Hello and welcome to the forecast. Donald Trump, back in the White House, is blasting out news like a fire hydrant. How does Keir Starmer, how does Europe deal with him and how should they deal particularly with these outpourings? To discuss this, I'm joined by two journalists who've dabbled in politics, Michael Gove, editor of The Spectator and a cabinet minister under 4
Conservative prime ministers. Tom Baldwin, who worked for Ed Miliband when he was Labour leader and for the campaign for a second referendum on the EU parked for now, I think he's the biographer of Keir Starmer and also in the studio.
I hope that's all right, Michael, an expert, the head of the Europe program at Chatham House, Amila van Rai, thank you all for joining us. And I think probably as we're talking about the bow wave from President Trump, let's start with you, Michael, as someone who's met him, as you've observed these first few interventions, probably many more to come from the White House. How much do you think Donald Trump genuinely knows when he
says something? We've obviously just been hearing about Gaza, but we've also been hearing about tariffs, Greenland, much else besides, How much does he have a clear idea in his head about where he truly wants to go, any sort of strategy? What's your sense of him from meetings, from what you've seen? I think he does. There's an old trope about Donald Trump that you shouldn't take him literally, but you should take him seriously. I think that sometimes there'll be rhetorical excesses.
Sometimes he can't help himself. Sometimes it will seem as though, you know, when past diplomats would have, you know, found themselves going through the UN, the WTO and the EU. It sounds as though he's on MDMA when he's speaking. But at the heart of it, there is a broad strategic view, and that broad strategic view is that America has been suckered for too long, that America is a Gulliver that has been tied down by those international institutes.
But that's a broadview. That's not that's not telling us that when he says something specific, there is definitely a plan behind it. There I think there is a plan.
I think that some of the manifestations of that plan may backfire, but overall that plan is to have a a realist, a realpolitik view in which America having been held back by international law, having been held back by the institutions that it was paying for, as he sees it, NATO and the the UN in particular, now it is time for America to assert its own interests and in so doing, respond to a particular threat, as he perceives it, from China and its allies.
I mean, the European leaders have had their first taste of Trump second time round. Do you get a sense how much of the headspace he's been occupying these 2 1/2 weeks? How much? How much they give credit to what he's saying? How much they credit him with a plan when he opens his mouth. I mean, he's probably taking up more headspace than he should. And that's because Europe, as we know, has got huge challenges in terms of Russia's war in Ukraine on the border, in terms of competitiveness.
These are really quite serious structural issues. And yet Europe is trying to figure out how to respond to Trump, who wants to invade Greenland. That's not a constructive or productive use of time, yet that's where we are. Tom, I'd like to ask you, because you wrote Keir Starmer's biography, how you think he's going to cope. We know his current plan in terms of how he deals with Donald Trump's utterances. Zip it. Basically pause, try and think
if it's real. Try and think if there's something behind it that he's really getting at some other trade you can do. That seems to be. I mean, I'm told that's exactly the plan. Can you hold to it? Do you think the Keir Starmer that you've studied in got to know? I think one thing you're definitely going to get from Keir Starmer is an absence of posture. He's not going to be striking a position to please the crowd, to please his party, to please the press.
He's going to look for that little space, that ambiguity, that nuance where you can find a consensus. Now, that won't always be elegant, but it's probably the best way to pursue the national interest. And he's a he's a very restrained guy. Must have been quite a difficult biography to write in some ways, but he must have little trip wires himself. We watched him when Elon Musk was showering abuse online on him, on his government, on much else to do with Britain.
And it seemed to say the trip wire was when Elon Musk went for Jess Phillips. And I mean, I just wonder, could there be other trip wires there for him with with Donald Trump? He'll go too far on something and he'll just feel the pressure from within. And we could put the one side, the pressure from the party, which could be immense on some issues. You feel he's got to respond. There there will be moments where they have to disagree.
I mean, he's already effectively disagreed about, you know, the plan to turn Gaza Strip into into the Riviera of the Middle East. You know, he said that Palestinians must be allowed to go home. He doesn't necessarily do it from by a position of shouting or, you know, doing a sort of Hugh Grant and love. Actually, he will make his case in the right way. I think he's probably done better than most other Democratic leaders in preparing for and dealing with Trump so far. It is difficult.
