0:00

Hi, this is Matt and Sean from Two

0:02

Black Guys with good credit. If you own

0:04

or operate a business, whether

0:06

it's a local operation or a global corporation,

0:10

partnering with Bank of America could be your

0:12

smartest move. By

0:14

teaming with Bank of America, you'll enjoy

0:17

exclusive digital tools, award-winning

0:19

insights, and business solutions

0:21

so powerful you'll make every move

0:23

matter. Position your business

0:25

to capitalize an opportunity in a moment's

0:27

notice. Visit

0:29

bankofamerica.com/bankingforbusiness to learn

0:32

more. What

0:34

would you like the power to do? Bank

0:36

of America, in a copyright 2024. Hello

0:53

and welcome to the intelligence from The Economist.

0:56

I'm Jason Palmer. And I'm Rosie Blore.

0:59

Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on

1:01

the event shaping your world. More

1:08

than two-thirds of the universe is

1:10

made up of some unknown stuff

1:12

called dark energy. That's what

1:14

the theory says anyway. We

1:16

look at some tentative results from a

1:18

new telescope that suggests that just maybe

1:21

that theory needs a complete overhaul. And

1:25

though the death of bullfighting has long been foretold,

1:27

the spectacle survives. In Spain, it

1:29

could be politicians who deliver the sport's

1:32

killing blow. But

1:35

perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that political figures appreciate a

1:37

bit of bull. First

1:44

up though. Last

1:54

night, the 45th and the 46th presidents

1:56

of America faced off in a debate

1:59

to influence. the voters who will

2:01

choose the 47th. Donald

2:03

Trump is now a convicted felon, which

2:06

amazingly may not harm his chances. The

2:09

charges haunting Joe Biden, on the other

2:11

hand, have increasingly been about his mental

2:13

acuity. President Biden, something

2:15

the special counsel said in his report

2:18

is that one of the reasons you

2:20

are not charged is because in

2:23

his description you are a well-meaning elderly

2:25

man with a poor

2:27

memory. I'm well-meaning, I'm an elderly

2:30

man, and I know what the hell I'm doing.

2:32

I've been president, I put this country back on

2:34

its feet. I don't need

2:36

his recommendation. How is your memory?

2:38

And can you continue its president?

2:41

My memory is so bad I can let you speak.

2:45

That's... Your memory has

2:47

gotten worse, Mr. President. My memory has not

2:49

come. My memory is fine. Last

2:53

night's debate, hosted by CNN, was a

2:55

chance for Mr. Biden to end that

2:57

kind of speculation, to prove he's still

3:00

in possession of his presidential marbles. If

3:03

that was the plan, things didn't go to

3:05

plan. Joe Biden

3:08

probably turned in one of the

3:10

worst debate performances in modern history.

3:13

Idris Calhoun is the economist's Washington bureau

3:15

chief. He was everything that he was

3:17

not supposed to be. He couldn't complete

3:19

his sentences. He looked old.

3:22

This debate was about demonstrating competency

3:24

and the ability to be in

3:26

office, and Joe Biden

3:28

utterly failed. And I

3:31

think his candidacy is in serious question

3:33

now. OK, let's do something

3:35

of a post-mortem here, Idris. Talk me through

3:37

it. How did the whole thing play out?

3:39

It was very bad at the start, and

3:41

it got a bit better, but never really

3:43

any good. The very beginning, the president seemed

3:45

to get confused when he was trying to

3:48

discuss COVID. Every single

3:50

solitary person eligible

3:53

for what I've been able to do with

3:55

the COVID, dealing with... everything

4:00

we have to do with, uh, look.

4:04

He trailed off in the middle of

4:06

a sentence. He said that he planned

4:08

to beat Medicare. If we

4:11

finally beat Medicare. Which was

4:13

a quizzical statement that didn't really make any

4:15

sense, which Donald Trump leapt on. He

4:17

was right. He did beat Medicare. He beat

4:20

it to death and he's destroying Medicare

4:22

because all of these people are coming in.

4:24

They're putting them on Medicare. They're putting

4:26

them on Social Security. They're going to destroy

4:28

Social Security. That provoked a

4:30

lot of consternation among Democrats that continued throughout

4:32

the debate. But later on when he was

4:35

discussing Roe versus Wade, which ought to have

4:37

been really a signature issue of his campaign.

