 There's less than three weeks until the general election. We now have two radically different visions of Britain in play to discuss the Labour and Tory party manifestos. I'm delighted to be joined by Aaron Bustani, co-founder of Navarro Media. Hello, Michael. Zoe Williams, journalist at The Guardian. Hello. We're going to begin by discussing the blueprint for socialism in our time. Labour's new manifesto. Aaron, I want to know the key points in this beautiful document. I think the nationalisation is really important because it's now going to catalyse the conversation around the whole thing. And the default response from journalists, understandably in a way, has been how much is this going to cost? And actually, it should be how much is it going to save? So if we look at, for instance, was at the East Coast mainland, was making a profit before it was re-privatised a couple of years ago. If we look at what privatised water has done to people's water bills, since it's been privatised, water bills have increased by 40% above regular inflation, consumer inflation, we own it, have said that if we re-nationalise rail operators, which shouldn't cost anything, because we can just obviously bring them back into public ownership as the franchises expire, they've claimed that ticket prices, just by not having a for-profit model, changing nothing else would go down by 18%. So it's a great opportunity, if nothing else, over the next three weeks to talk about the merits, the advantages of public ownership. Yeah, I think that's true. I mean, I think what it does as well is it does throw into relief what a massive job there is to do reframing the way the conversation is held, because nobody ever talks about how expensive outsourcing is or how expensive privatisation is. The only time they talk about it is a kind of financial disaster, it's Labour's PFI disaster. And they're just the kind of day-to-day rip-off of things being privatised. And the cost of profit, you know, the cost of profit to the NHS and the cost of profit to rail is never discussed. And that casts people into thinking that everything Labour ever suggests is a kind of state spending. I don't think, I don't think so far, there's been a brilliant recasting of that debate, but I don't know, I don't know, you know, I certainly wouldn't blame Corbyn for that. I think there's a massive hill to climb on that. I mean, so the biggest elements of the manifesto are basically a return to universalism when it comes to welfare. So there's no means testing in here, which was something common to both Labour and Tory manifestos for many years. Big, unashamed taxes on the rich. And then as you say, a massive intervention in the economy, the IFS says the most we've seen since the 1940s. Although that, can I just correct that? That is premised on none of this creating any new growth. That's all based on current growth projections. That's a different point, Aaron, because this is a question about the biggest state intervention in the economy since the 40s. You're talking about the numbers add up. They're talking about the percentage of state spend as a percentage of GDP, but it obviously presumes that GDP won't go up. Okay, right, I see. And clearly it will, because final demand will go up. You can make all other points, you can maybe justify about the deficit or about, you know, public debt. But clearly, all of this would expand the economy, so actually that may be incorrect what they're saying. The thing is, I don't know if it's true that it's as radical as you say. I mean, a lot of this is just reversing the things that have happened since 2010. So all the stuff about prison officers, firefighters, border guards, nurses, ESA. And literally, I would say probably 40% of it is just reversing things which have happened in the last eight years. But 60% of stuff that's more bold than 13 years of labor government is still pretty radical. It's not that much more bold. I mean, if you think about, you know, most of the stuff is we wouldn't have been surprised by in 1997. What would we have been surprised by on this? Like a national investment bank was in Gordon Brown's manifesto. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Right, which actually was quite a bold manifesto. Well, I suppose the difference is the boldness of saying you'll increase corporation tax because even though the levels are still incredibly low, just sort of being able to say, openly, we are going to tax the rich. Anyone over 80K and openly say, we are gonna abolish tuition fees, you know. Just these big, bold policies that are unapologetic. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, you know, corporation tax has been eroded and then what all we're gonna do is put it back to the way it was not very long ago. I mean, it's not that big a deal. Right, you know China's calling from the left though, is it? Yeah, I mean, I think the biggest things on it are tuition fees, amount of renewables. This is the things which I think are most important rather than things that I think are the most radical or far left. I think the tuition fees is massive because it does have a transformative effect on society if you have a kind of a generation in debt and we kind of don't talk enough about it, I don't think. I think the renewables thing is important. I don't actually agree with banning fracking unless you're gonna ban the use of fracked gas because you can't. Oh, because it just means we fracked. It just means you fracked somewhat, yeah, exactly. It's like, I don't want to frack Lancashire. I'd rather frack Siberia. I just think it's really, I don't actually think it's very kind of left internationalist, which- Environmental chauvinism. