1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,880 The Labour Party to get on with governing rather than getting 2 00:00:03,880 --> 00:00:09,320 constantly tied up in this addiction to chaos crisis. 3 00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:11,680 I don't think when the public think about Peter Mandelson 4 00:00:11,680 --> 00:00:14,640 they'll think that's a problem contained to a different era of 5 00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:18,120 the Labour Party, especially because their views of that 6 00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:21,000 Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are so bad they're 7 00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:23,240 not going to give him any benefit of the doubt. 8 00:00:23,240 --> 00:00:27,400 Do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Farage? 9 00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:31,240 You will never persuade me to just suck up the depredations of 10 00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:34,400 the of the Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to 11 00:00:34,480 --> 00:00:36,040 prevent the incursions of the far right. 12 00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:38,600 Because I look at the Labour government and they quite often 13 00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:41,480 are mimicking Nigel Farage. I will never take that. 14 00:00:41,480 --> 00:00:43,280 Do you think this will finish them off? 15 00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:48,040 Hello and welcome to the forecast. 16 00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:50,160 It's the scandal that just keeps getting worse. 17 00:00:50,320 --> 00:00:52,480 Certainly the biggest crisis for Keir Starmer. 18 00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:55,280 Could it finish him off or is it even bigger than that? 19 00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:59,480 Is Labour's position recoverable or is it now a dead man walking? 20 00:00:59,800 --> 00:01:02,440 The PM admits Peter Mandelson's relationship with the dead 21 00:01:02,440 --> 00:01:06,080 paedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein came up as part 22 00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:08,320 of the vetting process for ambassador to Washington. 23 00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:12,160 But he says Mandelson lied and lied again, saying he betrayed 24 00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:15,840 our country and our party. But what concerns were raised 25 00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:18,840 during the process and were they overruled? 26 00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:22,760 If so, who by? If Starmer wasn't warned, why 27 00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:24,880 not? The stench of sleaze and 28 00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:28,000 corruption hangs heavy in the air over Westminster right now. 29 00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:32,240 So can the government escape it? Or is this the final straw for 30 00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:35,160 Labour backbenchers already wondering whether to throw 31 00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:37,760 Starmer overboard? Joining me to discuss this, 32 00:01:37,760 --> 00:01:41,440 Starmer biographer Tom Baldwin, the political commentator Zoe 33 00:01:41,440 --> 00:01:44,520 Williams, and the pollster and strategist Scarlett McGuire. 34 00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:48,960 Tom, I mean, jaws are on the floor and getting wider by the 35 00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:51,800 hour. Can you think of a worse 36 00:01:52,120 --> 00:01:54,520 political scandal in our lifetime? 37 00:01:54,960 --> 00:01:57,080 Or be opened? I do think it's a scandal. 38 00:01:57,480 --> 00:02:02,400 I do think this is shocking, but essentially if you know, the 39 00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:06,720 real sin happened under the last when Gordon Brown was Prime 40 00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:09,800 Minister, when Peter Manderson was business secretary, that's 41 00:02:09,800 --> 00:02:13,560 when he was disclosing confidential market sensitive 42 00:02:13,560 --> 00:02:16,200 information apparently to Jeffrey Epstein. 43 00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:20,920 The question about this government is why they appointed 44 00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:23,160 Peter Madison and. What they were warned about. 45 00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:25,160 Now, now, now, that's a good question. 46 00:02:25,720 --> 00:02:31,400 But it's not a scandal about this government until it can be 47 00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:37,880 shown that Keir Starmer knew what we know now does. 48 00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:40,680 He does he have to know everything that we know now? 49 00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:44,560 I mean, we knew from 2023 onwards, because the FT ran a 50 00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:48,360 story about it, that Mandelson had maintained a relationship 51 00:02:48,360 --> 00:02:53,240 with Epstein after he had been found to have been involved in 52 00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:57,280 sex trafficking. And yet he carried on and there 53 00:02:57,280 --> 00:02:58,800 would have been a vetting process. 54 00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:02,120 We don't know what it said. Maybe we'll get to find out if 55 00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:05,640 these papers are published. But whatever concerns it may 56 00:03:05,640 --> 00:03:07,520 have raised were clearly overruled. 57 00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:09,880 That does make it a scandal for this government. 58 00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:14,840 There's a question, I think, whether the Prime Minister 59 00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:19,640 should have known what essentially is unknowable 60 00:03:19,640 --> 00:03:23,920 because Peter Manson was lying to the Prime Minister, lying to 61 00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:27,840 his oldest friends, possibly even lying to himself about the 62 00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:29,720 extent of his relationship with Epstein. 63 00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:35,840 Now there was a vetting process. We now know that it did raise 64 00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:40,320 concerns about Mammalson's continuing relationship with 65 00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:41,920 Epstein that was in the public domain. 66 00:03:42,280 --> 00:03:44,040 So I would just say. Lightly. 