This is Spectator Radio. If you'd like to subscribe to The Spectator, you can get 12 issues for £12

as well as a £20 £20,000, Amazon voucher. Just go to spectator.com.com. Hello and welcome to

Coffee House Shots, the Spectator's Daily podcast. I'm Katie Balls and I'm joined by Fraser Nelson and James

Versafe. So we begin the week with the Battle of the Tory tribes. Today, the One Nation

caucus of Tory MPs, you could, if you're being unkind, perhaps call them wets, issuing their

own set of demands of what they want from the next leader of the Tory party.

Meanwhile, Esther McVeigh is leading her group of blue-collar conservatives who are soon to embark on a pub tool setting out their own brand of politics.

James, looking at Amber Rudd's venture, what is the purpose of this group?

I mean the purpose of this group is that they know they haven't got the numbers to deliver the winner of the next leadership context.

What they're trying to say is don't think you can ignore us.

We are 60 MPs, roughly a fifth of the parliamentary party, and we are prepared to work together to advance our views,

which are kind of classically centrist Tory views, perhaps something that

will get the most attention is their position on no deal, which they are very hostile to.

What I always wonder with people who are hostile to no deal, though, is there's a difference

between being hostile to no deal in it actually happening and the use of no deal to get a deal.

I mean, there is, you know, I personally am not hugely in favour of nuking places,

but I believe in having nuclear weapons as a deterrent, that sometimes you need to do these

things to get them.

And I think one of the things we've seen since the Cooper bill trying to

legislate against no deal past House of Commons. And indeed since the 2017 election,

is that if you're negotiating it, and it's very obvious that you can't walk away from the table,

you're not in a very strong position. But I think the interesting question about this One Nation group is,

...