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's kind of environmental kind of, but yeah, xenophobia. But anyway, leaving that aside, I do think- You should do it to camera video for us though. Wow, well, you know. And also, the weird thing about it anyway, I'm not gonna go on about fracking because it's a very niche view, mine. So I think probably constitutionally, the House of Lords thing is important in terms of kind of reframing the nationalization is really important in terms of boldness. I think you're right saying a rise on any kind of tax is a big thing to do. I think, but I think kind of in terms, you know, day-to-day life, tuition fees is gonna be the biggest and the care, the adult social care is gonna be the biggest. I don't see enough here really to reverse what's happened to disabled people. Or just welfare stuff in general, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's like, it's, what's really galling is that an incredibly successful job has been done over the past seven years on costing welfare as like a bizarre thing that you shouldn't need unless you're weak or wrong or, you know. I think that is one of the more radical things about this manifesto, which also you can see in terms of what the reaction of centrist labor party people has been, which is that abolishing tuition fees is in a climate of scarce resources, you should be directing that money at people more needier than students. And in a climate of scarce resources, you shouldn't be subsidizing car parking in the words of Richard Angel. So it is moving us away from a context where scarcity is a given. And so governments are just there to, or a left-wing government is there to just point the money towards the slightly more vulnerable and saying actually we can expand this pie basically by unashamedly raising tax. So Britain's media definitely didn't think the manifesto was too moderate. The telegraph went for tax borrow spend. Corbyn is Hugo Chavez on steroids. The Times went for Labour's tax raid pledge in Tatters. That was based on the IFS assertion that the tax raises their proposing wouldn't raise quite as much as their spending commitments. The Daily Mail similarly went for Corbyn plan to bankrupt UK. And the Guardian, flying the flag for socialism, said Labour won't win says top union backer. A very brave headline there. Is that my newspaper you're slapping on? You could just have better headlines, you know. Your comment pieces are fine. Oh, cheers. Aaron, are these legitimate concerns? Do the sums add up? Yeah, they do. Labour's plans are to spend 48.6 billion pound more a year. They're claiming they'll raise 48.6 billion pound a year in tax. There's a nice symmetry there. But moreover, there's a cushion of four billion pounds. So it's not as if, or if we don't quite raise this much tax and we can't meet this spending pledge. Four billions of lots, almost 10%. Over 50% of that 48 billion pounds, 48.5 billion pounds is going to come from increasing income tax and corporation tax. The top rate of income tax will be the same really as California or Japan, Germany. So it's not incredible, it shouldn't lead to massive capital flight. There probably will be some, but that four billion is for precisely that. And then corporation tax goes to 26%, which is still the lowest I believe in the G7. So again, we may see some capital flight, but probably not that much. And of course, factor in the fact that the economy will grow because of increased demand, because people have more money to spend, because businesses will expand, employ more people, pay more money. I think if anything, it's conservative. I think it more than adds up personally. I mean, I genuinely don't know and I don't think it's possible to know. I don't think it's possible to know to put such precise figures on the amount of tax that will be raised. And I think once you accept that it's not possible to put such precise figures on it, you sort of accept a little bit more ambiguity, strategic ambiguity around it. But they have to, right? Yeah, exactly. Three things I'd say. One is the capital flight point, where all our tax arguments are kind of based on an 80s understanding of the way rich people behave, which is if you tax them fairly, they'll do this. And if they get to the point where they think it's unfair, like by the time the Beatles is singing songs about it, then they'll fly. The truth of it is, capital flight is going on all the time, however much you tax them. So there's just a subtle point worrying about them. There is subtle point trying to find the sweet spot at which a rich person will accept their duty of tax. That conversation has changed. And in a way, I would advocate to kind of be more assertive about it rather than more emollient. Secondly, as you say, there's a kind of Keynesianism play which they completely ignore. And there will be growth from people just having more money. And students coming out of university not in 50 grams worth of debt are going to be more productive people. Whether or not that's kind of productive consumers or productive, straightforward productive people, it's just going to be better. And thirdly, we sort of accept and we never put the toys under this kind of scrutiny because we kind of accept