67 00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:45,840 Well, I'd say. Lightly to journalists on this, 68 00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:49,080 because there's a lot of hindsightry around and a lot of 69 00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:51,800 the journalists now say it was always obvious, blah, blah, 70 00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,120 blah. We're the same journalists who 71 00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:56,560 are saying what a masterstroke point to Peter Mountain writing 72 00:03:56,560 --> 00:03:59,040 falling. Not everyone, but a lot of them 73 00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:00,040 were. A lot of them were saying it. 74 00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:03,600 A lot of people were writing falling pieces about it and I'm 75 00:04:03,600 --> 00:04:05,840 not sure whether Channel 4 News, I mean correct me if I'm wrong, 76 00:04:06,120 --> 00:04:10,800 did a big podcast or a big section at Tom of Peter Manson's 77 00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:14,360 appointment saying this is scandalous because we know that 78 00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:17,720 Peter Manson continued to have relationships with Epstein after 79 00:04:17,720 --> 00:04:21,120 his conviction, the FT did. I think if you Google what was 80 00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:24,440 said at the time, there are articles across the media saying 81 00:04:24,440 --> 00:04:27,840 this is high risk, this is a man who's had to resign in disgrace 82 00:04:27,840 --> 00:04:30,680 twice but the premier and this might happen again, but hold on. 83 00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:32,560 Hold on a moment. Just me to make his point. 84 00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:36,280 The premise that this was a scandal because it was known 85 00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:38,880 that Peter Mandelson continued to have relationships with 86 00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:41,560 Jeffrey Epstein after the conviction that was known to the 87 00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:44,240 media at the time of Peter Mandelson's appointment. 88 00:04:44,440 --> 00:04:47,040 Were the media calling it a scandal then? 89 00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:47,920 Yeah, I was. They weren't. 90 00:04:47,920 --> 00:04:48,880 They weren't saying it was a scandal. 91 00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:49,880 OK, I did. There was some on the 92 00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:51,520 exceptions. No, come on, don't that. 93 00:04:51,920 --> 00:04:53,160 You were Channel 4 News. That's. 94 00:04:53,160 --> 00:04:55,760 Genuinely the weakest argument I've ever heard you make. 95 00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:58,200 Because some people. Because some. 96 00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:00,920 People in the media didn't put their money where their mouth 97 00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:04,000 was two years ago, therefore nobody's got not a leg to stand 98 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:05,760 on now. And this isn't a scandal that 99 00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:07,760 doesn't even make logical sense, Tom. 100 00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:11,160 And you know, it's no, no, the the logic is this, that for this 101 00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:13,600 to be the biggest scandal of our lifetime. 102 00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:15,080 Oh, OK, fine. I mean, if we're going. 103 00:05:15,080 --> 00:05:17,880 To be a big scandal of our lifetime, it is that. 104 00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:21,960 The premise of that is we know that Downing St. and Keir 105 00:05:21,960 --> 00:05:26,160 Starmer knew about Madison's continuing links with Epstein 106 00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:28,560 after his conviction. So did the media. 107 00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:31,760 So the media did not declare this the biggest scandal of 108 00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:34,560 their lifetime at the time. It is only a scandal now. 109 00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:37,760 It is only a scandal now because of what we know now. 110 00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:40,320 So the real question, the real question which would determine 111 00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:43,400 whether it is a big scandal about this government, is 112 00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:46,480 whether Down St. knew more than what was in the public domain 113 00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:48,840 then. A, that A, that doesn't make 114 00:05:48,840 --> 00:05:50,080 sense for the aforementioned reasons. 115 00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:52,840 B, that none of that has to do with Keir Starmer's judgement. 116 00:05:52,840 --> 00:05:55,360 Keir Starmer's judgement is what's at issue here. 117 00:05:55,560 --> 00:05:58,480 And whether or not certain commentators called it out 118 00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:01,040 properly at the time, whether Chris ran a package about it 119 00:06:01,240 --> 00:06:04,640 doesn't make any difference. If he had, if he had a kind of 120 00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:08,000 moral compass, if he could see the man in front of him, if he 121 00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:11,880 could put priorities ahead of electoral calculation, which by 122 00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:14,160 the way, I don't think Peter Mandelson did serve very well, 123 00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:17,520 but that's what he thought he served, then if he doesn't have 124 00:06:17,520 --> 00:06:19,920 those qualities, then those aren't qualities that you have. 125 00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:22,560 And that's a. Question what what you know and 126 00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:25,200 maybe we will find out and maybe we won't. 127 00:06:25,200 --> 00:06:26,800 What he knew in the what? What? 128 00:06:27,000 --> 00:06:30,360 The concerns were well and what was said about them in order to 129 00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:32,440 sweep them asylum. But he's also, that is the key 130 00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:33,840 question. But there is also a kind of more 131 00:06:33,840 --> 00:06:38,240 fundamental question, which is, you know, there, there is there 132 00:06:38,280 --> 00:06:41,440 a calculation was made that whatever the relationship was 133 00:06:41,440 --> 00:06:44,440 between Peter Manderson and Epstein, it didn't matter so 134 00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:46,360 long as nobody was looking directly at it. 135 00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:49,480 Now, somebody you had a for whom that was a real matter of 136 00:06:49,480 --> 00:06:51,960 conscience, for whom fraternising