4:39

It's the thing that he's running on saying

4:41

that Donald Trump is responsible for the

4:43

fact that women in America no longer have the right

4:46

to abortion because of the justices he appointed. It's

4:48

been a terrible thing, what you're doing. The

4:51

fact is that the vast majority of constitutional

4:53

scholars supported Roe when it was decided. Supported

4:56

Roe. But he struggled to really

4:58

land the lines that he had

5:00

spent days rehearsing with his

5:02

advisors. He had this very bizarre statement where

5:04

he talked about three trimesters and they didn't

5:06

really relate to the gestation. They

5:08

seemed to relate to some kind of

5:10

arrangement between women. It's very hard to

5:12

even place what he was trying to think

5:14

about. Do you support any

5:17

legal limits on how late a woman should

5:19

be able to terminate a pregnancy? I

5:21

supported Roe v. Wade, which had

5:23

three trimesters. The first time is

5:25

between the woman and the doctor.

5:27

Second time is between the doctor

5:29

and an extreme situation. The third

5:31

time is between the doctor,

5:34

I mean between the woman and the

5:36

state. The idea that the

5:38

politicians, that the founders wanted the politicians

5:40

to be the ones making decisions about

5:42

women's health is ridiculous. We had many

5:44

moments like that where the president just

5:46

seemed to not really be

5:48

able to land rhetorically what he

5:51

was trying to say. And it's difficult to

5:53

make Donald Trump look lucid

5:55

and coherent in comparison. And yet that's

5:57

exactly what happened. It's all

5:59

relative. I guess, okay, what kind of performance did

6:01

Mr. Trump turn in? Trump was

6:04

true to form. He was meandering. He

6:06

said that on January 6th, that it

6:08

was all Nancy Pelosi's fault and that

6:10

he had nothing to do with it,

6:12

that he offered to send 10,000 troops

6:14

to the Capitol to quell the insurrection,

6:16

which is not true. And

6:18

Nancy Pelosi, if you just watched the news

6:20

from two days ago, on tape

6:23

to her daughter, who's a documentary

6:25

filmmaker, they say, what

6:27

you're saying, oh, no, it's my

6:29

responsibility. I was responsible for this because

6:32

I offered her 10,000 soldiers or National

6:34

Guard and she turned them

6:36

down. He lied repeatedly. The

6:38

thing about that though, is that people expect that from

6:40

Donald Trump. People expect this exaggeration,

6:43

this lack of coherence, this lack

6:45

of principle even. So Trump

6:47

wasn't outstanding in any respect. He didn't seem more presidential.

6:49

He attempted to be a bit more moderate on abortion,

6:51

saying that it should be left up to states and

6:54

whatnot. Now, the states control it.

6:56

That's the vote of the people. Like

6:58

Ronald Reagan, I believe in the exceptions.

7:00

I am a person that believes. And

7:03

frankly, I think it's important to believe in the exceptions.

7:05

Some people, you have to follow your heart. Some people

7:07

don't believe in that. But I

7:10

believe in the exceptions for rape

7:12

incest and the life of the mother. I

7:14

think it's very important. But that quickly dissipated

7:16

and we got vintage Trump back. He decided

7:18

to open up our border, open up our

7:21

country to people that are

7:24

from prisons, people that are

7:26

from mental institutions, insane asylum, terrorists. We have

7:28

the largest number of terrorists coming into our

7:30

country right now. All terrorists, all over the

7:33

world, not just in South America, all over

7:35

the world. They come from the Middle East

7:37

everywhere, all over the world, they're pouring in.

7:40

But the big point here was Biden's

7:42

deterioration relative to even if you look

7:44

back to his debates in 2020 against

7:46

Donald Trump, Joe Biden had an ability

7:48

to push back forcefully against Donald Trump

7:50

and to do so with empathy

7:52

and do so convincingly. I think that if you

7:55

just hear the difference between

7:57

those two debates, that tells you everything.

8:00

If you're a middle-class family, you're

8:02

getting hurt badly right now. You're

8:04

sitting at the kitchen table this morning deciding, well,

8:06

we can't get new tires, they're bald because we

8:09

have to wait another month or so. Or are

8:11

we going to be able to pay the mortgage?

