What was Kemi Badenoch thinking defending a convicted neo-Nazi? | The News Agents

Kemi Beynonk, foughting to defend this morning her party's decision to allow a former neo-Nazi who was jailed for subjecting a prominent Labour politician to anti-Semitic abuse to stand as a councillor. Kemi's argument, which is that rehabilitation is a really important part of public political life, would be a really strong one to make if it wasn't that his transgressions go on and on and on. The signal that it sends, that basically, maybe this isn't so bad, maybe that stalking and harassment wasn't so bad, and maybe that anti-Semitism wasn't so bad, that's what you've got to balance. Now you've got an actual convicted neo-Nazi who wants to stand under the party name, what The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity. This is a global production. This is a man who was talking about how in his late teens and early 20s he was radicalised, he became a racist and an anti-Semite. But I'm not giving him a national platform, he is standing to be a councillor in Somerset. It is a local platform, looking at parking, sorting out bins, that's what councillors do. It's not a national platform. That is Kemi Badenoch on the BBC, trying to defend why she's allowing a former neo-Nazi who was convicted and imprisoned to stand as a Conservative councillor, and minimising his role by saying it's just about parking and bins. Today's question is a simple one. Why is Kemi Badenoch allowing a former neo-Nazi to stand for election for her party? Welcome to The News Agents. The News Agents. It's Lewis. It's Maitlis. And Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party. This is never a sentence you really want to find yourself, or find yourself being described as if you're the leader of a political party, foughting to defend this morning her party's decision to allow a former neo-Nazi who was jailed for subjecting a prominent Labour politician to anti-Semitic abuse to stand as a councillor. This is a man called Joshua Bonehill Payne, standing for election in Somerset for the Conservative Party. This is a man who, in his early twenties, he decided to, among other things, target the then Labour MP, now Baroness, Luciana Berger, in a campaign of anti-Semitic abuse. Luciana Berger has been speaking this morning about her experience, saying that she is still living today with the profound and deep impact of those events. That wasn't the only thing that this particular gentleman has been guilty of. He was also jailed in 2015 for more than three years after posting anti-Semitic material online before a planned neo-Nazi rally. Some of the messages which were posted in his blog about Ms Berger included calling her a rodent and an evil money-grabber. He also said that there were too many Jewish Labour MPs and was also the founder and leader of the National British Resistance Group, a far-right organisation. This is a man that Kemi Badenoch is allowing to stand for the Conservative Party for local government. We could go on. In fact, let's go on. He'd been previously imprisoned for producing an advert featuring an image of Auschwitz that promised, his words, an absolute gasp. This was at a rally in Golders Green, North London. He had targeted not only Luciana Berger but also John Mann, the independent adviser on anti-Semitism, also a Labour MP, between 2001 and 2019. I do think that Kemi's argument, which is that rehabilitation is a really important part of public political life, would be a really strong one to make if it wasn't that his transgressions go on and on and on, and that they are so deeply personal to people who are still around today and still calling out his actions today. Kemi Badenoch essentially has argued that he's now seen the error of his ways, he's been to prison, he's come out, Damascene conversion, and is starting to work in educating others about the dangers of anti-Semitism, which sounds great. And naturally, I would want to be on the side of the belief that prison works and rehabilitation is great and you can change and transform, except that you've got people who are still in our public life, like Luciana Berger, like John Mann, like John Mann's office staff, who are all terrified as well, saying this man is creepy and scary and intimidating. And it wasn't so long ago that the Tories were calling out Angela Rayner. Do you remember that? When she called a Tory scum, right? Not a particularly nice word. She was forced to apologise, she had to backtrack, but she called the Conservative Party as a whole scum. And Kemi Badenoch said that was absolutely, or I think at the time it was Johnson, said it was absolutely unpalatable, it was an awful thing to hear a senior Labour minister or potential minister using that word. Now you've got an actual convicted neo-Nazi who wants to stand under the party name. What the ****'s going on? And of course, this is actually, I think, part of the problem that Kemi Badenoch is going to find herself in, because she is not a politician, I think it's fair to say, who usually puts nuance, subtlety, redemption, contrition at the top of the list of the political characteristics she likes best. That's not her thing. Her thing is, as she herself says, to be consistent and clear and hard edge. That's how she sees the strength of her politics. And so her previous comments are littered with, whether it's a political issue like Gaza, we see the Gaza protest, the Conservative Party has been way out there condemning people who've turned up to those protests. Of course, there has been anti-Semitism