with a known 137 00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:56,720 paedophile really was a moral issue, would have said, I just, 138 00:06:56,880 --> 00:06:59,680 I'm just not wild about this. I'm not wild about sending 139 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:04,720 Mandelson as as ambassador to Trump, who is himself a known 140 00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:08,600 associate of Epstein. Whether or not this is the 141 00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:12,400 biggest or the second biggest or the third biggest, does it 142 00:07:12,400 --> 00:07:14,360 matter? I mean, you know, won't the 143 00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:18,800 public now just conclude that there is the stench of scandal 144 00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:22,680 around Labour, who claims to be better than the last loss, and 145 00:07:22,680 --> 00:07:25,240 it turns out maybe they weren't. I think you've hit the nail on 146 00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:28,000 the head and and you know, unfortunately for those in #10 147 00:07:28,320 --> 00:07:31,040 actually the public make their mind up quicker than quite a lot 148 00:07:31,040 --> 00:07:34,120 of some of this information can come out about exactly who knew 149 00:07:34,120 --> 00:07:36,640 what, when and etcetera. I think the problem for the 150 00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:39,320 Labour Party and for for Keir Starmer and the government in 151 00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:42,400 particular is that Peter Mandelson is incredibly well 152 00:07:42,400 --> 00:07:44,600 known in this country. He's, you know, far better known 153 00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:47,040 than Andy Burnham or Robert celebrate from any of the other 154 00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:49,520 politicians we've seen and to the spotlight over the last few 155 00:07:49,520 --> 00:07:51,440 weeks who aren't the sort of principal party leaders. 156 00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:54,000 And he is synonymous with Labour because he's been around for so 157 00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:56,160 long, he's been associated with so many different Labour 158 00:07:56,160 --> 00:07:57,840 governments. And I don't think when the 159 00:07:57,840 --> 00:08:00,040 public think about Peter Mandelson, they'll think that's 160 00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:02,600 a problem contained to a different era of the Labour 161 00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:04,640 Party. They will think about it as the 162 00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:08,040 same Labour Party that we have now, especially because their 163 00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:11,240 views of that Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are 164 00:08:11,240 --> 00:08:13,760 so bad, they're not going to give him any benefit of the 165 00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:15,840 doubt. And then the second part of that 166 00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:18,360 is that OK, they know who Peter Mandelson is. 167 00:08:18,520 --> 00:08:20,760 They don't think very well of Labour Party. 168 00:08:20,760 --> 00:08:23,520 Sorry. The third one is that this plays 169 00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:25,920 into all of their were suspicions about people in 170 00:08:25,920 --> 00:08:29,280 politics anyway, you know, trust in politicians is an all time 171 00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:30,840 low. It only seems to be sinking 172 00:08:30,840 --> 00:08:33,880 further and further the longer that these the longer these 173 00:08:33,880 --> 00:08:37,320 surveys track it. And this is people's this is 174 00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:38,559 exactly what people think are up to. 175 00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:41,360 It might be a bit more colourful, it might be more 176 00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:45,360 outrageous, but unfortunately the public have this idea that 177 00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:48,360 politicians and pretty much all politicians are just in it for 178 00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:50,960 themselves and elite interests and they're up to no good. 179 00:08:50,960 --> 00:08:53,280 So if they hear this, they hear Labour brand, they hear Peter 180 00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:55,480 Manderson, I think they're going to make their own minds up, even 181 00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:56,640 if they're jumping to conclusions. 182 00:08:56,640 --> 00:09:00,880 So how do you think this is savable for Keir Starmer and his 183 00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:02,920 administration? I mean, they're, they're they're 184 00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:06,160 making an attempt at transparency and saying we'll 185 00:09:06,160 --> 00:09:08,680 publish the papers, although they don't want to publish all 186 00:09:08,680 --> 00:09:10,480 the papers and it looks like they're going to be forced into 187 00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:15,400 it to some degree, You know, can he save Morgan McSweeney for a 188 00:09:15,400 --> 00:09:18,800 start, his right hand man who seems to be the one who was 189 00:09:18,800 --> 00:09:21,200 really pushing Mandelson's appointment. 190 00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:23,600 Look. One of the frustrating things 191 00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:27,640 about a lot of political discussions in podcasts like 192 00:09:27,680 --> 00:09:31,680 this is we spend an awful lot of time talking about optics and 193 00:09:31,680 --> 00:09:37,240 perceptions, and that's code for avoiding substance. 194 00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:39,960 And, you know, one of the reasons why I think people are 195 00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:42,960 actually aonated by politics is it's an endless discussion about 196 00:09:42,960 --> 00:09:44,760 who's up and who's down, what people think about, you know, 197 00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:48,080 this, what this focus group says rather than actually outcomes 198 00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:49,200 for them in their real lives. But. 199 00:09:49,360 --> 00:09:50,600 McSweeney. Is not a substance. 200 00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:52,520 Because he is the core. Of this government, yeah. 201 00:09:52,520 --> 00:09:57,280 So, so so, as I say, there are genuine questions which need to 202 00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:01,640 be answered about what Downing St. and what Keir Starmer knew 203 00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:06,960 prior to Peter Mandelson's appointment if they knew what 204 00:10:06,960 --> 00:10:08,360 was already in the public domain. 