8:13

Or who's going to tell her she can't go

8:15

back to community college? They're the decisions you're making.

8:17

And the middle-class families like I grew up in

8:20

Scranton and Clamont, they're in trouble. We

8:22

should be talking about your families, but that's the last

8:24

thing he wants to talk about. He

8:26

seems a lot more coherent, a lot more able to

8:28

articulate what his positions are and why he's running for

8:31

president. And here he just seemed

8:33

utterly incapable of doing so. And we're

8:35

already seeing just a few hours after

8:37

this debate, Democrats wondering whether Biden

8:39

ought to step aside and make

8:41

room for another potential candidate, which would throw

8:44

the entire process into complete disarray. That

8:46

is an astonishing outcome from this debate. I

8:48

mean, what does that process even look like?

8:51

There will be a concerted push in the next

8:54

few days to really try to convince Biden to

8:56

stand aside. The choice has to be his. It's

8:59

very hard to imagine, given the delegates that

9:01

he's already accrued that are necessary to win

9:03

the nomination to be the Democratic nominee, that

9:05

he would be forced by any other mechanism.

9:08

He would have to decide on his own. Someone would have to convince him to do

9:10

so. The closest parallel would be what happened

9:12

in 1968 when Lyndon

9:14

Johnson said that he was not going to seek reelection, but

9:16

that was in a very different system than the one we

9:19

have now. And that was an incredibly,

9:21

incredibly chaotic year. It could

9:23

mark an open convention, meaning that the

9:25

nominee is not known before it starts

9:28

for Democrats in August. There

9:30

would be a very, very fast primary,

9:33

which is very different from the basically years long

9:35

process that it normally takes now. Okay,

9:37

that's something of the process, but what about

9:39

the person who would we be looking at

9:41

for the Democratic nominee? There

9:43

would be a very big contest for that. Obviously,

9:46

the vice president, Kamala Harris, ran against Biden in

9:48

2020. She'd be very interested in

9:50

being the nominee. So many people are worried that

9:52

she's too weak to win against Donald Trump herself.

9:54

And so I think that there would be an

9:56

attempt to have a contested convention. You

9:58

have people like Gavin Newsom, who's... is the

10:00

governor of California, who has been seeking national

10:02

prominence. You have people like the Illinois governor,

10:05

Shavee Pritzker, who seems to be angling for

10:07

national bid at some point in the future.

10:09

And then there's a large democratic bench of

10:12

people who are thought of as presidential tier,

10:14

people like the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer,

10:16

people in Biden's cabinet, even like Gina

10:18

Raimondo, the commerce secretary. There are a

10:20

lot of people who could conceivably step

10:22

into the role, but deciding which of

10:24

them would possibly succeed Biden, I

10:26

think would be a very messy and chaotic

10:29

process. And Idris, I have no

10:31

doubt you'll be talking about this in some detail

10:33

on checks and balance, which is out later today.

10:36

Yes, I will be speaking with

10:38

my co-hosts, Charlotte Howard and Adam

10:40

O'Neill about the debate to

10:42

work out what Democrats do from here. Well,

10:45

I genuinely will be tuning in. I've got

10:47

so many questions for the moment. Let's leave

10:49

it there. Idris, thanks. Thank you. Hey,

10:52

I'm Ryan Reynolds. Hey,

11:04

I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently, I asked Mint

11:06

Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies

11:08

are allowed to raise prices due to

11:10

inflation. They said yes. And then when

11:12

I asked if raising prices technically violates

11:14

those onerous two-year contracts, they said, what

11:16

the f*** are you talking about, you

11:18

insane Hollywood a*****e? So to recap, we're

11:21

cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month to

11:23

just $15 a month. Give

11:26

it a try at mintmobile.com/switch. $45

11:28

up front for three months plus taxes and fees. Promote for new

11:30

customers for limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes per month. Mint

11:32

Unlimited slows. Let

11:41

me tell you what physicists reckon is

11:43

the recipe for the universe. 5%

11:46

is normal matter. The stuff

11:48

of me, you, the gizmo you're listening to

11:51

this on, everything you can

11:53

see in the night sky. 27% is so-called dark matter.

11:57

They don't really know what it is, but it

11:59

acts like real matter. matter in the sense that

12:01

it attracts, it has gravity like the normal stuff.