But the way he dealt with Elon Musk was interesting because he was being attacked and he just wrote it out. There's no point getting interest back with Elon Musk. It's much easier to do it if you're defending somebody else. If you're defending coming to the aid of a of ministerial colleague, then, you know, bleating about how how unfair it is that you're being portrayed by Elon Musk in this horrible
way. So I think you're finding the right vehicle and the right moment is very important for him. The first big round that Europe's had to contest with is the the threat of tariffs from President Trump. What's your sense of how they measured this? They've watched what happened to Canada. They've watched what happened to Mexico. Do they think with them it could similarly be transactional or could it be actually different?
Nigel Farage was saying yesterday he he thinks Donald Trump has a different plan for Europe, which is basically to put a tariff all there for good. I think what Trump seemed so, so we know that Trump doesn't like the EU as a set of institutions. What I think we'll we'll see is countries who try to bilateralize their, I don't think that's a word, but go for the bilateral relationship. Here's a word now.
There we go with Trump, rather than going through the EU, because they might try to hedge in their own national interest or how they see it in their own national interest, because they know that Trump doesn't like the EUI think with Trump the difficulty is you don't know where he's going to stop. So you might give him something, but he will go further and he'll
come back. We're seeing this already with some of the Baltic states who announced that they would raise their defence spending to 5%, which is exactly what Trump has called for. the US doesn't spend 5% on defence. Doesn't matter. Trump has made the call. The Baltic states, who are tiny and on the border with Russia, have responded. Now, in terms of what this means for the EU, that's obviously a huge issue if Trump is picking off countries 1 by 1, um, because that undermines EU
unity. And what we've also seen under Trump's first term, when, uh, Juncker was still commissioned president, is that actually he was to some extent somewhat able to, um, talk about to use trade diplomacy as an effective tool to stave off some of the worst consequences of potential tariffs. Some people think he played Donald Trump quite well. Yes. And he had a reputation as a man who couldn't always manage the stairs, Jean Claude Juncker. But he he seemed to on this one,
people give him full marks. Yes, exactly. And of course Wanderlein hasn't had experience with Trump directly just yet, I think. No. Well, she did at the end of his second term. Didn't. Yes. Yeah, a slight slide over, but we know he doesn't like women. We know he doesn't like the EU, so she's going to have a harder
ride on that front. I think what is quite clear, you know, the Commission has been preparing for months at this point, so they have a clear sense of what their offer will be and how they will retaliate if if things do escalate in that way. But I guess the question is, does Trump care? And I don't know that he does, ultimately. Michael, Donald Trump pretty much said in the run up to this election that tariffs were a religion. The most beautiful word in the
English language. Exactly, and you were clearly in the room with him for quite a long time by the picked up some of his traits. Is it though, or is this actually a ploy the the the building developers shimmy is, I mean the the external Revenue Service, is that really going to replace the Internal Revenue Service?
The the the Trump loves tariffs, and his interest in politics was particularly provoked in the in the 1980s by what he believed was the taking of America's economy by Japan then, rather than China. He's got a very transactional, very mercantilist view of trade and of power overall, and tariffs for him serve 3 purposes.
So there's the the negotiating tool, as we've seen with Mexico and Canada. So the tariff is a cudgel and indeed it was used towards Colombia in order to make sure that he could send Colombian migrants back there. Then there's the tariff as an economic tool. And what he wants to do is to effectively create a pro American trade bloc to rival what he sees as China's. And then the third one, exactly as you say, is as a revenue
generator. In the past, in the 19th century, America levied most of the the money that it needed for a federal purposes from external tariffs rather than from income tax. And in Trump's utopia, reactionary utopia, that is the way to go. A. Lot of people watching the way he did dealt with Mexico and Mexico and Canada would think actually, no, it's it's, it isn't a real greed. It is simply a bargaining check. What's wrong?
He sees them in different ways, so he will deploy them interchangeably for different purposes. And there's a piece in this week's Spectator, if you'll forgive the plug, by an economist called Oren Cass, who runs a think tank called American Compass, which is a pro tariff, pro Trump broadly think tank. And in it, Orencast outlines the way in which one of the reasons why Trump likes tariffs is that they can serve different purposes at different times. And also he loves the fact
they're transgressive. You know, there's there's sort of taboo around them that that post war history has been apparently in the direction of freer trade. And now he's standing afought history and saying stop. What marks do you give Keir Starmer so far in the way he's been handling Trump? I think to be fair, Starmer's handled things very well. By all accounts, Keir Starmer's favorite Labour leader was Harold Wilson.