205 00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:11,560 But no more than those same questions should be answered by 206 00:10:11,560 --> 00:10:14,320 the BBC, who thought that Peter Mouse was the right choice to be 207 00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:16,600 the eminence Greece fronting their election coverage. 208 00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:19,360 In 2024 knew more than what was in the public eye at the time, 209 00:10:19,680 --> 00:10:21,480 which you have to assume is the case. 210 00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:23,720 Why? Because they're the security 211 00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:27,440 services. I've limited understanding of 212 00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:31,240 vetting process, but what they will do is they will go through 213 00:10:31,840 --> 00:10:34,320 everything's in the public domain and then they will sit 214 00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:36,680 down with the person they're vetting and say is there 215 00:10:36,680 --> 00:10:39,560 anything else we need to know? What about this relationship of 216 00:10:39,560 --> 00:10:42,640 Epstein? What we have been told is that 217 00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:46,240 Peter Madison lied at that in that instance. 218 00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:51,240 Now, should you be hung whether you're a Down St. advisor or 219 00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:54,960 Prime Minister for believing lies told by someone? 220 00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:57,320 Now there's a question I do accept. 221 00:10:57,920 --> 00:10:59,960 How about Peter Manson's record, right? 222 00:10:59,960 --> 00:11:04,240 He resigned twice from the last Labour government before he was 223 00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:07,280 reappointed and then apparently leaked this sensitive 224 00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:09,280 information, which I think is shocking. 225 00:11:09,440 --> 00:11:13,080 But yeah, I mean, come on, come on, you must remember, you want. 226 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:15,080 To talk about. But you must remember the first 227 00:11:15,120 --> 00:11:17,120 scandal when he took that loan. Yeah, I agree. 228 00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,440 That's what I'm just referring. To I used to live I used to live 229 00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:22,680 around the corner from Peter Manson in the 90s in in Notting. 230 00:11:22,680 --> 00:11:23,560 Hill. There goes neighborhood. 231 00:11:23,720 --> 00:11:25,880 I had this little squat in Holland Park. 232 00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:29,720 Anyway, you've walked past every day, everybody in the press was 233 00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:32,440 saying this man is toast. He's not honest, he takes loans. 234 00:11:32,440 --> 00:11:34,240 That's not how Labour politicians are supposed. 235 00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:36,080 We were promised something different. 236 00:11:36,080 --> 00:11:39,040 It was 97. We were promised a better kind 237 00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:43,120 of person and the and the Prince of Darkness was taking was just 238 00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:45,560 dodgy. And everybody said he's not 239 00:11:45,560 --> 00:11:47,240 going to last. And he would come out and 240 00:11:47,240 --> 00:11:50,560 stretch on his front doorstep and pick up his newspaper. 241 00:11:50,560 --> 00:11:54,120 And I kept passing him thinking he doesn't look like a man who's 242 00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:56,400 taken this seriously and he doesn't look like a man who's 243 00:11:56,400 --> 00:11:58,480 not going to last. Now, the problem Peter Mandelson 244 00:11:58,560 --> 00:12:01,600 is, is complete impunity, absolute. 245 00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:04,640 You know, he always said he's completely Teflon coated. 246 00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:08,400 He, he, he never gives up. But by gives up, he means he's 247 00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:11,440 unshameable. And everybody knew that. 248 00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:13,760 So why are we sitting here having this argument about 249 00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:16,080 whether where the kid did the right thing or the wrong thing 250 00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:18,000 about a vetting meeting? Well, my question is, to me it 251 00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:20,040 was really obvious what kind of man we were dealing. 252 00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:23,600 With, I mean, you know, you've, you've put a case as to why it 253 00:12:23,600 --> 00:12:28,120 shouldn't be pointed at Starmer and Downing Street. 254 00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:31,920 But given what's Scarlett has said about public opinion, and 255 00:12:31,920 --> 00:12:35,000 it seems blindingly obvious as well how public opinion is going 256 00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:39,080 to go on this, the question is how, how can he escape this? 257 00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:40,880 What? What should he do? 258 00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:45,080 Well, I think what he's done this week in terms of he's moved 259 00:12:45,200 --> 00:12:47,360 relatively speed down. He can argue he could done 260 00:12:47,480 --> 00:12:50,120 somethings faster. But in terms of, you know, Peter 261 00:12:50,120 --> 00:12:52,360 Manson getting Peter Manson out of Labour Party, getting Peter 262 00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:54,600 Manson out of the House of Lords, stripping Peter Manson of 263 00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:57,320 his peerage through people Anderson of his membership of 264 00:12:57,320 --> 00:12:58,880 the Privy Council. I mean, all these things are 265 00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:01,080 being done. It's right that there is now an 266 00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:05,840 investigation into what was known in that vetting process. 267 00:13:05,920 --> 00:13:08,640 That seems to me the substantial issue here. 268 00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:13,880 And we can talk forever about perceptions and optics, but what 269 00:13:13,880 --> 00:13:17,640 the government has to do now is get to the bottom of what was 270 00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:20,440 known and let the public know what was known. 