Number 10 vs the Treasury? - VoiceTube: Learn English through videos!

Subtitles section Play video

nicked.
Austin, Thank you for joining us.
Thank you very much for your time today.
On this rather surprisingly eventful day, we were told not to expect any surprises.
And number 10 is telling us of Senator Jeffords resignation.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Totally ordinary.
Nick, you're in the treasury for many years.
Is that how it feels to you as you watch today Unfold?
No.
Clearly.
Ah, Mr Javert is resignation.
It was not expected.
It wasn't in the script.
It certainly hadn't been brief.
But these?
I mean, on the one hand, these things happening.
Reshuffles.
On the other hand, it normally happen to translators on dhe, um, trances.
Resigning eyes always quite a serious event.
Um, of see Mr Davies resigned.
Norman Lamont.
I think it's fair to say was sacked.
Nigel Lawson definitely resigned.
But in each of these cases, it didn't end very well for the prime minister at Torsten.
Does this have any echoes in history, or are we looking at a rather unique moment?
I think the thing that is slightly unique about it is because chances do go whether by choice or not.
The unique thing is that the degree of which the timing of the going is sent me by accident, I think is unusual.
The level of the level off going into a process with a reasonably exactly relaxed attitude to whether or not you would have a chance to by the end of the day is unusual.
Monkey will do not go into reshuffles in doubt about who the chance to is coming out on.
That appears to be in how we started today, and we've ended with one outcome.
But that is unusual on what what we're being told is that a lot Number 10 wanted was a David Cameron George Osborne relationship.
Nothing to see here.
Perfectly normal, just two teams humming is one.
But that wasn't quite how it was in those days when George was one had his own specially selected team.
It was number 10 crawling all over the budget.
Things first say that in opposition wth E Cameron Osborne, advisers were pretty interchangeable.
They all work for the same floor in in their office, but once in dining street, the teams were very separate.
Yes, they worked very closely together, but it was on the basis that the Treasury was there Thio take the lead in advising on economic issues.
Andi, it's also fair.
Say Cameron didn't have an economic advisor, Um, so it was very clear where the advice was coming from.
I think I think this is qualitatively different.
I think we should recover.
Is like everyone in Westminster on other advisers loves Talking about advisors is if that's the issue.
Like the relationship between in David Cameron and George Osborne's teams was to do with the principles it was to do with the ratio between David Cameron and George Osborne, the advisers, the structure of your advisors who sits in which office all the rest is all window dressing.
That's what follows from the structure of the relationship between the prime minister chancellor.
And that is what matters.
Which is why, if it's true that the reason he is going is because off that they made suggestions for changing individual sets of advisers, then that is a bad way to decide to your chances because, he advises, is not the issue issues are.
You either want an individual to be your chance to take the big economic decisions with you that need taking or you don't and it does not matter who it's worth recalling that Nigel Awesome resigned over Mrs Thatcher, choosing to have Alan Walters, her advisor.
But actually, the reason why Nigel Wilson really resigned wasn't there was a big difference of policy.
Now, in this case, I don't think about policy, but I think it's about, Ah, the correct roll on relationship between number 11 and number 10.
Now, Mr Javy, as I understand it, and I'm not placed these matters had an unfortunate experience in the summer where his adviser was marched out of dining street on Dhe.
So to try that on a second time on a wholesale scale is basically saying We want to be in charge and you're going to be subordinate.
That's what it comes down to.
Basically, chances are subordinate, but the relationship, but it's best rests on the degree of creative tension.
The prime minister's there to lead the government to win elections.
But the chancellor in the treasury there occasionally say, Well, hang on a second.
We ought to worry about the economy.
On Dhe.
It is a form of check on balance and where the relationship works well.
Governments tend to be very successful, but it does me no equals.
But in a sense, the chancellor is sort of first among equals when it comes to the rest of the Cabinet on dhe.
Historically, whether it was George Osborne, Gordon Brown came close.
Um, Nigel Lawson.
They were treated in that manner.
But maybe no more or not for the new occupants tendency.
What implications would that have?
If it's if so, if they aren't trying to subordinate the chancellor and therefore the Treasury, what could that mean?
Well, first, we don't know where this is going to end up.
Ken Clark always told me that after John Major had sack Norman Lamont, it made it impossible for him to sack.
He came Clark, Now the new guy.
