also a lot of the people that really adore Starmer are obviously kind of like big Blair fans and Blair excelled at PMQs when he was passionate. You know, Blair wasn't this forensic. Blair was like a bit of a populist. And this one was weak, weak. Yeah, weak. Yeah, it was like he just went all, he just like absolutely went all in on John Major as a human being. It wasn't like on there and on page 52, he didn't do that. That's not what he was good at. That's what Gordon Brown was good at. And there's like a lot and he's just been expunged. This kind of this idea of Blair, the populist has been expunged from the kind of centrist psyche. I'm not that's not maybe Starmer cat. I think personally, Starmer looking the way he does being very polite. I think you said it before, Michael, I agree with it. It buys you permission actually to be more radical than you otherwise can be as a party potentially. I buy the argument. So the social movement behind Keir Starmer, the political party behind Keir Starmer, the trade unions behind Keir Starmer have permission to be that bit more radical if they if they play it cleverly with that more intelligently, if they have that guy at the front. I buy the argument and say it's going to work, but it's a logical, consistent argument. But the idea that this is a continuation of sort of the successful sort of, you know, Blair, Blair kind of era of PMQs is just not accurate.