271 00:13:20,640 --> 00:13:22,560 Now I I I the point I'm making about, but how? 272 00:13:22,560 --> 00:13:25,480 Do you stop the public blaming the government and say and, and, 273 00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:28,280 and jumping to all those conclusions that Scarlett is 274 00:13:28,280 --> 00:13:30,200 talking about, that they're all in it for themselves and they're 275 00:13:30,200 --> 00:13:32,960 all as bad as each other? When we're going to have 276 00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:35,560 investigation after investigation, possibly police 277 00:13:35,560 --> 00:13:37,640 investigation, possible criminal case. 278 00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:39,800 I mean, this is going to go on forever now. 279 00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:43,040 It's a, it's a good, it's a good piece of advice. 280 00:13:43,040 --> 00:13:46,000 I think in general for the media, for government, for 281 00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:50,200 anyone in public life to try and establish facts and stick to 282 00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:55,040 facts and try and do substance rather than take decisions on 283 00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:58,840 the basis of optics. Now no, no, no, no before I'm. 284 00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:01,600 Saying the word optics as though this is just we're all just 285 00:14:01,600 --> 00:14:04,360 being silly and worrying about what things look like. 286 00:14:04,560 --> 00:14:06,320 I'm not worrying about what things look like. 287 00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:10,120 I'm worrying about somebody who told a known paedophile and sex 288 00:14:10,120 --> 00:14:13,200 offender it's secrets about the British state which were 289 00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:15,720 deleterious to this. They had known that at the time. 290 00:14:15,720 --> 00:14:17,520 If they know that, then sorry, sorry, sorry. 291 00:14:17,560 --> 00:14:19,040 No, no, no. No, let me finish my point. 292 00:14:19,040 --> 00:14:21,400 Let my finish my point. I'm not talking about optics. 293 00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:25,000 I am talking about an immoral man who didn't did not care 294 00:14:25,000 --> 00:14:27,760 about the victims of Epstein and did not care about the British 295 00:14:27,760 --> 00:14:30,440 national interest. I'm talking about a man whose 296 00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:33,120 morality has been in question for years. 297 00:14:33,280 --> 00:14:36,320 And I'm talking about a party that now is like, Oh my 298 00:14:36,320 --> 00:14:39,160 goodness, I cannot believe Peter lied to my faith. 299 00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:40,560 Do you think? It's possible, Scarlett, to 300 00:14:40,560 --> 00:14:45,240 separate, come on, the sins of Peter Mandelson from what Tom 301 00:14:45,240 --> 00:14:49,080 argues, maybe the much lesser sins of this administration. 302 00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:52,760 There, there will be a degree of separation, but I think it's 303 00:14:52,760 --> 00:14:55,800 going to be harder for the government to untangle that than 304 00:14:55,800 --> 00:14:58,720 they maybe think at this moment. Or maybe they do realise that 305 00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:00,920 it's going to be that hard. But no, again, I think this is 306 00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:03,360 the problem when you have a Prime Minister who's sort of 307 00:15:03,600 --> 00:15:06,120 approval ratings are in the gutter, which they are, is that 308 00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:08,520 people already want to believe the worst about Keir Starmer. 309 00:15:08,520 --> 00:15:11,120 I find it quite astonishing around focus groups, people read 310 00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:13,240 bad intentions into everything he does. 311 00:15:13,240 --> 00:15:15,440 And now that's not, you know, so we can talk about optics, but 312 00:15:15,440 --> 00:15:17,480 when you're then trying to land messages, that matters, you 313 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:19,560 know, even when you're trying to land things that should be 314 00:15:19,680 --> 00:15:21,520 popular with voters or things that should at least be 315 00:15:21,520 --> 00:15:23,440 uncontroversial. The voters are already 316 00:15:23,440 --> 00:15:26,360 suspecting the worst of Keir Starmer and coming with that to 317 00:15:26,360 --> 00:15:28,840 what what he then tells them. So I think it's going to be 318 00:15:28,840 --> 00:15:31,920 very, very difficult for him to really come out of this 319 00:15:31,920 --> 00:15:32,520 unscathed. It's. 320 00:15:32,520 --> 00:15:35,880 Interesting that thing about the kind of level of unpopularity 321 00:15:35,880 --> 00:15:38,280 and I can't. I've read loads of people making 322 00:15:38,280 --> 00:15:42,240 quite tangential explanations for it, but I nothing's landed. 323 00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:44,160 I don't. I think it's partly the mood of 324 00:15:44,160 --> 00:15:45,640 the public. I think if you look, you know, I 325 00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:49,520 don't think that Keir Starmer's, you know, the, the steep incline 326 00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:52,920 of Kier Starmer's ratings, the the decline rather is in direct 327 00:15:52,920 --> 00:15:54,640 proportion to how badly he has done. 328 00:15:54,640 --> 00:15:56,040 I don't think anyone is mentioning that. 329 00:15:56,040 --> 00:15:58,920 I think the public are in such an impatient mood and are so 330 00:15:58,920 --> 00:16:00,720 distrustful of politicians. But again, This is why this 331 00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:01,960 scandal is so dangerous. It is bizarre. 332 00:16:01,960 --> 00:16:05,120 Because party gates and the trust budget and all the rest of 333 00:16:05,120 --> 00:16:07,920 it, that his popularity is below, below them. 334 00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:11,080 Because until this particular scandal erupted, you were 335 00:16:11,080 --> 00:16:13,960 thinking, well, he's he's maybe made some mistakes and political 336 00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:17,640 mistakes, but what's he done that was so bad that he has this 337 00:16:17,640 --> 00:16:20,040 level of unpopularity? And that's it. 338 00:16:20,040 --> 00:16:22,040 And the public, the public, you know, they're hungry for change. 339 00:16:22,040 --> 00:16:23,080 They don't think they're getting it. 340 00:16:23,240 --> 00:16:24,920 And fundamentally they think he's dishonest. 341 00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:26,920 I was always quite, I was quite surprised a few months ago, I 342 00:16:26,920 --> 00:16:29,240 think maybe even a year ago, got one of those word clouds back, 343 00:16:29,240 --> 00:16:31,320 You know, what do you think of Keir Starmer in a word, liar was 344 00:16:31,320 --> 00:16:33,320 the biggest word that was quite astonishing to me at the time 345 00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:36,000 because we've not really had this examples of dishonesty as 346 00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:37,160 such like we do with Boris Johnson. 