I didn't know he, by all accounts, he's very talented guy.
He may be another Ken Clarke, but actually, the current chancellor is currently in a stronger position.
And Sergeant Javy, he's got a budget coming up.
Um, you know, if he were to threaten to resign, that could be really quite dangerous for Mr Johnson.
It's certainly be finished finishing time for Mr Cummings, who might suspect, in any case, as a result of what's happened today.
His life expectancy in Downing Street is probably contracted a bit.
But I mean to answer your question.
You know, if if actually the deal is that he is going to be taped to take explored in it and take instructions from number 10 that will have interesting consequences in the long run, because it probably means higher spending, bigger deficits, the absence of difficult decisions now, normally in politics.
It's the first year of parliament.
You take the tough decisions now.
So far, this government, as far as far as I can see his only focused on spending decisions.
I speak to spending more money on the health service and so on.
E.
I mean, in a sense, the test for this regime will be.
Is the budget prepared to take difficult decisions to deliver on a fiscal plan?
Let's just make it concrete.
There's two different kinds of changes that happen, because what's happened there's the relative power relationship between number 10 in the Treasury, and we have no idea where it ends up.
But the direction of travel is clearly into a week, every week of power for the treasury.
Who knows how far it goes it's clearly all else equal leads to Maur some more spending on or in a different kind of process for decision taking the head.
There's more specific issues there, which is like, What is the big question facing this government will have to decide by Christmas this year.
When it's done, it's second budget, and it's spending Review.
How is it reconcile in the wish to look like a new government, one that is in blunt spending a lot more money?
Not only his austerity ended the cuts, but it feels different, as well as delivering the large increase in capital spending.
And it's weighing that up against the trade off, which is we've committed to fiscal rules, which are quite tough on the current budget side eye the day to day public service spending side.
But we haven't quite accepted in our heart of hearts that although we've become a big state conservative party that we've not, we haven't haven't given up on being a low tax conservative party, and that is basically the underlying tension.
Do you stick to these disco rules and put up taxes to deliver their spending increases?
You want to feel like a different government or do you in the end, bottle on the tax rises?
And then the pressure comes back on the fiscal.
And while that chance there was there who put that fiscal rule in place and had it, except to the manifesto, the chance of buckling on the fiscal rule was low.
The Johnson that is now significantly higher.
The chance of us not having the brand new set of fiscal that have just been put through a manifesto election lasting even the length of this year, I think has now gone up quite significantly, but that will be quite damaging to the government's economic credibility.
I mean, it's possible.
My guess actually is the government will stick with those rules.
It might use a bit of smoke and mirrors in order to do it shall lay with an independent fiscal council in the form of the Office for budget Responsibility.
That is more difficult than it was in the past.
But I think to lose a chancellor and then just to throw out some rules which were in your manifesto dollars raised quite serious questions about whether you're interested in having a credible economic policy.
One suggestion was that they number 10.
Dominic Cummings.
I didn't want to raise some taxes.
Now, as is traditional straight after an election, if you've got the majority to do it, Andi, it might be that Maybe that's what we see a bit more off.
They Clearly there's clear difference of Gun Honus.
Okay, about how much you're prepared to engage in controversial that tax pot rises, particularly around things, that where elements of number 10 may be happy.
To say that revenue raisers will be particularly heavy on the top will allow them to deliver a leveling up agenda on a chancellor who was attached to the traditionally to a low tax agenda.
Being in some ways understandably cautious about the individual measures also has been cautious because these things are complicated.
Things that sound easy, like flat rate pension tax relief have a lot of wider implications.
How you do that for divine benefit pension schemes is complicated.
So rightly would be saying we need to get this right, so there's definitely may have been elements of that in this package.
But the bigger picture is what it is with the new chance level with the old chancellor, which is where the contents of your fiscal rule where your tax revenues come from?
Does that allow you to feel like a different government?
Or is it basically more of the same?
Just in terms of you?
Visit you at the Treasury for a long time, Nick.
The time pressure on the new chancellor eyes extraordinary zone, and this is a big moment for our country choosing a new path.
And the rest of this is not just any old budget, either.
New government, new majority and he's got a matter of weeks.
Not many Thio work out what he wants to do.
Yes, now, in a sensible world, they put the budget cut budget back.
You don't have to have a budget in March.
You can have it in April.