that they're always trying to save money and they're always working hard to save your money and they're never spending. But the truth is there's a huge amount of profligacy in privatization. There's a huge amount of profligacy in outsourcing. There's a huge amount of waste. There's a huge amount of stupid mismanagement. You know, all of their projections for when they'd clear the deficit were wrong. All of their projections for how much they'd spend on what were wrong. All of their measures like the bedroom tax cost more than they saved. All of this stuff is really, really expensive. It turns out that screwing your citizens is really, really expensive. And even if you might kick those costs into another department but you're still generating a huge amount of cost for yourself. And you know, benefit sanctions, they cost a fortune, cost a fortune. So they spent more trying to bring in universal credit which was supposed to reduce the benefit bill but ended up just paying people to bully disabled people. Exactly. And you're like, and you're putting people on performance targets to just to make people cry in your benefits office. You're not actually saving any money. So I kind of feel that we should be much more trenchant about saying, A, this stuff is really hard to project. B, the Tories are rubbish at it. Absolutely shocking at it. And all their pass money doesn't generate money. And C, you know, we are anticipating just a much more generative productive economy. Workfare is a great example as well, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They'd be like 20 grand a place. Just give the money to the citizen. Give them some made-up job by the state. Well, exactly, exactly. And the same one would be privatising council houses. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You get rid of the housing stock and then you have to pay, what was it? You said £95 billion. £95 billion on housing benefit compared to £5 billion on creating new homes. And that was during the Labour government. That was the final Labour spending period. So it was a five-year period. And by the way, 40% of homes bought under right to buy are now rented out. Many of those will be receiving housing benefit. So the person who owns that home has got a government subsidy and a cheap house. They're getting a continued subsidy through somebody else's rent being paid to them. Incredible. It's absolutely unbelievable, isn't it? Which links into the nationalisation argument as well because they've been saying, is it fully costed that you're going to nationalise these things when in fact, social housing is a great example? That was an income source. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, people paying 200, people paying modest rent every month once you've paid off the building costs. Yeah, yeah, exactly. But also, actually, it feeds into the social care argument because they have all these conversations about how social care is unaffordable because everybody's living too long. It's unaffordable because they outsourced all the social care. It all got bought up by private equity. They turned it into a not-co-proc-co deal. Most of the properties have now been flogged off and the operating company's having to pay rent to the property company and that's why they can't afford to pay their staff. It's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous. This stuff is really expensive. Over the last 10 years, things have really changed. But for all the darkness, every cause has an effect. 40 shoes on the roof of Milbag. For all the talk of change, the present moment is really one of crisis. A crisis of democratic representation. Of identity. A climate crisis. Of a failing economic model, which isn't working for most people. We can't have a media that's beholden to advertisers or the political ambitions of oligarchs. Which is why, in 2013, we founded Novara Media. Unlike corporate media, we are funded by our subscribers. There's no tax avoiders, there's no oil money and there's no lords. What we're creating is media for you, which quite simply, you make possible. So over the next month, we're looking to raise £40,000. That will allow us to not only keep on paying our contributors, but give them a little bit more as well as keep our studio and take our fantastic Novara events nationwide. To help us get there, go to support.novaramedia.com and give a one-off donation or even better, sign up for a subscription. We've already achieved so much, but the truth is, we've barely started. We've done policies, we've done the wonky bit, we're gonna do what we really care about. Personalities. Most importantly, Jeremy Corbyn. He is on fire at the moment, you will notice. Zoe Williams has been replaced by Ash. Just briefly, partly because Corbyn's most important endorsements this week were from the growing scene, we did a straw poll of the office. Me, Zoe Naren, didn't know enough. Thank you for filling us in, Ash. So this has probably been the most exciting week in Jeremy Corbyn's life because he has gotten endorsements from AJ Tracy, from Stormzy, from JME. And this is wonderful, because people such as Akalov said that they wouldn't have come out to vocalise support for any other Labour MP, right? And, you know, for some people like JME, they've not made active political endorsements before. Novelist is a bit different, because he has, of course, joined the Labour Party, but certainly figures like JME and figures like Stormzy are very