347 00:16:37,440 --> 00:16:39,600 But that is a perception that he's dishonest, that he doesn't 348 00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:41,040 mean what he says, that he goes back on his word. 349 00:16:41,040 --> 00:16:43,040 And again, This is why something like this is damaging. 350 00:16:43,040 --> 00:16:44,560 But. What about the one of the One of 351 00:16:44,560 --> 00:16:46,720 the really interesting things about politics at the moment is, 352 00:16:47,080 --> 00:16:50,240 according to some polls, the five most popular prime 353 00:16:50,240 --> 00:16:53,320 ministers in polling history are in rank order. 354 00:16:53,480 --> 00:16:56,480 Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Trust, Rishi Sunak. 355 00:16:56,640 --> 00:16:58,680 Cheers, Tom. Each of one, Each of them, yeah, 356 00:16:58,680 --> 00:17:01,000 each of them has broken the previous one's record for 357 00:17:01,000 --> 00:17:03,360 unpopularity. Now, I think there's something 358 00:17:03,360 --> 00:17:08,520 else going on there which goes beyond rational assessment of 359 00:17:08,520 --> 00:17:11,680 the capabilities and morality of each of those prime ministers. 360 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:15,359 Well, you know, I know why I think Keir Starmer does goes 361 00:17:15,359 --> 00:17:17,599 back on his word. And that's because that's 362 00:17:17,599 --> 00:17:20,400 political and that's coming from the point of view of the left. 363 00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:24,359 I remember the 10 pledges that were extremely left wing, which 364 00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:25,960 we we're immediately gone back on. 365 00:17:26,119 --> 00:17:29,480 But what I don't understand is how that gets on to into the 366 00:17:29,480 --> 00:17:32,000 mainstream, into the right. I don't understand why reform 367 00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:33,360 voters hate them as much as they do. 368 00:17:33,360 --> 00:17:35,760 I just don't get it. Do do you think this will finish 369 00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:39,000 Starmer off? It's really, really hard to say 370 00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:43,440 it is this once once he's finished, because, you know, he 371 00:17:43,440 --> 00:17:46,760 was already in freefall that that kind of skirmish over 372 00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:50,400 whether Burnham could stand in Gatton and Barton, Gatton and 373 00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:55,360 Dartton was was, you know, embarrassing, I thought. 374 00:17:55,360 --> 00:17:58,120 And it showed weakness even though a lot of people thought 375 00:17:58,120 --> 00:17:59,440 there was nothing else they could have done. 376 00:17:59,760 --> 00:18:03,720 So if it finishes Starmer, you could say definitely that was 377 00:18:03,720 --> 00:18:05,840 because of Peter Manderson, but you could equally say the damn 378 00:18:06,080 --> 00:18:08,000 that he was mortally wounded beforehand. 379 00:18:08,000 --> 00:18:13,520 With apologies to the people of Gordon and Denton Tom, how do 380 00:18:13,520 --> 00:18:18,440 you stop Labour backbenchers saying this is it, we've now got 381 00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:20,960 to move? I think you have to get some 382 00:18:20,960 --> 00:18:24,320 sense proportion on what has actually happened in terms of 383 00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:26,800 the scandalous nature of whatever Keir Starmer's 384 00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:29,720 decisions were. And I think that proportion is 385 00:18:29,800 --> 00:18:31,520 lacking in the media coverage at the moment. 386 00:18:31,520 --> 00:18:34,200 I think it's lacking it on Labour backbenchers. 387 00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:37,520 Now, I do think, and what I was trying to say to Zoe earlier, is 388 00:18:37,520 --> 00:18:41,040 that there is a good case that given what we knew about Peter 389 00:18:41,040 --> 00:18:45,240 Mandelson, it was always going to be a ropy appointment. 390 00:18:45,360 --> 00:18:47,600 And yeah, they fought the risks. They were outweighed by the 391 00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:51,680 benefits. But you know, if you look at the 392 00:18:51,680 --> 00:18:55,800 interview with The Times yesterday, there are five areas 393 00:18:56,200 --> 00:18:59,560 where he's completely at odds with Keir Starmer's foreign 394 00:18:59,560 --> 00:19:02,560 policy. On China, on Greenland, on a 395 00:19:02,560 --> 00:19:05,280 rules based international, on Europe, indeed on Trump. 396 00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:09,800 And Peter Masten started doing this even before he was sacked. 397 00:19:09,800 --> 00:19:12,960 He did a speech at Ditchley Park where he basically praised 398 00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:15,000 Donald Trump's bombing of Iran. That's not Keir Starmer's 399 00:19:15,000 --> 00:19:16,440 policy. So for the ambassador to the 400 00:19:16,440 --> 00:19:20,000 United States pursuing his own foreign policy in his usual 401 00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:25,760 arrogant, high handed vain way, seems to me that I think by now 402 00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:29,080 I think his ambassadors would be untenable even without Epstein. 403 00:19:29,080 --> 00:19:31,120 So in that sense it was a bad appointment. 404 00:19:31,360 --> 00:19:32,760 I agree with you, it was a bad appointment. 405 00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:36,960 What I don't agree is that we should be saying this is the 406 00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:39,720 worst ever scandal around Keir Starmer to afflict any Prime 407 00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:42,040 Minister ever, when we actually don't know the fact. 408 00:19:42,080 --> 00:19:45,240 That anyone's saying, Keira, what Keir Starmer has done is 409 00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:48,160 the worst scandal, you know, of our lifetime. 410 00:19:48,480 --> 00:19:51,520 I think people are saying that what Mandelson has done, yeah, 411 00:19:51,560 --> 00:19:54,800 is the biggest scandal and. In the last Labour government. 412 00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:57,040 But also I mean. You know that anyone can 413 00:19:57,040 --> 00:19:59,960 remember, and the point is, it's almost impossible to stop that 414 00:20:00,120 --> 00:20:03,160 infecting Keir Starmer, even if Keir Starmer's sins are 415 00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:05,080 relatively small. But also, I don't think it's 416 00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:07,280 right to stop it infecting Keir Starmer. 417 00:20:07,280 --> 00:20:10,400 And I just explain why I say that when those of us who said 418 00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,720 when Mandelson was appointed, this is a this appointment 419 00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:16,680 stinks. We're told grow up because 420 00:20:16,760 --> 00:20:19,640 because we need a good relationship with with Trump. 