In fact, you don't really need a budget all committed legally to to be our forecasts by the end of March.
Already not gonna get that.
Okay, look, But let's assume a go ahead in the first question is how much the new chancellor is.
Chief Secretary of the Treasury has been involved in discussions hitherto so.
Some chances involved three secretaries a lot.
You know, Ken Clarke thought nothing about involving all his ministers in discussions.
Whether he took much notice of them was another matter.
But other chance lose.
You know, the chief secretary virtually found out what the budget waas on the day.
So I don't know.
Um, you know about about that degree of involvement.
What is certain is vert is relatively easy.
To take decisions out of a budget at this stage is relatively easy to take decisions which involve changing a tax rate.
Unfortunately, the government seems to ruled out three easy options of raising tax rates, which are far easier to deliver and actually easier to sell.
Compare and contrast the 20 or 1,000,000,000 George Osborne raised from increasing the VAT rate 20% with the measure to put taxes on pasties, which probably raised a few 100 million on the.
And that's important on DDE.
It's certainly the case when it comes to complicated policies that a chancellor really need to have got their head round it.
They need to be in a position to make the intellectual case, which is why you know, the great tax reforming chance.
Others, like Nigel Lawson, we're making a case for tax reform years.
I from the measures they took.
Even Golden Brown would have used a long process to begin to create a consensus in favor off a higher tax to me.
And I may be being very naive here the idea that suddenly they're gonna introduce the biggest reform to pensions in my lifetime edge of thin air Seems to me a roommate one simply you know, so called mention taxes, a CZ Torsten will no raise a whole lot of difficult and interesting issues.
Andi.
So I just would be It would be quite surprised if I know these things have been brief, but I kind of assumed their brief differently.
Just so they were quite ending radical thoughts.
Thinking radical thoughts is definitely the easy bit of the radical thoughts on the.
The only thing that's later they're not.
I think it's very unlikely we're going to see big tax changes like that announced infirm ways in this budget.
They're not going to be like we're gonna do it exactly like this.
This tax rate, these pension rules, I think the question is, does this chance will have time to make his peace with announcing direction of travels that number 10 would like him to do on dhe.
Is he able to do that in a way with enough sense of where he might end up after consultations have run their course?
Or does he end up feeling railroaded into announcing some things where he doesn't know where they end up where you are basically building intention down the line?
And that is definitely a risk if he's not already Bean thinking through those issues?
As Nick says.
If he hasn't been part of those discussions today, then that is a high risk.
You do not want to be announcing consultations on hard areas of tax policy if you don't know what the answer is.
But to make a sort of a narrow point, Charleston to be able to make the budget ad off, he needs to have firm proposals.
Having just the idea that we're gonna do something about pensions one day does not allow you to school.
No, because somebody says that's true.
But the spending views in the autumn doesn't have to announce the total amount of spending he doesn't want to in this budget.
You can wait on that.
I'm pretty certain what we will end up seeing because they are not going to get to the firm policy proposals on tax on.
We will end up seeing some consultations and then I'll come back in the autumn, announce the big stuff, which is in in one sense, it's a form of actually having a later budget.
This just then becomes another rather insignificant sign posting events, and then some down payment will see.
Like entrepreneurs.
Relief will see some things, but we'll see some down payments on high taxes.
But the hard stuff, uh, is all to come.
Can you just take it?
Take it back to something you said earlier about how the Treasury is this sort of bit of the brain in government that is always thinking about responsibility and not spending more than we've got it.
What could it looked like?
This, this government?
Or what could this country look like if we hadn't had a treasury like that for years?
Other countries we can point to, because we could be moving into that sort of period.
If Dominic Cummings has that kind of intent and doesn't think that bit of the brain functions and just wants to neutralize it, not have it as part of the organs of government.
That's that's a whole new dispensation is quite doable.
Look, it's happened in this country in 1972.
Effectively, Edward, he took over economic policy.
He had an unelected official eso William Armstrong, who was described at the time as the deputy prime minister who effectively was the prime minister's enforcer on dhe sort of policy.
Lead on dhe Anthony Barber, who was there then Chancellor Waas, perhaps one of the weakest chancellors in living memory time, is calling all the shots.
S O, I think, is pretty.
It's fair to say that during that period, Number 10 called the shots.
So you spend your president with what effect?