Harold Wilson had all sorts of difficulties when he was Prime Minister dealing with the Vietnam War, LB JS demands and then subsequently Nixon Ford, and that was a period when it was a potentially Rocky, but Wilson, using the the guile and skill that was his hallmark, managed to navigate an effective
route through that. I don't think Starham is directly modelling himself and Wilson in every regard, but I think he can certainly say at the moment that, like Wilson, he's managed to show an adroitness in the handling of
the transatlantic relationship. That raises a question I'd like to ask you about, Tom. The degree to which you think Keir Starmer, who has made a virtue really of coming from outside politics and into politics later in life, the degree to which he knows his political history. This might seem like a slight digression, but you've been to his house, I think. Is it on the bookshelves? Are they're political books like a lot of US obsessives have?
Or is it a different range of interests and good novels for the beach? He does read political books. I remember going to his house once and finding out how Wilson biography on his sofa. Not, not a newly written one by a minister in his cabinet. It was it was that one. OK, well, that's slightly different. But I mean, maybe it's just polite to read it.
But, but I, I, I think he, he does know political history, also knows a lot about foreign policy through his previous incarnations, you know, so as a human rights lawyer, he travelled around the world. Yes, I think he may have. Mentioned Heads of Government right as as as Director of Public Prosecutions. I think he's mentioned that job.
Yeah, he, he, he, he dealt, he was actually part, you know, Euro just meetings and he, he, he represented Britain in Washington and meetings of Eric Holder than Justice secretary of the United States and then a shadow Brexit secretary. He travelled around Europe trying to get a better deal than the awful one that we got. Now, you know, that is considerable foreign policy experience. It's considerable understanding of the world.
And what's interesting about it, I think is each one of those is located in what Churchill called the three spheres of influence that we have. Yeah, the Commonwealth, the United States and Europe. And he wants to stay close to all three. Because we're not actually.
And, well, I want to ask about that exactly because when we were waiting for what seemed inevitable Keir Starmer to walk into #10 not always inevitable, but inevitable, as we got closer to the general election, there was quite a sort of trope going around in maybe in think tanks, but certainly in journalism, that Trump would force Keir Starmer into Europe's arms. It doesn't look like that is happening at all, does he?
Trump is clearly trying to drive a wedge between the UK and the EU and is doing so. I mean, we'll, we'll see whether he'll be successful. We know, you know. Starmer was in Brussels earlier this week. All went very smoothly. They seem pleased to. See, seen very. I mean, I think the real thing is we can all talk and that's nice, but we have to put meat on the bones so they have a. Clue. I mean, we're coming up for a renegotiation. Do they have a clue what he really wants in Europe?
No, I think the the UK has made it very clear that they want to seek a reset in UK EU relations. Given the political context, that's probably a positive thing. Not probably that is a positive thing. But the the problem is that a the UK isn't clear about what it's offering and what would be different. And because of EU KS self-imposed red lines really, which are not rejoining the single market and not rejoining the customs union, there's actually very little wiggle,
wiggle room for manoeuvre. So that makes this reset quite difficult. I was. Just wondering because Tom was active trying to get a second referendum and you knew probably got to knew Nokia Starmer back back then. How much do you think it pains him that he he's not tiptoeing towards Europe remotely? Really. I mean, he turns turning up for a dinner, but he's not doing any of the big stuff that might have been thought was up his straight back. There. Well, let's come back. I agree. Not yet.
I, I, I I think it could. Be a phase two to all of this. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a certain amount of impatience that they haven't got a win yet, and that's impatient stretching across government into Downing St. and beyond that. So far all we've got is some meetings and tending meetings is great symbolically, but it's not done anything to improve the, you know, the appalling circumstances that we were left in after Brexit. Nothing to mitigate the damage
that that's done. And they need to get some wins now. You know, in an ideal world, I mean, this is a very, very challenging time, but it is possible, I think, for Britain to end up with improved trading relations with both Europe and America out of this. But that requires a certain amount of ducking and diving between the two of them, which I think they're ready to do.