much motivated by Jeremy Corbyn as an individual and what he represents to them. I mean, where do you think this can go? Is this a superficial phenomenon, like about eight people coming out within two weeks, sort of potentially coordinated endorsements, or does this show a deeper trend that Jeremy Corbyn really is actually speaking to broader swaves of young people? I mean, I don't think it's a superficial thing at all. I think for the first time in, certainly, my living memory, you've got a Labour politician who is in a position of prominence and power making policy proposals which are actually speaking to young people and also young people of colour, right? And rather than being kind of disavowed and rejected as being, you know, pathologically criminal or too dangerous to know, these endorsements, these political voices, are being celebrated. I think one of the things we need to talk about is the fact that people like JME are filling a need which isn't being met elsewhere, right? One of political education of the youth, and they're doing it in a way that's really genuine and that's not at all patronising or didactic. Before I come to you, Aaron, we're just going to check out that video of JME and Corbyn. You think of all the great changes that have happened in life in the world, everywhere. They've very seldom come from people in power. They've come from pressure on people in power. JME, obviously, JME Adonuga, I'm here today to speak to Jeremy Corbyn. First of all, what I would like to get from this is to get people to register to vote. That's my main goal. Before you vote, I want you to find out who you should be voting for and why you're voting for them. Have your reasons for why you're voting for someone, no matter who it is. What I've seen of him seems so genuine. It feels like I'm going to meet one of my mum's friends. I don't know what it's going to be like, but hopefully it's just genuine. I can have a normal conversation with him. What's going on, man? I love to see you. Thank you for coming along. No, thank you for having me, bro. Seriously. I think symbolically it makes a real difference, because here's the thing that all these grime stars have in common, right? They were beneficiaries of a well-funded youth club culture and some of the more successful labour policies of the kind of 90s, early 2000s. And then they know what it's like to be royally screwed over by a Tory government. They saw the kinds of policing and really aggressive breaking up of working-class communities of colour that followed the 2011 riots. And that's a wonderful body of political knowledge, right? It's sitting right there. And I think they're quite able to communicate to a younger still generation who might not be able to vote right now even and saying, well, look, it's time to get engaged. It's time to care about this stuff and it's time to get pissed off, because we know what it's like to have something that's better than what we've got and then to lose it. I mean, it's obviously having some traction with broad swathes of young people, because a million of them have registered in this campaign, under 34s, half of them being under 24. And white working-class people, do you think they're listening to like, oh no, Oasis? No, everyone listens to grime, right? So, politically, this might not change an election, but pop-culturally, grime is punching well above its weight. Also, I think it was in 2015 or 2010, the final day of registration saw an extra half a million people registered to vote. So, there could be what we call exit velocity here. More and more people register and on the final day itself, the most people. So, this is the one, as one American once, I think as Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and then there are known unknowns. This is a known unknown. We know this is happening. We're unsure of the extent to which it could impact the final situation. We're saying it couldn't change the results of the general election. It could have a major impact. It could have a major impact both within the Labour Party and the extent of a Tory majority. I think a Tory majority is inevitable, simply because the Liberal Democrats haven't turned up. And that was the base of the Tory majority in 2015. It's Liberal Democrat seats in the south-west of England, which have been Liberal Democrat for a very long time, will stay Tory on June 8. And that is why they will win a majority, regardless of what young people do. But this is still a hugely important thing. But when it comes to turnout for the barricades, if not the ballot box, better position? Absolutely. OK, thank you so much for coming on for this section, Ash. We've learnt the kids are woke, Corbyn's woke, Grime is woke. One other person was woke this week. It was Kathy Mohamed from Abingdon. It goes to help people with learning disability and mental health, because I stick up with mental health and for learning disability. And I've been crippled by them because they chuck me out of the mind, because I've got a borderline and I've been serious. I want you to do something for us. We've got a lot of plans for people with mental health, particularly... And learning disability. I've got my learning disability. And I haven't got a carer at the moment. And I'm angry, I've got an old talk about a letter to Paul Nicola. And I would like somebody to help me, because I can't do everything that I want to do. That was Kathy Mohamed from Abingdon, confronting Theresa May on