on those protests and there have been anti-Semites on those protests, but their threshold for anti-Semitism and for declaring anti-Semitism has been, some might say, pretty low. Sometimes just chants, sometimes things that people say, which are at the very least contested as to whether they are anti-Semitic or not. Kemi Bainock has been at the forefront of condemning those people. There can be no contestation about whether this guy was an anti-Semite or not, or whether he was putting anti-Semitic things out there or not. I think it's an open and shut case, as indeed was proven in the courtroom. And that is her approach. That kind of dogmatism is her approach to almost all aspects of politics and almost all other politicians. In fact, she even said in that interview, I'm not normally a big one for rehabilitation myself. And yet in this case, with this particular gentleman, that is the line she's taking. And we've seen her take that slightly less generous view, even with other politicians. She has been at the absolute forefront of attacking, for example, Lou Haig, the now de facto Deputy Prime Minister, the first Secretary of State, for, of course, her spent conviction over that mobile phone incident that took place when she was in her early 20s. She just listened to Kemi Bay not speaking about Lou Haig in 2024. But the public are watching. He owes them an explanation. The country needs conviction politicians, not politicians with convictions. And that's a nice line, but it's one that will rebound on you. I think it's fair. The other, look, she's right in one sense, right, which is to say that we definitely want a place in our society for rehabilitation, for contrition, for redemption, for forgiveness. We want those things. Our political culture and our national culture in lots of ways has become more censorious, more difficult to have a nuanced conversation about things, and more difficult for people to move on from bad things they've done in their past. That's absolutely true and totally fair enough. There are two problems with the way, though, that she's justified it. One is that there is a difference, as Luciana Berger has said, there is a difference between allowing someone to be redeemed, to be rehabilitated, to use the benefit of their experience to prevent others from being radicalised. That's really important. There's a difference between being let back into society and being allowed to stand for public office. Like, those are two different things. I mean, frankly, it's, you know, if you're a convicted paedophile who served his sentence, you wouldn't then make them a teacher again in an elementary school, right? I think it's as simple as that. And then you'd be unlikely, frankly, they would be unlikely to be able to stand for public office, right? There are lots of things where we might bring someone back into society, we accept they've done their time, but there is a difference. What you're doing there in allowing them to stand for your party, what you're balancing is, yes, the right of that man to be redeemed, but you've got to balance that with the signal that it sends to the groups, including in this case, for example, British Jewry, who have reacted very negatively to this, you know, the board of deputies of British Jews saying they don't want to meet with him, you know, rejecting Kemi Baidnok's offer to meet with him and so on. They don't want to do that. Luciana Berger as well. The signal that it sends that basically, maybe this isn't so bad. Maybe that stalking and harassment wasn't so bad. And maybe that anti-Semitism wasn't so bad. That's what you've got to balance. And that's what I think Kemi Baidnok is not reckoning with. And as well, built into that, frankly, one of her sort of justifications for it is genuinely risible. I mean, she said, look, it's not like he's standing for parliament here. He's just going to be sorting the bins out. Right. I mean, say what you want about the Nazis. They made the trains run on time and the bins were always sorted. Right. I mean, this is this is lamentable. The message that sends to local government, to conservative councillors is, to be honest, it doesn't really matter who it is, doesn't matter if you've been a former neo-Nazi, you're just doing completely unimportant, trivial stuff. And the point is, in saying that, in saying that she would not allow him to stand for national office, but she would for local office. She is therefore herself accepting that there is a threshold at which you do not allow someone to stand for certain political office, in which case, why is he allowed to stand for local and not national? Yeah. And I think it's denigrating, actually, to all your councillors to say, oh, don't worry. Don't worry about them. They just they just do parking and bins. Yeah. Right. I mean, it actually. You could have any old fruit. Yeah. Anyway. Come on in. It's fine. I think it's very hard politically, you know, for her to get any messaging right on her criticism of Labour or anti-Semitism or reform when you are basically condoning the potential election of a former neo-Nazi. I think it's frankly as simple as that. And I think it's also awkward for the voters of Somerset, right, because if you want to vote for a Tory councillor, but you're like you're not a big fan of neo-Nazis, then you're you're kind of stuck with a choice that your own leader has imposed upon you. And I think one of the funniest things of this whole thing is we always talk about how terrible reform are vetting, right? You know, why don't they vet properly? Why don't they look