421 00:20:19,640 --> 00:20:22,480 And the implication was only Mandelson knows how to. 422 00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:26,440 Only Mandelson is sycophantic enough to give Trump the 423 00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:29,600 treatment that he requires, right, Which I believe is true. 424 00:20:29,600 --> 00:20:32,360 I'm sure nobody else is as sycophantic as Peter Mandelson. 425 00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:35,760 And I'm sure nobody else cozies up to somebody whose whose 426 00:20:35,760 --> 00:20:39,080 values are so completely disgusting in such a convincing 427 00:20:39,080 --> 00:20:40,360 way. I can't think of anybody else in 428 00:20:40,360 --> 00:20:44,200 Labour who could. But can I just say, like, if 429 00:20:44,200 --> 00:20:49,120 anybody in this circumstance had some absolute values, like I 430 00:20:49,120 --> 00:20:52,600 don't want a sycophantic relationship with somebody who's 431 00:20:52,600 --> 00:20:55,960 kind of like skirting quite close to fascism already. 432 00:20:56,240 --> 00:20:58,960 I don't want that relationship with the US, even though 433 00:20:58,960 --> 00:21:01,040 historically that's the relationship we've had. 434 00:21:01,280 --> 00:21:04,360 If anybody had any absolute values here, then this wouldn't 435 00:21:04,360 --> 00:21:05,920 have happened. I don't think you can have. 436 00:21:05,920 --> 00:21:07,400 Absolute values there. But yeah, I know. 437 00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:08,720 But but Tom. Maybe. 438 00:21:08,880 --> 00:21:11,840 Maybe. You know, at some point, at some 439 00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:14,480 point, you say I don't want a sycophantic relationship. 440 00:21:16,760 --> 00:21:19,400 You don't have a sycophantic relationship with Russia because 441 00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:21,760 you disapprove of its leader. So, so sorry. 442 00:21:22,080 --> 00:21:23,480 Sorry. I agree. 443 00:21:23,840 --> 00:21:28,440 Putting a narcissist obsessed by wealth and power into current 444 00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:31,160 DC, Washington, DC was a bad idea. 445 00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:34,520 It was like putting a sort of, you know, a, you know, a child, 446 00:21:34,560 --> 00:21:36,920 a child addicted to chocolate into a sweet shop, Right. 447 00:21:37,160 --> 00:21:39,520 So, so, so it was a bad idea. I agree. 448 00:21:39,520 --> 00:21:41,840 Yeah, but that wasn't our idea. That's not clear. 449 00:21:42,080 --> 00:21:45,200 But but but what you're doing is you're then jumping from there 450 00:21:45,440 --> 00:21:48,440 to some fundamental to a moral judgement that are you are you 451 00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:50,440 saying you don't want to have a relationship with United States. 452 00:21:50,480 --> 00:21:51,640 But sorry if I. Have a relationship. 453 00:21:51,680 --> 00:21:54,600 I we, we want people don't need democracy to be sustained in 454 00:21:54,600 --> 00:21:56,400 Europe. We have to have American 455 00:21:56,400 --> 00:21:57,920 security guarantees. That's why we need to. 456 00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:00,480 Work, I'm not having you misrepresent my point like that. 457 00:22:00,480 --> 00:22:03,560 I did not say no relationship with America, but I just said 458 00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:07,200 not a relationship which is so sycophantic that only one man in 459 00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:09,480 the country can do it. I think it's a slight side issue 460 00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:11,280 as to what our relationship should be. 461 00:22:11,280 --> 00:22:12,720 I mean, the government set a direction and. 462 00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:14,280 Side. What it was gonna be I. 463 00:22:14,320 --> 00:22:17,560 Mean believe in anything. The question on, I mean, 464 00:22:17,560 --> 00:22:19,840 listening to you, Tom, it's a, it's a bit like you're saying 465 00:22:19,840 --> 00:22:22,080 it's so unfair. No, and maybe it is. 466 00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:23,640 I haven't said that use that phrase once. 467 00:22:23,640 --> 00:22:26,120 No, I know you haven't but but that's that's the impression I'm 468 00:22:26,120 --> 00:22:27,000 guessing. All I'm saying is. 469 00:22:27,080 --> 00:22:30,320 You're saying fact of substance. The the facts are that what Keir 470 00:22:30,320 --> 00:22:32,680 Starmer did wasn't that and. There's more facts to be 471 00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:34,400 disclosed, so let's wait for those facts. 472 00:22:34,760 --> 00:22:39,600 My, my question to you is really that isn't it obvious that the 473 00:22:39,880 --> 00:22:43,240 scale of the Mandelson scandal is so big that it takes the 474 00:22:43,240 --> 00:22:47,920 Labour brand that is almost inescapable for Keir Starmer and 475 00:22:48,080 --> 00:22:52,720 Labour backbenchers will say we need to do something dramatic to 476 00:22:52,720 --> 00:22:57,320 get out of this hole because we can't just hope that people will 477 00:22:57,320 --> 00:22:59,760 listen to people like Tom Baldwin and say get a sense of 478 00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:01,680 perspective. I think there are valid 479 00:23:01,680 --> 00:23:06,000 criticisms of Keir Starmer in appointing Peter Mandelson. 480 00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:11,000 I don't think myself it's a valid criticism to say he should 481 00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:13,880 have known what was essentially unknowable because Peter 482 00:23:14,240 --> 00:23:17,480 Mandelson, right? So, so, so I'm happy to have a 483 00:23:17,480 --> 00:23:22,680 discussion about what is a valid argument that Peter Mandelson 484 00:23:22,680 --> 00:23:25,080 was always going to be a risk, it was always going to go wrong. 485 00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:27,680 Everything he's ever done in public life has gone wrong and 486 00:23:27,680 --> 00:23:31,320 therefore is a bad appointment. I just think it's nuts to say he 487 00:23:31,320 --> 00:23:33,920 should have known everything that he now knows when 488 00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:36,360 essentially it was nobody. 'S saying that isn't. 489 00:23:37,040 --> 00:23:39,600 Isn't isn't the point. Then then you revert to optics 490 00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:40,760 and we. Don't know, it's not about. 