disability cuts on one of her rare outings to see real members of the public. I thought that was fantastic for two reasons. One, because the woman, Kathy, is sort of advocating a really universal system of welfare, basically. She's saying, I want you to help everyone. I'm not saying I'm more deserving than the person in the wheelchair, because I've got learning disabilities. She's saying, I want you to help everyone. Theresa May in response is saying, we're focusing on people most in need. You know, she's trying to say, she's trying to get that woman in competition with other people, and she's refusing. So I think that was a real nice confrontation of two visions of what state support and what welfare should look like. What do you think, Zoe? I thought, because a lot of people are really disappointed, right, that wasn't the Gillian Duffy moment. It wasn't really covered in the same way. It wasn't kind of, oh, my God, Theresa May finally gets her crime stuck to her. And I think we're kind of expecting the wrong thing from the way this election will be covered, which a conservative government is never going to be treated the same way as a Labour government, or a conservative politician is never going to be described in the same way. Then nobody's waiting for that gotcha moment. It's just not going to happen. So I was really heartened by it just on the basis that, you know, she is very insulated to Theresa May, and it is important that sometimes she sees a normal person who tells her what they really think. But in terms of whether it's going to give Labour a bounce, whether it's going to give the, whether it's going to track the conservatives down, I don't think it is. I think it's important that she use the word fat cats because that was something that was repeatedly deployed during the major years. And we forget about that now. We talked about the 1% of rigged economy, the elite. But actually, that was a meme. That was a big trope defining British politics from 92 to 97, and which obviously knew Labour Fed massively into that. And that's still there. And there is actually an intuitive resonance with many working class people in this country against a rigged system, against the elite, against the fat cats. So this is not, you know, often when you're on the left, you think, well, it's just us saying these things. But many, many, many people are saying these things. It's very widely felt. The question is for both Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party on the left is whether we can not exploit that but offer those people an answer and say it doesn't have to be this way. There is an alternative. I mean, I suppose my feeling about that is whenever the left tries to do the right, tries to mirror the right, he tries to be the same kind of thing, the same kind of united message, except we're for the workers and they're for the bosses, we're for the people and they're for the fat cats, we're for the... It's sort of... It almost feels like we're kind of trying on their shoes and it just doesn't... But it's not messaging as policies, we're taxing the top 5%. Oh, yeah, yeah, for sure, for sure. But I just feel like the message doesn't feel... It doesn't feel like the kind of hopeful, generative left that wins things. What about the angry left that wins things? Well, the angry left never wins anything, though, Michael. I mean, that is just the truth. The angry left is really fun, but it never wins. The hopeful left wins and the angry left loses. But why is the angry? You're saying, well, pay for these incredible things and we're taxing the top 5% and that she's saying fat cats, so she should be supportive of that. We're not saying they're nasty people, we're just saying that's a racist action. Oh, no, no, no, you're completely right. It's really good if people outside your own meetings are using the same language. It's really good. The policies and the kind of framing are two different things. The communication and the analysis are two different things. But we have a lot of conversations about how we get what Podemos got when they united everybody against Lacasta or how we got what, I don't know, Sarisa got when they united everybody against corruption. And it's like, how do we get that enemy? How do we get that final enemy that really galvanizes everybody? And I just think, I don't think we ever managed to completely pull it off. Back to, again, new labor. There was a time in 96, 97 when they were being asked how you pay for X, Y, Z and they said the energy windfall tax. It was covering everything. And that was a tax on the profits of energy companies which had recently been privatized. And there was a perception then that the bosses or the shareholders of these companies were sucking, suckling off the fat of what should have been a publicly owned good. So even new labor did this. You don't need to do it with anger, I agree with you. But people have justified animosity grievous with these things. No, I don't think there's a lack of justification, not at all. I'm just thinking about what gets people who aren't already with you, with you. I want to move on to the Tory party manifesto. I mean, we've discussed what the policies of the left were going to be. We know what the weaknesses of the Tories are that they're the party for the fat cats. They don't care about people. I had a real, I had a real epiphanic moment this morning about the care homes, about the kind of care cost thing with, so, I mean, I'll