properly or any of them? You know, the Greens, Labour, all the parties, why don't why don't they vet their candidates properly? Here, you have got a vetting system that has clearly shown up all the problems of this man's past. And yet the response has been, oh, well, yeah, never mind. It's fine. It's just bins. It's kind of, you know, let's get on with it. I think you are in danger. If you are trying to recreate a sort of middle ground Conservative Party in the southwest of England, this is not a great start to your comeback tour. And I do wonder whether Kami Bainock has spent the time to actually just look at the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Spencer, who oversaw the trial in December 2016 of Joshua Bonehill-Payne. I mean, it's only eight pages long. I was just looking through it before we started started recording. It's searing stuff. I mean, it's actually way worse than the press reports, if you actually go into the paragraphs of it. And, you know, it's brief remarks, but among other things, just to summarize, it goes through in painstaking detail virtually all of the posts and content that he was putting out overwhelmingly about Luciana Berger. Among other things, we've said, you know, basically, he says it's a series of racist rants. He talks about it. This is the judge's words being an odious campaign. He talks about the fact that he boasts that he he boasts that he has conducted a and coordinated a fantastically successful campaign against the US and Labour Party MP Luciana Berger. The judge says it demonstrates his contents, his willingness to pursue this far right cause at all costs. He said that he was prepared to die in order to fend his race and his nation from the tyrannical claw of the Judeo-Marxist enemy. On the 24th of January, he posted another article, a fifth and final one before he was arrested, headed The Legacy of Operation Filthy Jew Bitch. You know, it goes on and it goes on and it goes on. And I have to say, just on a personal level, if you're Luciana Berger, I just do not know. This must have been deeply traumatizing for her, deeply difficult for her. Not the only abuse that she's received over the years. Far from it. She has been a lightning rod for some of the most extremist, disgusting, bilious racism that we've seen over the last decade in British politics. But if you're her today, remembering all of this, it's all being forced to come back to you and having to relive it. What is the message that the Conservative Party is sending about how it treats this sort of hateful extremism? Yeah, I mean, it is, in Luciana's words, not just anti-Semitic or racist, but misogynist and pornographic as well. And if there's one thing we've learned, it's you cannot ignore the gateway drugs, right? In other words, if you start to look at upskirting or if you start to look at flashing, you tend to find something deeply, deeply worrying that recurs if it's not stopped in its tracks. Now, look, he says he's reformed. He says he's going out. He says he's a sort of new man who's seen the light. I don't know. The jury's out on whether you want to believe that somebody can alter their character so radically from sort of black to white. I don't know. But I do think it suggests that the Tories are really desperate for candidates if they're still arguing about this guy once they know everything about him. Well, I think what it says, and I think this is, I think, I think this is something I think about Bainock's leadership style as well, though. We've talked before about what an online politician she is in so many ways. And I think that part of this, I suspect that part of this is her wanting to have a round. Or I don't know if it's even that, I think she, I think that the, you know, let's just think about all of the things that have happened recently where the Conservative Party has said things or it had, you know, frontbenchers say things that are way out there, you know, that would not have been tolerated. Like the Nick Timothy stuff about public prayer, you know, I mean, Kimmy Bainock herself, after Gautham Denton by-election, basically talking, she uses phrase exactly, but, you know, sort of talking the language of the kind of, you know, the block vote and talking about, you know, basically the idea almost of sort of people within society working against. These are sort of once quite fringe ideas that have come to the fore. And I think that, you know, the bounds of acceptability, the parameters of what's acceptable in terms of discourse that would once have been considered extreme or racist within the Conservative Party has moved a long way. And I think she thinks, she thinks they have become, I think some Conservatives, including Bainock, have become so suspicious about the idea of cancellation, of cancel culture, so wanting and desperate to prove, sort of stick it to the libs. The anti-woke. Yeah, yes. It's so desperate to sort of stick it to the libs the whole time that they have become completely oblivious even to the most extreme cases where, frankly, it's not about cancelling this guy, but it would be a matter of saying, you know what, I'm afraid your history is just simply too extreme to allow us to, for you to stand as a candidate. I mean, again, just one final thing from that judge's remark. I mean, he may be expressing contrition now. He didn't express contrition at the time. The judge noted that he didn't make a guilty plea. He didn't have the mitigation of expressing any remorse. On the contrary, the judge said, you sat in the dark smirking throughout the trial and I