12:04

And then 68% is something

12:06

called dark energy. I

12:08

know right, it's like it should be pronounced dark

12:11

energy. Anyway, it acts in

12:13

an opposite way to matter, driving the expansion

12:15

of things rather than drawing them together. Just

12:19

a little pause here to emphasize, 5%

12:21

are that everything you've ever known or

12:23

thought about is 5% of

12:25

what the universe is ultimately made of. Anyway,

12:28

that is mind-stretching enough, if

12:31

it's correct. But there's a

12:33

new wrinkle thanks to a new telescope. That

12:36

recipe may have been changing over, say,

12:38

14 billion years. For

12:40

the last three years, the dark

12:42

energy spectroscopic instrument, also known as

12:44

DESI, has been looking up

12:46

at the universe from an observatory

12:48

on a mountaintop in Arizona. Emily

12:51

Steinmark is a science correspondent for The Economist.

12:54

She's been building a 3D map of

12:56

the universe, the largest ever built, examining

12:59

light emitted from tens of

13:01

millions of galaxies, collecting

13:03

lots of data, including on

13:06

dark energy. Now,

13:08

these first results that have come out

13:10

from the instrument, if they are

13:13

found to hold up, this is just the

13:15

first year out of a five-year survey and

13:17

much more data is coming in. If

13:20

they are found to hold water, it

13:22

would completely throw out the current cosmological

13:24

thinking. And as regards to

13:26

the current cosmological thinking, first of all,

13:29

how do we know that dark energy

13:31

exists? So as you can

13:33

tell from the name, it's a very mysterious

13:35

entity. We are not exactly sure what

13:37

it is. We do know what

13:40

it does. It's a name attached to a thing

13:42

that has happened in a phenomenon which is the

13:44

accelerating expansion of the universe. In

13:46

1998, a group of astronomers

13:49

found that supernovas are moving faster away

13:51

from Earth than they ought to. And

13:53

their conclusion was that the expansion of

13:56

the universe is accelerating. Now,

13:58

it wasn't clear to them. why

14:00

this would be happening at all. And

14:02

so they said, well, something must be

14:04

doing that. And that something is what

14:06

we now think of as dark energy.

14:09

It does it through almost like an

14:11

opposite force to gravity. So whereas gravity

14:14

pulls stuff together, dark energy pushes stuff

14:16

apart. And we don't think we know

14:18

exactly what it is. No,

14:20

I mean, we can't detect it directly.

14:22

But there is a leading hypothesis, which

14:25

is that it is an energy intrinsic

14:27

to the emptiness of space or the

14:29

vacuum of space. According to

14:31

quantum theory, the vacuum or

14:34

the empty space isn't actually empty.

14:36

It's full of tiny virtual

14:39

particles that are popping in and

14:41

out of existence, creating energy

14:43

that, if it is dark energy, is

14:46

able to push space apart in the way

14:48

that it would need to do in order

14:50

to be dark energy and drive the current

14:52

expansion of the universe. But

14:55

we know that vacuum energy, as an

14:57

idea, is kind of flawed. Physicists say

15:00

it's definitely there, but it comes up

15:02

against something that has the very dramatic

15:04

name of the vacuum catastrophe, which is

15:06

that the amount of energy that these

15:08

interactions in space should be producing does

15:11

not align at all with what you

15:13

can actually get out of observational evidence.

15:15

It's orders of magnitude different.

15:17

And I mean, without

15:19

making too much of it, it is probably

15:22

one of the largest unsolved problems in

15:24

physics. So it is not a theory

15:26

without issues. So this new

15:28

instrument, DESI, has dumped its first data then

15:30

and adds what to this discussion? OK,

15:33

well, so you have to remember that, even though we

15:35

don't know what dark energy is, physicists

15:37

have thought for a long time that the

15:39

density of dark energy, so the amount of

15:41

energy in each patch of empty space, has

15:43

been constant since the beginning of the universe

15:45

almost 14 billion years ago. But

15:48

the thinking was that as the

15:50

universe expanded, there became more and more

15:52

empty space and so more and more

15:54

dark energy. But the density was basically

15:57

constant throughout that. And so

15:59

that was the thing that could. drive expansion.