A bigger and more important question for Keir Starmer, I think, is this security issue where it's not about a transactional, you know, what can we get out of them? It's how do we actually protect the security of Europe from threats from without and within. And that is also Trump is crucial to that too. Well, there's a the, the, yeah,
there's a huge amount there. I want to come back to the media on it in a second because what, what what does defence cooperation really mean when it comes to the European Union? But I wanted to ask you, Michael, you've written a piece in this week's, is it called Spectator magazine? Yeah, yes. And, and it's about Morgan McSweeney. Yes. Who's the chief of staff and was the campaign organiser for for
Keir Starmer and. And you get an impression from your you've had conversations he's actually with him, with Trump. You seem incredibly well connected. He's very nervous of Europe still, by the sound of it, it's still the third rail. He's nervous of quite a few things which the left traditionally quite likes. But that, that's part of it, isn't it? Do you think that will actually govern Keir Starmer's relationship with Europe?
I think it would be a factor. So Morgan Mcsweeney's analysis and the analysis of those around him of the of the last election and of Labour's future is that, and it's a contested analysis, but one that he holds fast to, is that voters in the red Wall, voters who had backed Boris and Brexit came home to Labour in 2024. And that reopening the Brexit issue risks pushing them aside. Added to that, the biggest threat to Labour at the moment is not the Conservatives, but
reform. And so Labour needs to be an insurgent party on the side of working people, not on the side of metropolitan elites as it were, as it might be seen. So therefore sounds like you. Therefore, Europe is is doubly bad and Europe is triply bad because migration is a touchstone issue for many of these voters. And one of the things that the the EU would most like to see as part of any reset is a youth mobility agreement.
We actually have youth mobility agreements with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It's not a return to free movement, but it would be a relaxation of the current status quo in migration terms with the EU. And you could imagine Morgan, because we can well imagine how in the hands of Nigel Farage that could be used against this
Labour government. I'm just going to say one thing briefly on the Security question, which is a a potential Achilles heel for Keir Starmer, of course, is the ceding of sovereignty on the Chagos Islands. But what is interesting so far is that lots of people who are Trump adjacent have expressed anger about it. But Trump himself? He hasn't said a dicky bird. It's the dog that hasn't barred, and that's intriguing. Yeah, might not have found it on the map.
Ameda, I did want to ask you realistically when people talk about the defence cooperation in Europe, there seem to be a lot of different versions of what that is. And some people are less keen to only get their defence kit out of Europe because they always want to have ties with America and the rest of it. How realistic is is that over trumpeted a bit? It's a, it's a grabby phrase.
It makes it sound, it sounds serious, but would it actually amount to a row of beans even if there was an agreement along the lines that that are being mapped out at at the moment if we looked back a few years from now? I think it could be a game changer if we're serious about it and if we're going to do it properly and we have to be serious about it because of the worsening external security environment. And then add to that a US ally
who is still an ally. But there is bipartisan focus on the Indian Pacific, which may mean in the kind of medium to long term resources currently in Europe being reallocated elsewhere in the world, that means that Europe as a whole has to step up. And so this isn't about UK defence or EU defence or anything in between. It's about European defence and what that looks like so that, you know, we can defend ourselves against Russia and and
any other kind of adversaries. I was trying to ask you, Tom, if if, if you think Keir Starmer, it pains him not to be able to embrace Europe, not to be able to do the project that you were jointly engaged on, trying to get a second referendum ages ago. But if if not doing that then then getting closer than he now feels able to get the man you describe in your book, his formative experiences, not being
very particularly emotive. The rest of it, maybe he just compartmentalises it and moves on, but what's your sense of where Europe does his heartbeat for it or it's he's moved on? I think his Europeanism is based on 1945, not 1972, is based on that blood bond of the ECHR coming together to say this must never happen again. What you know, you know what, what Hitler did to his own people, that's, you know, that
is the absolute core. And this, this human rights framework, this, this and that matters to him more. I think that sort of defense of a Liberal Democratic Europe than a transaction, any deal on this or that, you know, you know, when you get a veterinary agreement and so on. What is key though is, you know, the government is now prioritising growth above all other things. If you're going to prioritise growth above all other things,
it's quite hard to say. Oh, but we can't do anything about Europe. It's quite hard to say actually. You can't have a grown up conversation about immigration and what skills we need. So this is. Your phase two point is it. So this, this comes back to the MC Sweeney issue, I think, which is if you have a very, very sharply edged political agenda, as Michael's written this week about, you know, the red wall and white working class. And you got a reader. I have. I have read it. It's free.