noted your demeanour whilst Miss Berger was having to give evidence. You plainly enjoyed her discomfort. The message needs to go out loud and clear that racial hate crime, where the intention is to harass the victim, will be dealt with very severely and deterrence must be an important element of this sentence. The judge understood that the message had to go out loud and clear that this sort of is not acceptable and must be deterred. And I think the most potent political charge against Badenock is that she is undermining that imperative from that judge by allowing him to stand. Yeah, I mean, I guess she'd argue that it was a decade ago. I mean, can you change? Can you completely rehabilitate a decade on? Would she allow a rapist to 10 years ago, a paedophile? You know, it's a really good question. I think we are understanding a little bit better now why the Conservatives only got what, 7% in the Manchester mayoral race. They're probably not going to be a big political force in many Jewish communities if they carry on backing this guy. Well, just as a bit of political management, let's leave aside the morals and the ethics of it and the philosophy of it. Like, just a bit of political management. Normally, August is a good time for the opposition party to get a few messages out there, a few good news stories, you know, try and craft a message ahead of the party conference season. I mean, when this is what you're having to talk about, I am just surprised that no one in central office just thought, you know what, it's just like, what a hill to die on. You know, is this the line in the sand for us? Does it matter that much or this much? You know, when a senior frontbencher says something that's over the line, you know, you dig in sometimes, you don't want to lose them. You want to let it blow over. But in this case, some no-mark for neo-Nazi in Somerset, you know, that's the hill. But for Beidnok, that's the sort of great political skill that all the conservative press keep talking about her demonstrating, really. On the News Agents USA today, we are talking about a Republican candidate who Trump has sort of up to this point backed, who is accused by three different women of severe violence, you know, domestic violence. And he is kind of saying, I'm just going to double down. If Trump can do it, I can. If Trump can do it, I will not drop out the race. And you sort of have to wonder whether there's a bit of her that's saying, oh, you know, we're now in the Roy Cohn playbook, you know, never apologize, never explain, just, you know, double down and see if it works. Well, look, good luck to them. You know, let's see if it works. Let's see what it does to your political fortunes. But I agree with you, Lewis. I think it is a very strange hill to die on this one. Not least because Andy Burnham, new prime minister, might be on the verge of his first big political problem in office. And that is about the early release scheme. They feel let down. And certainly the police officers in Ten Valley feel let down, too. And lastly, your point of contact, presumably as a home secretary, automatically as a chief constable, is it? Have you sought direct contact with Shabana Mahmood? I have. I've written to the justice secretary and the prime minister. And I'll be doing that again today. And you've had responses? I haven't had a response yet, no. When did you send your letter to the prime minister and justice secretary? I think it was, well, when this first came to light about 11, 12 days ago. And you've not had a response from either of them? Not yet. That is Jason Hogg. He's the chief constable of Thames Valley Police, and he has now threatened to take the government to court over the early release of the killers of PC Andrew Harper. Andy Burnham is starting to feel the political heat, really, for the first time since he became prime minister. And it is over this question of whether he would go along with Keir Starmer's policy of the early release of prisoners, even killers, who had served some of their sentence but not the full amount, or whether he was prepared to step in and relook at it. And essentially, he has reopened the question of whether it's fair or not. And he's made some changes to rapists, in particular, to those who have been domestic abusers. But in this particular case, the death of PC Andrew Harper, who was a young man, a police officer who was essentially dragged to his death by three joyriders, one of whom will serve his full sentence, two of whom will be available for early release. He has essentially just kind of dug down. Yeah, this was back in 2019 when PC Harper was dragged by a car down a country road as three teenagers fled the scene of a quad bike theft in Berkshire. And as I said, the two prisoners, passengers in the car, Jesse Cole and Albert Bowers, were sentenced in 2020 to 13 years for manslaughter and could apply for early release after serving half of their sentence. And this is, I think, exactly what I think Number 10 feared and could see sort of coming down the track and why that review was put into place, which is there are going to be so many cases like this. I mean, this is obviously an edge case. It involves the police. But when you've got a situation where the police chief of Thames Valley is taking to the radio and urging the Home Secretary and urging the government to reconsider its position, then you just know that you are rapidly descending into some political quicksand, right? Because as soon as you make the exception here, and as soon as you make that exception after the public pressure, you