Well, in the case of heats of rampant inflation, I wouldn't blame the three day week killed.
There was a lot of things, but things got out of control.
A failed incomes fail anti inflation policy on dhe, a seriously difficult set of public finances which the Labour government then inherited in 74.
In one sense, it was the beginning of the the the the downhill slope to wars, the IMF in 76.
So look, we're in a different world.
Fortunately, these days.
Borrowing is very cheap on dhe.
The way the markets take revenge on profligate governments is usually through the exchange rate on British on.
The British people, for some reason, seem amazingly relaxed about devaluation in a way which they weren't when there was a fixed exchange rate.
So I don't think I think you know the risk for the traditional treasury is that you cried wolf through often on dhe too early.
Nevertheless, if you carry on spending Maur than you raise in tax significantly over a long period, it tends to end badly.
Which is why, in the end, you need something like the Treasury don't have to call the Treasury.
But you need somebody who actually is gonna worry about the public finances and in a sense, represent the taxpayer because this is also about the value for money, which you get from your tax pound.
And if you just spray money around and let's face it, all of the difficult decisions have yet to be taken.
This is the decayed when demographic pressures really build up.
The government has yet to take any position.
As far as I can make out on long term care is made lots of commitments on spending on, but some point somebody is gonna have to prioritize.
But if you've got a neutered treasury and that may have been the intent, it certainly looks like it.
And a chancellor who came to office on those terms, some of the building blocks of there from the start talking, you can't you can't going towards the next little it, like this is it is not following another chance of the no, it's easy.
I think some of the reaction today is the chance has been sacked.
This is Johnson taking a treasure.
I think, actually, this could actually rebound in the end.
The new chancellor.
If he's as good as everybody says years, Andi, the Treasury actually will be ultimately empowered, not necessarily in short run.
But if the chancellor, you know, has a clear strategy asserts it is persuasive, could actually go down well in the country.
Things could easily change that.
I don't I don't think Johnson really is that interested in running the Treasury.
I mean, he's interested in announcing spending commitments which make him popular, and you think he's just being a good photo opportunity down this part of it by his chief advisor.
He's always tempting to blame advisers for everything and advisers in the end come and go.
I think it's a reasonable proposition to try on Dhe.
Create a more cohesive center.
Many prime ministers have sought this.
Some have been more successful than others, but and for all I know is he.
But May parts on a subconscious level of wanted Mr Javy to resign.
I didn't need a name.
He spent an hour drive, persuade him not to.
But that doesn't preclude that everything.
But you wouldn't.
You don't go into a day proposing like having a row with the Chancellor unless you're prepared for him to go.
And if you did, if you did, do you a very unwise because if you went into me, do you think your chance was a genius?
Don't let them walk out because you don't know more guys over this you would have found a way through.
It's just not important.
It's madness.
Who can see the invisible?
Not exactly.
You suggested that this could when we look back five years from now, whatever looked like the moment of overreach by Dominic Cummings by the number 10 machine.
That could be how this is remembered, because it's created this moment of chaos.
It's not the beginning of his Maoist revolution.
It's possibly the fighters.
Indispensable revenge old devices, advisors who spend their time promoting themselves on becoming stars of their own drama.
There's any one way this is gonna end up.
The only issue is when are you seeing that things are the way they've always bean in politics and so many bits of the landscape?
They're not just going to have a couple.
Things are definitely different in terms of political coalitions, how elections take place or referendums turning up over the not turning up.
Those things are different, but government isn't permanent revolution.
There is a long haul.
Four years of this government has got a majority things need doing in policy terms.
Yes, big changes can happen.
But in the end, the constraints and the structures that exist about making change actually happen on the ground are as real as ever.
They don't change because you just want them to the ability within a government of different people sitting in different departments, tohave to make collective decision together.
Noel just be told exactly what's gonna happen is still the same.
So lost of the constraints that drive a structure to operate like it does are still there.
Yes, you can weaken individual bits of them, but the whole system will not run as one permanent revolution.
And actually the the government's This is as good as it gets.
Um, among the one thing from the golden premises, Mr Johnson, honey, I mean, the one thing we know is in the modern world, governments moved from being popular to very unpopular incredibly quickly.
If they went to the popular on the point when the prime minister becomes weak, he actually has Thio worry about about his team and at that point, advisers easily dispensable.
We've seen this.