pray, see. Everybody will have heard of it, I'm sure. Basically, if you have to pay for your care at the end of your life, which will mainly be if you've got dementia, then every single asset of yours, including your house is up for grabs until you're down to your last 100 grand. And I was thinking what a strange policy that was because it doesn't, it's all kind of random. It's totally, it's a limitless, a potentially limitless cost meted out upon random members of society, right? There's absolutely no telling whether you'll get dementia or not. And these, and it's astronomical. It's like, if you said to people, we're going to choose 20% of you and you're going to have to give your entire estate an inheritance tax. Everybody would go, well, that's just not fair. But that's effectively what they're doing. And I was thinking it was such a badly thought out policy that it must only have like five possible routes. The first is they're just trying to repudiate the idea of socialized risk. So they're just like, you know that thing we used to do? We just don't do it anymore. It doesn't matter how bad the policy is as long as the idea of being repudiated. The second is, I wonder whether there's a finance thing going on here where they're working back from the idea, how do we start making money out of care? Oh, we can get these products to, we can invent financial products to get your equity out of your house before you're dead. I wonder if there's some kind of financial driver where they're saying we, you know, it could be like CDOs all over again. You could invent incredibly technical and complex financial instruments to get money, to kind of liquidize people's money. And it would, somebody would make a fortune out of that. The third thing is, I wonder whether they're just, you know, stabbing themselves in the hand to prove how hard they are. They're just like, look, we're so, you know, we're winning so big. It doesn't matter what we say. We can, the fourth is, they're so convinced of their support among the over 70s that they don't have to do anything. They can attack them as much as they like because they're not going anywhere. And the fifth is that they just genuinely don't know what they're doing. I mean, the defense of it is that the previous Tory policy, I think, which was to cap how much you have to spend on social care at 73K meant that if you had a million pound house, you'd be subsidized from that point. And if you had 100K house, you'd be subsidized from that point. So it would be inequitable. But literally the only way to do this is the same way that you do it with health, right? You just have to pull the risk because nobody knows who's going to get leukemia. So that would just be a national care service. It's just a national care service, yeah. It's not a new thing. It's not a new thing. It's 400 years old. Yeah, I mean, it's ridiculous. Flex insurance, that's what you need. Do you think this could bite the Tories in the eyes? I think Zoe's right. I mean, they've probably focused, grouped it to death and older people probably think it's legit. I mean, I don't understand. With Cameron, 2010, 2015, you understood he was building a coalition which would win an election. This doesn't do that. They were basing their last, they didn't win in 2010, obviously, but they were basing their electoral chances on a coalition of homeowners and the over 65s, essentially. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Small businesses. Small businesses have been let down massively by them. I think Labour actually offer a far better set of policies to small businesses. And then to over 65s, the triple look we found that today will be staying and then there'll be a double look after 2020. So a lot of it will be wages or inflation. But this is their base and they are upsetting them. And okay, it might not hurt them in this election, but if all the people start to move away from the Conservative Party, they'll have big problems because amongst under 40s, even with Jeremy Corbyn, who has the most left-wing agenda in modern British history, since Michael Foote, at least, Jeremy Corbyn amongst under 40s and women is polling 15 points ahead. So they need, they need these people big time and I'm sure they'll have them come June the 8th, but they can't take that for granted. And that's what this looks like. Have you seen the Daily Mail comments under it? It's really funny. It's really, really funny. It's all these people going, so you mean I've worked all my life and then some scrounger is going to get free care and I'm not. I mean, it's really, it's really like absolute Middle England fury. So hopefully that discourse of scroungers and strivers will eventually buy the Tories in the ass. It's what for the week. The game no one wants to play is back. The race to number 10, snap election edition. It's fun for all the family. But not if you're under 18. That's all right. I didn't want to say my future anyway. Oh! You get your maths completely wrong and risk-costs in the public millions. Ching-ching. Advance 11 team spaces. Ha-ha-ha! Seriously? If you feel cheated by the current system, it's time to change the game. So that was Whopper of the Week, not necessarily the Green Party, but at least the Green Party's PR team chosen for its bland assumption that all the parties are the same. And in my opinion, what is the most radically different we've ever seen them? I've just shown it to Zoe and Aaron and we have a controversy because... I don't... Oh, you quite liked it. I quite liked it. I mean, the weird thing is, I think they think they're going for young people. And I think all the styling and all the kind of nostalgia it's meant to trigger is going to appeal to... They've kind of made an ad for 40-year-olds thinking they've made an ad for 23-year-olds. But as a 43-year-old, I quite like it. Maybe that's because they lost the youth to the growing scene. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, that's a bummer for them. Aaron. It was funny and it was well done, but I mean, it's just shit politics. What? I don't agree with you about that. Have you seen that all this... If you're drawing in an equivalence between all of them, they're all the same. I've seen that fees into such a silly attitude. But they're not talking about... They're sort of talking about something which I think a lot of people do recognise, which is that kind of critical failure to be truthful about your agenda in politics. But, you know, and Jeremy Corbyn does, and still he's got his kind of authentic shtick and everybody knows where they are with him. But most politicians, when you listen to them, are still doing that kind of hymn sheet stuff. But that's because he's stuck in a party that is on those hymn sheets, but they specifically attack Corbyn and Albert. Labour is now Europe's largest social democratic party of 600,000 members. He is where he is and he's survived on the back of massive, popular support. So to draw an equivalence between him and a party that is absolutely, I mean, you know, defiantly and apologetically the party of big business, the establishment of the elites, I just find that equivalence really distasteful and also to directly identify Diane Abbott. Tory politicians haven't costed any of their policies for the last week, by the way. The manifesto has not even costed for the total race. But are you sure? I mean, aren't you just saying you think it's Diane Abbott? No, she's got to be on her team. She's got to be on her head. That just means dance, doesn't it? Well... No, no, listen, that is a dance's cap! No one thinks that stands for Diane Abbott. Fire your whole cabinet. They tried to get rid of a democratic-related leader. I just think... Fire your whole cabinet until they agree with you. That's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. He had a cabinet which had the entirety of what, Labour Party, but listen, a lot of us think that there has not been enough pluralism in Jeremy Corbyn's cabinet and that is completely fair enough, right? That is just fair enough. How is it fair enough? Angela Regal was... The first cabinet had Angela Regal, Hillary, Ben, had everybody in it. Yeah, I know, but... And then they tried to get rid of him. What's he meant to do? This is a different conversation. Yeah, this is a different conversation. This is a different conversation. You choose to get rid of them. Yeah, I know, but... I want to go back to the Green Party quickly. You met Caroline Lucas this week. Yeah. Do you think she would have endorsed that advert? Is she saying everyone's the same? She's the best thing about the Green Party. Of course she would have endorsed that advert. What, do you think they fought out an election advert? She would never say that. She won't even attack the Liberal Democrats. No, no, because she's working full pelt for a progressive alliance, so she won't... She wouldn't do that, exactly. But the Greens campaigning message hasn't been for a progressive alliance. I'm saying she wouldn't do that. How can you say I want a progressive alliance and then you say that the Labour and the Tory parties... You guys, the Greens have worked so much harder for a progressive alliance than the Labour Party has and made so many more sacrifices... Labour doesn't want a progressive alliance. Well, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying... Make sacrifices in Labour's favour. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Caroline Lucas... It's just unbelievable. I can't believe we're having this conversation. Caroline Lucas would never say that. It's like the generosity of the Green Party in Labour's favour is absolutely astronomical. You're ascribing something to me which I've not said. I've never said that. I agree with you. Jeremy Corbyn, one of the last people in the country that probably wants PR. I agree with you. But Caroline Lucas won't attack Tim Farron, let alone attack the Labour Left. So I just think... They haven't put out an ad that they haven't shown her. Come on. Probably not. But she would never say that. I mean, I'm open to progressive alliance, PR pluralism. Totally are. But if that's what you want, then that's a shit ad. No, but listen. When did that ad come out? Did it come out after the deadline for nominations? Six days ago. Okay. So it came out after Thursday, right? So it was like punishment for the fact that Labour's stand down in enough seats. For God's sake, we stood down in 46. You didn't stand down... We're then making an advert about... I'm all for this, politics. I agree. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want it. Yeah. But that's... They're making an advert about that. Not an advert about... But they've made all their overtures. All their overtures... The overture window is gone. All right, guys. We're running out of time. Good. There will probably be one more show before the general election. Thanks for joining us for the fix. See you next time.