Matt Forde

They both like football.

Both working class.

And what about the phrase, a swift transition?

As a member of the public, do you think, oh, this sounds like a good thing?

But do you think it will resonate with the public?

Do the public think, yes, I'd rather this be done swiftly?

Or do you think the public think, actually, if we're going to change prime minister, we want to see some scrutiny of whoever the new person is, some sort of contest, some sort of legitimacy?

I always think that I understand why The Favourite

wants to just get on with it and get in.

And I think there's maybe a level of public support for just, if he's clearly going to win, what's the point?

I also think that for the good of the candidate, actually some scrutiny is good and it sharpens your thinking in a leadership contest, forces policy development, forces debate, that effectively then is a pre-season for whatever the general election is.

It toughens you up a bit.

I love your use of the word pre-season.

Yeah, it's a really good point because you do get lots of football phrases finding their way into politics, showing something the red card.

I mean, obviously, in Labour politics, certainly historically with the trade unions, lots of strikers.

Obviously, one that's been relevant recently that you hear a lot of Labour politicians saying, we need our best players on the pitch.

Which actually, arguably, Thomas Tuchel partially disagrees with.

Because what he actually says is, you need the best players who will work together as a team.

So maybe if Tuchelism was implemented, you wouldn't necessarily have Andy Burnham.

Although in a way, he's a half-time substitution, isn't he?