Yeah. That creates contradictions in what you're trying to do in government. That creates tensions elsewhere in government. And I think that the, the, the key to understanding Keir Starmer is always to under recognise he sees the world as a complex place rather than a simple place. He doesn't like shallow, trite 3 word slogans. He recognises there's trade-offs. So yes, he wants to win those red wall seats. He also wants to call into those blue wall seats.
Yes, he wants to, you know, deal with people's anxiety about immigration, but he also wants to get the skills we need to make our public services around work and our economy grow. So there's trade-offs everywhere. And I think I saw very narrow idea of mixed Sweeney's totally in what to do. That's not that's not how it is. It's more complicated than. I'm sure that three word slogan jibe wasn't addressed to you, take back control and all that.
But do you think phase there could be a phase two? Could you envisage Rachel Reeves panicking, no growth, trying to reach over for dynamic alignment as it's called on certain sectors of British industry at the tail end of this government as it gets closer to a general election? Or do you, do you think actually what we're looking at at the moment, what Amit has been describing is probably the
settled scope of ambition? I I don't think that there will be much change during this parliamentary term. So you, as everyone has acknowledged the, the trade and cooperation agreement has to come up for renegotiation. There are certain issues that were parked and certain others
that are up for review. But I don't think there will be much movement because again, for there to be significant movement, then the self declared red lines, entry to the single market or the customs union would have to be breached. And Labour aren't going to do that because entry into the single market of course comes with free movement.
There's another associated concern as well, I think for for some in Labour and some in government actually more precisely, which is that they can begin to see the glimmers of Brexit benefits for them in particular areas, for example. He's talked it up sometimes. Artificial. Assignments. He's made it clear explicitly that he believes that there are benefits in regulating differently from the EU. Steve Reed has talked about the benefits of regulating gene editing and agricultural
technology differently. Now, these are not massive game changers in the economy yet. But I think it goes back to what Tom was saying, which is that I think that Stormer's revealed preference in government would be to see where he can accrue small positional advantages in particular areas without having to satisfy a particular ideological template.
Even though he may emotionally deeply regret the fact that we're not in the European Union, I don't think he will allow that emotion to cloud a day-to-day judgement about what pragmatic wins he might be able to secure. What Tom said there, that's a strategic vision for EU KS relationship with the EU going forward that is not being articulated by the British government. And I think that's. That's why they should hire Tom Well. But, but I think that's the issue with this whole reset
talk. But there's a, there's a mismanagement of expectations there that the UK isn't being clear about what it wants. There isn't a bigger strategic vision for the relationship going forward and that then doesn't help inform its priorities in those discussions as to where does Britain feature on on the EU's agenda. I mean, as I started off by saying, you know, there's a war on the continent, there is competitiveness and economic
growth issues. They're embarking on a hugely ambitious enlargement process while, you know, just just lost one significant. With page 94. Not quite page 94, but certainly not in the top three priorities necessarily. And so certainly when it comes to the TCA negotiations or or review, I should say in 2026, there is 0 appetite to reopen that and go through every single page. Nor is there capacity really because of all these other issues that we're facing.
And so I think as ever, we just, you know, sitting here in in London, we have to realise a what the E us interests are. EU KS articulated this desire to want to be closer. OK, fine. But then it has to come up with a proposal and it has to also think about what's palatable for the EU side, which at the moment I'm just not really seeing that understanding, constantly knocking out this discussion of youth mobility and tying that to freedom of movement, which it is
not. And I don't understand why we would do that or why the government would do that. It is just particularly unconstructive and unhelpful, which is kind of taking away a little bit from all the positive symbolic mood musings that we saw right after Starmer's election. I I I'd like to finish if I can.
I'd just asking you all about bringing it all back to Trump again and the degree to which he is influencing our politics, maybe maybe even he is the template for political leadership more and more so constantly in touch with his own grass roots big gestures that aren't necessarily backed up. Notwithstanding what you said earlier, Michael, by detailed policy plans. Can you say right wing leaders in Europe? Are they? There's quite a few of them who presumably take notes every time
they watch watch him. I mean, there's right wing leaders and there's Trump, who's a convicted criminal. So I'm not sure I would subscribe to the idea that he's the image of a political leader. It was. Not the template, the technique. I was wondering if people are watching. It is a new, you know, this is a dawn of a new politics for all of us, is what I was wondering. Yes, and that's certainly 1 of ruthlessly pursuing national interest in a context of geopolitical fragmentation.