just know there's going to be scores of similar cases, maybe not involving police officers. But we know that prisoners convicted of murder, rape and serious child sex offenders will be excluded from the scene, sure. But those convicted of manslaughter remain eligible. As we see with this case, the line with what the public might think is sort of acceptable is not necessarily going to be anywhere close to where we see a manslaughter case being. It's so interesting, isn't it? Because what Jason Hogg has gone on to say is that public opinion is overwhelming in this matter. If you ask the general public whether they think prisoners should be released early, you know, we're kind of all of a mind, which is like not for serious crimes. Now, I guess the question is, these two men were pretty young and they were passengers in the car. The driver of the actual car is not getting released early. So to your point, they were essentially accomplices. They were part of the manslaughter of this police officer, but they weren't in charge of the vehicle at the time. And I do think it's a sort of interesting place for Burnham now because he essentially came to power. I mean, partly from sort of, you know, good political kind of sense, actually, but also from being the person that seemed to champion, you know, the underdog. He understood people's causes. He understood the Hillsborough crowds when they booed him when he was, you know, the culture minister all those years ago. He understood the importance of listening to those in the infected blood scandal. He understood the importance of hearing the victims of the nuclear testing. He understood, in other words, real people talk about real issues that directly affected them that they felt was fundamentally unfair, that destroyed trust in politics. And now he's the prime minister. He's basically got to decide, am I still the campaigner or am I the person that sets the policy? Right? Because in the same way, it's the microcosm of Manchester to the rest of the UK. You can't just fight for Manchester now. You have to fight for the rest of the UK. You can't just fight for the individual campaigners. You have to fight for the whole prison system. And he, you know, I've heard his advisors today say he's more worried about the collapse of the prison system if this becomes a thing. So it's a really sticky one. And in a way, I guess he has to, he has to harden up on this one, right? He has to, because otherwise, if I was the widow of that police officer, I'd be doing exactly the same. But if I was the widow of the next person who, you know, was getting released early, then I'd be on his back as well, right? As Jake Richards, the justice minister, has said, the government says that it would be wrong to sort of pick out individuals within the overall cohort. In fact, as he points out, it would actually be unlawful to do so in response of political pressure. So it seems like they're going to stick to the policy with regards to this and not unpick it for individual cases. But of course, that will mean inevitably that, you know, we see more and more sort of edge cases like this, even though Burnham has excluded some of the most serious offenders. I mean, Burnham wrote a piece for The Telegraph where you could sort of just sense that his sort of deep frustration in almost every sentence. And he basically says that he, what he says exactly, I can look people in the eye and say to them, there is nothing more I could have asked for without risking the prison system collapsing within months. So this is a good early example, I think, of, you know, look, Burnham's had a great first fortnight. I don't think it could have gone much better. The messaging has been spot on, the content they've been doing has been spot on. Had the crisps in the pub. They've done the crisps in the pub, very effective, lots of effective comments, but also lots of kind of good micro measures on cost of living that clearly have translated to the public, hasn't cost them a fortune. Translated to the polls, yeah. Translated to the polls, exactly. Like, you know, and now he's gone on holiday for a couple of weeks to regroup before the start of the new political year in September. But I think this is one of those early glimmers of a very simple fact and political reality, which is that, you know, Starmer faced huge constraints, huge structural constraints. The prison story was one of them. It was one of the sort of early things that they had to do, quite very well managed by Shabana Mahmood as justice secretary then in terms of getting the message out to the public as to why. Nonetheless, prisons, big early thing that Starmer had to do. It's still going to be a problem for Burnham. By the way, it's a problem that will likely recur because, as we know, despite the efforts to expand prison capacity, they're getting it down. But of course, the more people you basically are just refilling the jar each time. So it's a problem that could well end up recurring. And there are other things like this, right, which are where Burnham, he tried to defuse this by deferring it for a while and he could defer it no longer. And there are going to be other political problems that when he returns after his holiday in late August, September, are also, he won't be able to defer any longer. You know, whether it's about welfare, whether it's obviously about foreign policy, whether it's about North Sea oil and gas, you know, there are just lots of decisions coming down the track where he won't be able, as you say, Emily, to do the thing that he most