It's three minutes after ten and you're listening to James O'Brien on LBC. Good morning, Mondays.

Oh, Monday, Monday. But I think we could have some fun together today, albeit that there are

stories in the news that don't lend themselves to gaiety or indeed frivolity. But I think this is really

important. And I'm not by by any stretch of the imagination,

expressing sympathy for the current government.

But you do see the more you look.

And I've been thinking, such as the glamour and romance of my life,

that I've been thinking a little bit about social care over the weekend.

I've shifted a bit from where I was on Friday.

You won't be surprised to learn the direction in which I have shifted. But it's fair to say, you can see now why it's

been kicked down the road by successive governments. I mean, when did the problem really become

acute, probably under Tony Blair or before? It's the sort of thing you could have imagined Gordon Brown perhaps getting his teeth into had he managed to win an election.

David Cameron followed by Theresa May, who admittedly had Brexit fish to fry. But once Brexit was done,

Boris Johnson saw social care rise for a variety of reasons, which we'll explore shortly,

to pretty near the top of his to-do list. Now, it's a really interesting political moment,

this, because what is fair and what is electorally advantageous to Boris Johnson is not the same thing. So far, so what? But what's

particularly interesting about it is that the current, I mean, certainly the 80s seat majority

hinges upon a really strange coalition. And it's perhaps best expressed that coalition in

generational terms rather than demographic terms.

We hear a lot about the red wall and clearly the last general election, that 80-seat majority

hinged upon pledges and promises that have already been broken and or turned out not to be true.

How much of that was conscious and how much of that was

...