16:01

But so what Desi's data suggests

16:04

now is that that

16:06

density has not been constant. And

16:09

that really changes not just

16:11

how we think about the

16:13

evolution of the universe up until now,

16:16

but going into the future, it changes

16:18

how we think about the ultimate fate

16:20

of the universe. So we've

16:22

moved from what we know about the universe to

16:24

ultimate fate of the universe. OK, so what's the

16:27

fate? What are the fates? Yeah,

16:29

well, if you assume that the

16:31

density of dark energy is constant

16:33

and isn't going to change, the

16:35

view of the ultimate fate of

16:37

the universe is something like just

16:39

the galaxies floating further and

16:41

further apart until they disappear from each

16:43

other's horizons. And you just

16:46

basically get this big cold space

16:48

called the big freeze. Not

16:50

very nice. But if

16:53

you can have a dark

16:55

energy that's changing in time, which is

16:57

what these preliminary results from Desi suggest,

17:00

then other scenarios that are

17:02

arguably worse come

17:04

into play. So the first one is

17:07

in the situation where the density of dark

17:09

energy is increasing, which would mean that ever

17:11

dense dark energy pushing things

17:14

apart would eventually cause

17:16

atoms and even space time itself to

17:18

rip apart, which is called the big

17:20

rip aptly. On the other

17:22

hand, you might also have a decreasing density

17:24

of dark energy, which would mean that matter

17:26

and gravity eventually would take over again, as

17:29

in the beginning of the universe. And you

17:31

would have a kind of a collapse back

17:33

towards a sort of reverse big bang, which

17:35

is known as the big crunch. Neither

17:38

of these things down particularly pleasant. Humans don't have

17:40

to worry too much though, because I'm afraid the

17:42

sun probably is going to swallow up the earth

17:44

way before that happens. We at least can rest

17:47

easy. Or humans will destroy themselves

17:49

before the sun has a chance. But there is

17:51

that. Yeah, I guess

17:53

the question then is in the much, much,

17:55

much, much nearer term what this means for

17:57

cosmology itself, what's the possibility? of a fluctuating

18:00

dark energy density means for the people who

18:02

are trying to figure all this stuff out?

18:04

Yeah, so not only are the density

18:06

results very strange in them, it actually

18:08

suggests the density of dark energy that

18:10

first increased and then about four billion

18:13

years ago began decreasing. So really being

18:15

able to go in both directions. It's

18:17

very odd. The people I've spoken to

18:19

do not know what to make of

18:22

it. If these results hold up, it

18:24

would mean a complete reevaluation of what

18:26

dark energy is. This idea of vacuum

18:28

energy totally out the window. There are

18:30

other theories. So for example, you

18:33

could have something like a dark

18:35

energy field called quintessence, which is

18:37

evading all space and that can

18:40

change in time. And that's one of the ideas

18:42

that's been floating around for how a

18:44

time variable dark energy could look like.

18:46

But the results from DESI that increase

18:49

and now decrease that I told you

18:51

about, they indicate something even

18:53

stranger than that. The most simple quintessence

18:55

models wouldn't be able to explain that.

18:57

All bets are off essentially. The only

18:59

thing we do know is that the

19:01

standard model of cosmology would be toast. So

19:04

the stakes, at least for the people who are in

19:06

this business, are really high. I mean, what comes next?

19:08

How to figure out whether or not to throw everything

19:10

in the bin? Yeah, super high

19:12

stakes. The first thing will obviously be

19:14

to look at the data that DESI

19:17

is sitting on, but they're not the

19:19

only ones that are pursuing this. There

19:21

is the European Space Agency's Euclid satellite

19:23

telescope, which is already up. That

19:25

will also be investigating dark energy and the

19:27

density of dark energy as well.