We saw it with Charlie Wheelan.
We sort of Alistair Campbell.
It's a point when when the indispensable Because Timothy, older people who have briefed themselves as geniuses on everybody writes articles about how they're determining every single looking cranny of government strategy.
The wind changes, they g o life goes on.
These guys aren't elected, they are dispensable.
If you're an official, you're totally dispensable on dhe.
So I I think it's dangerous to be too focused on the advisors.
Yes, I'm sure Mr Cummings would be very influential.
He's started on Channel four dramas in the form of Mr Cumberbatch.
But you know he's not gonna be there in five years time.
Could I just say to you about the central mission of this government?
Is they've articulated it, Leveling up that phrase if you'd have the If you were in the treasury as they had come back into the office with their majority in December, having heard what they had say, having looked at the manifest in the rest of you have had much of a clue what leveling up was really about.
Do you think they really No, what it's about, I think I think they're gonna perfectly reasonable objective, very similar, actually to the objective of new lay buried in the early 2000 a sense that London and the Southeast has grown rapidly that they want to ensure this divergence in Greif, in living standards between regions is reduced.
It it It's a sensible objective.
If you want to promote social cohesion, it's a sort of objective you should be pushing for.
The problem is always the transmission mechanism.
Um, government since the war.
Generally, have Bean committed this policy, you could argue that the Thatcher government maybe was less committed than others.
You can throw money at regions that tends not help.
You can do make long term changes, all of which a very technical and boring, but require incredible focus and attention on dhe, you know, a delivery unit and the prime minister sitting round a table and focusing on every last detail.
Not because Prime Minister's actually can do this single handedly, but it needs prioritization.
No, it may be that this is gonna be Mr Johnson's mission, and he will see through wholesale change to the system of further education, which is defied other governments.
Have you been I'm a bit more Ah, positive In a sense of Look what we've done so far so far.
We've agreed at high speed to broadly there leave aside, however, and stuff.
But we've agreed high speed to that is not the answer to regional leveling up.
Whether or not you think it's a good thing or not is kind of slightly, you know, by the Bible, doesn't know what it actually achieves.
But there are things that we know would make a difference, like interested t transport within smaller urban regions.
We've seen a bus announcement that's vaguely in that direction.
Although relatively small in scale, we know that skills would make a difference.
We know that an overhaul, which they are planning, but we'll need the kind of operational delivery focus Nick is talking about on T levels and sorting out our friendship system.
Those things are the right kind of policy levers that are being talked about.
They would make a difference over the long term in the short term.
But will they have to show for their money large, visible infrastructure projects in places that conservative ministers haven't tended to turn up to in the past?
So they be combining politically visible things with long term policy change that, with the right delivery focus, could could start to deliver change.
And in the end, I think, you know all governments need a mission.
Otherwise they're just making 1000 decisions without any overarching objective.
That is a perfectly good mission for the country, and actually, the gaps on living standards in Britain have actually of anything probably being closing slightly over the recent years.
But the gaps on productivity.
You have not having that at your core.
Objective is a That's a good thing for a government to be doing.
I think, as you rightly say, most governments with the possible exception of the 19 eighties have wanted to close those gaps.
But we haven't delivered on it, and I think in some areas I don't think it's true to say efforts weren't made in lots of areas.
But if we focus specifically on further education, for example, I think it is fair to say we haven't tried holding up in the palace that it's about time we did.
But I agree with you, and I think actually full of progress has been made.
If you look at the great Northern cities, they are in a far better state and far more dynamic that the challenge is the northern towns, the places which aren't in city reading.
They come in two different categories rose.
The room Barnsley backbone is far more difficult if you don't have a university to drive innovation and to attract a broader range of people into the area, including entrepreneurs.
Are some of them actually unreachable, so to speak?
No, they can't turn something Places.
I think I don't think you can cut these places off.
You shouldn't be defeatist on DDE and have been a huge number of experiments over the years, some more successful than others.
So I think if I was there, I would be wanting to really try and produce the best evidence of what?
You know what I mean?
Just because there have been a lot of experiments over time, time when governments have lots of money, they tend to spread it around.
But they're being periods.
Actually, when resources have been pretty constrained.
But there's called.
Torsten says you can fake us on particular transports games on dhe, so on.
And I agree with Torsten.
I think on infrastructure, Tiki railways.
I think the North has lost age.