likes to do, which is to have that. Side with the campaigner and the individual, right? And please everyone, you know, and I think that is something that is at the heart of his politics because he's a more emotive politician in a lot of ways. That is exactly how he likes to articulate. But there are big decisions coming down the tracks where he will just not be able to please everybody or in many cases, many people at all. Yeah, and I think with the prisons one, you know, if you ask people whether they like early release, they say no. If you ask people if they would prefer new prisoners not to be convicted and given custodial sentences, they say no. And then if you ask people if they'd like more money to be spent on building more prisons, you know, I think it's also a no, right? We'd actually much prefer to see our money spent on things that will help cost of living or infrastructure that we can all kind of use rather than, you know, a prison on a barge that's going to cost billions of pounds or whatever, right? And this to me, I think is going to be a really interesting, not just that, but lots of the other sort of political dilemmas coming down the track. This to me will be the sort of test case of how much more politically successful as a prime minister and leader Burnham is because Starmer was unable to communicate to the public exactly why sometimes he was making decisions he was when it had been forced upon him, when he sort of made it probably reasonable excuses, for example, around the prison estate and so on and his inheritance. The public tended to be irritated by it. The really big test, these big structural questions, the budget will be another one, tax, spend, all of it. These big political questions are unaltered and unchanged from the Starmer era. The question is whether Burnham really does, once the initial sort of honeymoon and the glow has gone, whether his politics is so much more effective and his communication style is so much more effective that he can maintain his popularity whilst weathering those political problems. That to me is going to be the really interesting political test. And actually, just a very simple question of firm choices. Can he make a choice? Can he make a decision and stick to it rather than you turning because, you know, somebody's been awkward and you didn't like it? There are now three women, three women who have accused you of violent behavior. Politico published a report in 2021 that says when you were in high school, you, quote, pushed a girl out of the dorm of his room and she fell down some stairs after he became enraged when she resisted his attempts to touch her, according to three people who were there and many more who heard about the incident in the aftermath. Now, you deny that. But the woman in question told Mother Jones reporter Abby Basulis just days ago that it happened and was, quote, one of the more traumatic nights of her life. Now, that's the whole individual to go on the record, because I was told, hold on, because I'm not done with the list of women that have accused you of violence. Then there is a former White House press secretary. OK, you were young. Then there's a former White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, who was your ex-girlfriend. She accused you of being abusive and having a violent streak. She wrote in her book, quote, I could do nothing right by him. I would wake up every morning shaking with anxiety about his mood that day. I had seen his temper before, and it had scared me, unquote. She has recently filed a temporary restraining order against you in a defamation case. And now there are these claims from your ex-wife, Emily Marino. And I guess the question is, are all three of these women who don't know each other, are all three of them lying? Yes, it's very easy, and I can tell you why. Every single time, and people have asked me, what are you going to do? Are you going to drop out of this race? Are you going to resign? Are you going to get out before the deadline? And my answer to you, Jake, is no. And I can tell you why. In 2016, when President Donald J. Trump faced the most extreme allegations in the world that hit him day after day after day, and people in the media, very much like yourself and others, said that he would have no shot at winning, that he should not be the president of the United States. But guess what? He stayed in, and he was resilient. And what the American people can see is that they can see that somebody is fighting who is resilient, and that is a quality that the American people cherish. That is Max Miller, Republican congressman in Ohio. I mentioned him a little bit earlier in the episode. And he was on CNN last night trying to explain why three different women had all made allegations of domestic violence against him that were completely false, and why he was not going to pull out the race, because his hero, Donald J. Trump, had also faced allegations in 2024, also been found viable of domestic abuse by the courts, and yet had gone on to win the presidency. That is the blueprint now. And you're talking about him on News Agents USA? We are talking about him at length on News Agents USA. And I suppose the good news for Mr. Miller is that if it does all go wrong in American politics, he can always stand for local government for the Conservative Party. Exactly right. Yemi, we've got another one. We're doing your recruiting here. Yeah, we'll see you tomorrow. We'll be back then. Bye for now. The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity. This has been a global production.