Umm, umm, you know, and, and he's very close to obviously Georgia Maloney in, in Italy, uh, Viktor Orban in, in Hungary who are uh, populist far right leaders. Umm, and they're building those bridges. Umm, I think it's too soon to tell whether this is the model going forward. Tom Kate Starmer's trying to be the Georgia Maloney of, of Britain in a sense, in that he he wants to, he wants us to believe he's not anti European, but he's also happy to engage with Trump, maybe China as well.
He he, he wants to walk all of these things. But but he's also talked about himself as Keir Starmer as a the last bulwark against populism. This government's got to work or, you know, it's the last roll of the dice. He's got to deliver things that make people think this system works. And yet the thing that he's worried about the right wing populism, he says might sort of is is is at the gates. That is Trump.
I mean, he he he's hiding that sometimes, but that that's he's trying to stop Britain going Trump and yet being nice to Trump. How's that? Is he going to pull that off? I was. Talking to someone from Downing St. last night who said, do you realize that, yeah, we may be the sort of last that's sort of left of centre government left at this rate. So trying to hold this line now, it's really important in those circumstances that you don't become infected by the virus.
And I think sometimes when people are trying to get a very clear message out about Keir Starmer, you see sort of almost of ersatz populist lines being given about, you know, civil service city in a tepid bar for magic he hated. He knows what's wrong, right? That's not him and I think what you his argument is that Morgan right, I don't I don't know who
you're right. The the way to be not only the antithesis to populism, but also the antidote is to restore people's faith that the system can deliver for them and improve their lives and bring real change. Now that is harder as Michael knows than than sometimes it's looks in opposition and they're beginning to I think finally beginning to sort of hit some metal with their with with the shovels now, meanwhile, but but you know, it's taken a while.
I mean, there is there's quite a lot of envy towards how Trump's approached his first few days in power in down St. You know, they're saying, well, why don't we have all those announcements ready? They didn't have 100 day plan and that is one of the problems. They, they had a series of rather unpopular announcements and a lot of office politics rather than real politics. And so I think they've learnt
from that. It's very recoverable, but they have wasted a lot of time and they're looking across the Atlantic and that you don't have to be a populist to get your announcements out early to show you're delivering change. You just have to be a good government.
It's been said, Michael, that one of the people in Britain who will be sitting drumming his fingers on the table looking at the way Trump is doing things, looking at the way maybe his party, your party, the Tory party, is looking for a force that can take on Farage, will be Boris Johnson.
And that he'll be sitting there thinking at some point, sort of 5 minutes to midnight before the next general election, the Tory party will come to him and beg forgiveness and hand in the leadership as the only way to take on Farage. Could you envisage that? It's not unthinkable, is it? It's not unthinkable, no. So yes, I mean, you know, Boris has been compared to since an artist, friends have compared to him. Friends of his, that is, have
compared to de Gaulle as well. It would seem implausible at the moment, but then Trump's own return after having backed the the capital rioters and fermented, you know, and incited rebellion against his own vice president. Four years later, he's in the White House. So Boris will think in, in, in at a time like this, anything is
possible. There's one thing, though, apart from all of the other issues that have been well aired, that stands in in Boris's way when it comes to thinking about a a return. And that is the increased salience of migration. Last week, Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, was being hauled over the calls for the Conservative record on migration. I was part of that government. I'm as guilty as anyone or as proud as anyone of, of, of our records, so I'm not trying to
distance myself. But the the position of many potential Conservative voters, particularly those who've gone over to reform, is that the last Conservative government signally let them down on migration. And Boris is very heavily associated with that. But if there is one person who is capable of transcending the detail by sheer force of personality, it's Boris. And forgetting it maybe along
the way. As he has said before this the blessed sponge of amnesia can make the slate of memory clean, and he's probably hoping that will happen with Aspects. And his record if he is watching the chances of hiring you as his campaign manager. I think that I I'd be more than happy to write his biography, but I think that I probably shouldn't be writing his campaign plan. Thank you all three so much for your time and that discussion.
Very grateful. That's it for this edition of the Forecast. Until next time, goodbye.