And I do.
I mean, the decision to be made on high speed, too, and I don't want to go on about it.
You certainly say that, but it doesn't, but we're gonna be going on about it, but hell to 25 years ago.
And I am.
But it is.
No, it doesn't.
No, uh, take a lot of the resource which is available and what worries me is if you're if you're really serious about prioritizing it, I probably wouldn't have wanted to put all my eggs in there, too.
But there is a bit optimism on this, okay?
Nothing like what is really hard.
There are hard questions in economic geography, about places that are totally disconnected.
Always say's.
Britain is a small country on England, in particular, is a small country.
There are very few places that is totally impossible, that are not part of a broader ecosystems.
I think we should be like this.
Too much of people saying, Oh, look, Midwest America, the middle of nowhere.
It's really hard for these places we've had.
We've seen big population falls in some mid American cities.
Trump on other things.
Other really, really careful.
That is not what Britain looks like.
Britain is a small country.
Places can be connected.
Opportunity can be spread in a way that is not hard to do in a big country.
Dancing about the report you just produced your think tank here, produced this week about those seats, those voters.
It helped Brice Johnson to this majority.
What do we know about what they'd like from this Chancellor doesn't make a damn whether it's Sergeant Jared or issues sooner.
I have that affair a za fair statement there.
But it's not for me to say what they would want, what they want.
People should go and ask them what they want in terms of weight to tell us about.
Those places are on the individual voters, and what it tells us is there are a lot of the myths about them or misplace.
It is not true that these are the oldest places in Britain.
Most of the seats that switch from the labor to deserters are middle aged seats.
They're pretty much spot on the national average.
They are not the poorest places in Britain, although mostly in the north of it below average income.
But they are not the poorest parts off the north of England.
The middle income parts off off the north and more importantly, it is not true to say they've bean declining.
Historically, a ll the time their relative decline is broadly opposed.
2010 feature and I would be worried if I was in those seats.
Looking at slower employment growth since the financial crisis, a slightly bigger pace.
Greece since then house prices growing at half the rate in these seats as compared to the rest of the country on the most important thing I think to take away from the research work is that is the story that is young people are leaving these seats are moving to London is the opposite of the truth.
These seats are defined by much lower rates of young people moving out of them and also much lower rates of people moving into them, either from other parts of the UK or from abroad.
This lower migration rates and the combination of those two is creating a demographic kind of Stasis, which is different to the rest of the country.
I actually liked it, so I took one thing away that policymakers need to think much harder about.
It's that the properly seat is not people leaving it is that they are less connected to the country more generally, either whether people leave or whether he will come into them.
And that that does.
Marking out on that is not what Policy has an answer to the sun's gone down on this extraordinary reshuffle day.
What will the movie like in the Treasury tonight.
I think it's like slightly confused if you unexpected changes in Chancellor's always difficult to respond to.
You think this is a low budget in a few weeks time and suddenly the main man's gone, You or someone you know, It's great.
He's in the treasury.
So that's the start of remember, last best thing.
John Major went to them that number 10 normal amount stepped up to being chancellor.
That was something, you know, you could You could kick with Norman of being there for years, done several jobs, but I think they'll just be a degree of uncertainty about the future.
But I think, but also about intent about contained but with 10 up to.
But if you work in the Treasury, you're used to rationalizing adversity on something the first response will be Well, look, um, we're gonna make this work.
Ah, we've got to adjust to the new, um, motus operandi.
Um, but they'll be in unlined.
You'll say that.
Look, in the long run, the pendulum will swing.
We're in destructive on dhe support.
Hasn't perspective like how individuals feel on the day of a slightly Celtic reshuffle is important.
What really matters is the big decisions, How much we're spending, What are we taxing?
What we're boring is a country and how serious to be lookers, elation.
That is the big thing that matters.
That's what people in the Treasury in the end care about.
Yes, confusion, slight anxiety about the protest that's got us here.
But in the end, give it a few weeks and batters is the big decisions that were taken those in the budget and they were taking him in the second budget in this autumn.
Isn't that what we should focus?
I wouldn't even give a few weeks, but 24 hours, 48 hours settle down.
You know Trump's has come and go on.
Prime ministers come and go.
If your opponent official, you just have to work with all of them and you do the best you can.
That's a That's a good lesson for life.
Do the best you can both thank you very much.