19:30

There are Ruben observatory in Chile. And

19:32

so if you have all of these

19:34

different strands of data coming together pointing in

19:36

the same direction, that will be very compelling

19:38

and probably enough for the field to

19:40

say, all right, we need to look at

19:42

whether our model is up to it or not. Emily,

19:45

thanks very much for your time. Thank you very much. Thank

19:59

you. Last

20:02

month I went to a bullfight held in

20:04

front of a sold-out crowd at Madrid's annual

20:06

San Isidro festival, which honors the city's patron

20:08

saint. Lane

20:11

Green is the Economist's Spain correspondent

20:13

and Johnson columnist. There

20:15

was a bit more drama than the fights I've been

20:17

to before. Both Hinero, the name of the bull, who

20:19

weighed half a ton, came in and impressed the crowd

20:21

a little bit more than the two bulls who had

20:24

been there before him. And in fact, he got his

20:26

horn into the right leg of the

20:28

matador, Tomas Rufo, and flipped him up in the

20:30

air. Rufo bounced off his back

20:32

and landed nearby, and the bull actually rolled

20:34

him over a few times before several other

20:37

toredos jumped in and distracted the bull. Rufo

20:40

was soon up and limping, but he

20:42

shook off the pain. And before long,

20:44

both Hinero had Tomas Rufo's sword between

20:46

his shoulders and died within a minute.

20:50

For me, that's always the longest minute

20:53

of a bullfight. Despite

20:58

many predictions, bullfighting has lived on

21:00

in Spain and in other places.

21:02

Outside the stadium, there's a statue

21:04

of Alexander Fleming, the guy who

21:06

discovered Penicillin in 1928. You

21:08

might wonder why there's a statue of

21:10

a doctor standing there outside the bullring.

21:12

And that's because, thanks to Penicillin, many

21:14

bullfighters since that discovery have survived injuries

21:16

that killed them before them. But

21:19

if the number of bullfighters who have

21:22

survived has changed quite a bit since

21:24

1928, the ritual almost hasn't in the

21:26

century since then. It's very much the

21:29

same thing that, say, Ernest Hemingway would

21:31

have written about in 1932 when he

21:33

wrote Death in the Afternoon about bullfighting.

21:38

Lane, I think as long as I've been a

21:40

journalist, I've been editing stories about how the days

21:42

of bullfighting are nearly over, why are

21:44

people still doing it? Well, people

21:46

will give you many different explanations. One is

21:48

that it's an opportunity uniquely to sort of

21:51

see death and face the hard realities of

21:53

life. Others will call it

21:55

an art form, but I think most

21:57

importantly, there is this simple element of

21:59

tradition and being deeply rooted in Spanish

22:01

culture. It's in effect just who we

22:03

are for many Spaniards and for countries

22:05

influenced by Spain. So bullfighting is also

22:08

popular in countries in Latin America,

22:10

Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, other places,

22:12

as well as in southern France. And

22:14

in fact, there were bullfighters from several

22:17

of those countries in the San Ysidro

22:19

Festival. But those critics of

22:21

bullfighting, increasingly those who want to see it

22:23

banned, are becoming more and more confident in

22:25

Spain and in Mexico. And

22:28

why are they so confident now? What's

22:30

different about recent attempts to stop it?

22:32

Well, this year there have been two

22:34

legal actions against bullfighting. In Spain, Ernesto

22:37

Tassun, who's the culture minister here

22:39

from a far left party, announced

22:41

that they were canceling a bullfighting

22:43

prize, an annual prize of 30,000

22:45

euros given out to a bullfighter,

22:47

and explained that he said, animal torture,

22:49

those are his words, that fewer and

22:52

fewer people understood that animal torture was

22:54

not only practiced, but was given prizes.

22:56

At the same time, a little while

22:58

ago in Mexico City, there was a

23:00

question mark hanging over the opening of

23:02

this year's season. Mexico City has the

23:04

biggest bullring in the world, and it's

23:07

the second most important bullfighting country after

23:09

Spain. But protesters held it up

23:11

with judicial actions. And

23:15

so finally, after some suspense, the season did

23:17

in fact go ahead. Five of the 32

23:19

states in Mexico have

23:21

outlawed it. And so we

23:23

can see that in several countries, bullfighting is not

23:26

just a sport within the ring of

23:28

the bullfight itself, but in the political arena

23:30

as well. Okay, let's

23:32

turn to the political arena. You said

23:34

a Spanish minister described this practice as

23:37

prizes for animal torture. Those are pretty

23:39

strong words. Is that a view

23:41

widely held in Spain? Well, it's

23:43

widely held in certain parts of Spain and very

23:45

much rejected in other parts. And I think what's

23:48

happening is that increasingly voters on the Spanish left,

23:50

both the sort of central left socialists and the

23:53

far left party, they are increasingly

23:55

the ones in favor of banning bullfighting.

23:58

Those on the right, there's a center right party.