491 00:23:40,840 --> 00:23:41,960 Optics. It's about the political 492 00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:45,160 realities that you've already got an incredibly unpopular 493 00:23:45,160 --> 00:23:48,080 Prime Minister, you've already got a party that was thinking of 494 00:23:48,080 --> 00:23:52,240 getting rid of him, campaigns well underway in in more than 495 00:23:52,240 --> 00:23:57,120 one corner and now this, which just hangs over the Labour Party 496 00:23:57,120 --> 00:23:59,560 brand. You know, how are you going to 497 00:23:59,560 --> 00:24:02,120 stop backbenchers or how do you think they should stop 498 00:24:02,120 --> 00:24:06,920 backbenchers saying we just need to act now to stop the rot and 499 00:24:06,920 --> 00:24:10,080 change the story and give people somebody new to focus on. 500 00:24:10,120 --> 00:24:15,440 I think, I think the argument that I'd be making is we're 501 00:24:15,440 --> 00:24:19,800 what, 18 months into five year Parliament, Labour has a working 502 00:24:19,800 --> 00:24:25,320 majority of 160. What really matters to people is 503 00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:31,080 actually not the vetting process in Downing St. for this 504 00:24:31,080 --> 00:24:37,160 ambassador or that person. It's not Rich Advisor is up and 505 00:24:37,160 --> 00:24:40,000 Rich advisor is down. It's not who leaked what to 506 00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:42,080 whom. It's not what the lobby think is 507 00:24:42,080 --> 00:24:44,480 the important political story of the day. 508 00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:47,240 It's actually what's happening in schools, what's happening in 509 00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:49,480 hospitals, what's happening and what's happening in the world. 510 00:24:49,880 --> 00:24:53,360 And this is a really dangerous, fragile moment for the world. 511 00:24:53,960 --> 00:24:59,400 It is really, I'm scared. And the idea that, you know, the 512 00:24:59,400 --> 00:25:02,640 Labour Party goes back staring at its naval bug, think about 513 00:25:02,640 --> 00:25:05,040 leadership contest because Andy Burnham wants to be an MP or 514 00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:06,840 something like that. You know, like, you know, it's 515 00:25:06,840 --> 00:25:08,800 nuts, right? They should get on with 516 00:25:08,800 --> 00:25:10,280 governing. They should get on with the 517 00:25:10,600 --> 00:25:14,240 really hard yards of actually trying to bring change to real 518 00:25:14,240 --> 00:25:19,200 people's lives in a real way, rather than getting constantly 519 00:25:19,840 --> 00:25:26,080 tied up in this inside Westminster addiction to chaos 520 00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:28,320 crisis. This idea that we have to change 521 00:25:28,400 --> 00:25:31,120 Prime Minister every year or two years because the lobby says so. 522 00:25:31,120 --> 00:25:33,640 It's it's, it's, it's, it's one of the reasons why people hate 523 00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:36,280 politics and feel alienated by politics, because it's just 524 00:25:36,280 --> 00:25:38,560 about politicians, not about their lives. 525 00:25:39,360 --> 00:25:42,000 Is there any evidence that changing the leader would make 526 00:25:42,120 --> 00:25:44,960 any difference? The neighbors popularity? 527 00:25:45,000 --> 00:25:46,880 No there's not. And and any of the characters 528 00:25:46,880 --> 00:25:50,040 who are left now, which is basically what Angela Rayner 529 00:25:50,120 --> 00:25:52,440 wears. Streeting and whoever else wants 530 00:25:52,440 --> 00:25:55,280 to throw their hat in the ring, you know that they would be 531 00:25:55,280 --> 00:25:57,400 given a chance any more than Keir Starmer has been. 532 00:25:57,600 --> 00:26:00,200 No, I mean, I think 2 apparently contradictory things about this 533 00:26:00,200 --> 00:26:02,120 at the same time. Firstly, I think that Keir 534 00:26:02,120 --> 00:26:04,760 Starmer's brand is irrecoverable with the public for some of the 535 00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:05,800 reasons we've just been discussed. 536 00:26:05,800 --> 00:26:08,480 And I think the public have firmly made-up their mind on 537 00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:10,440 Keir Starmer. I think the problem Keir Starmer 538 00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:14,400 has there is just how disliked he is by voters on the left as 539 00:26:14,400 --> 00:26:16,640 well as voters on the right. So he lost the sort of Labour to 540 00:26:16,640 --> 00:26:19,040 reform voters a while ago that, you know, Conservative voters 541 00:26:19,480 --> 00:26:20,760 don't like him. None of that is really a 542 00:26:20,760 --> 00:26:24,000 surprise to people, but it's the, the, the extent to which 543 00:26:24,000 --> 00:26:26,520 your voters that have deserted the Labour Party to the left 544 00:26:26,520 --> 00:26:28,400 dislike him. And even the ones that are 545 00:26:28,400 --> 00:26:31,240 sticking on board with Labour, they're sort of lukewarm feeling 546 00:26:31,240 --> 00:26:32,720 towards him. I, I think it's a really, really 547 00:26:32,720 --> 00:26:34,000 big problem for the Prime Minister. 548 00:26:34,240 --> 00:26:37,400 And I do struggle to see how if your Labour, especially if the 549 00:26:37,400 --> 00:26:40,040 big, you know, if the big tactic is to rally a vote to stop 550 00:26:40,040 --> 00:26:42,680 Farage, stop reform, which probably is as things look at 551 00:26:42,680 --> 00:26:44,880 the moment, the best tactic that Labour could come up with. 552 00:26:45,560 --> 00:26:47,720 That it's really difficult to rally behind someone, you know, 553 00:26:47,720 --> 00:26:49,400 rally people behind someone who's so unpopular. 554 00:26:49,880 --> 00:26:51,800 It's just you're off to a really hard start. 555 00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:55,440 And but that being said, there's no evidence anyone would do any 556 00:26:55,440 --> 00:26:58,240 better. Tom's already mentioned the how 557 00:26:58,240 --> 00:27:00,560 the last few prime ministers have fared and the fact that 558 00:27:00,560 --> 00:27:03,000 each one of them have seen similar falls in ratings. 559 00:27:03,360 --> 00:27:07,040 I do think it is difficult to see how anyone survives contact 560 00:27:07,040 --> 00:27:09,880 with the electorate, especially in this very difficult position 561 00:27:10,000 --> 00:27:12,120 that Labour are in and all the different people they have to 562 00:27:12,120 --> 00:27:14,240 try and keep happy and the state, the country in it. 563 00:27:14,240 --> 00:27:15,720 It's a really, really difficult job. 564 00:27:16,520 --> 00:27:17,400 So. So does that mean it's 565 00:27:17,440 --> 00:27:19,920 unrecoverable? No, I, I don't, I sort of think 566 00:27:19,920 --> 00:27:21,360 it's unrecoverable and we've got a long way to go. 567 00:27:21,360 --> 00:27:22,840 I mean, think about, you know, it's been under 2 years. 568 00:27:22,840 --> 00:27:24,120 We've got more than three years to go. 569 00:27:24,120 --> 00:27:26,680 Imagine what else might happen. You know, it's been, it's been 570 00:27:26,720 --> 00:27:28,400 an absolutely jam packed 18 months. 571 00:27:28,400 --> 00:27:30,520 But I do think This is why things like the Gordon and 572 00:27:30,520 --> 00:27:33,320 Denton by election could actually be even more hazardous 573 00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:35,600 for Keir Starmer than than this current scandal. 574 00:27:35,600 --> 00:27:38,160 But to Tom's point about the things that actually matter to 575 00:27:38,160 --> 00:27:42,920 people's lives, from your focus groups, if Labour improves the 576 00:27:42,920 --> 00:27:46,880 National Health Service, if they make incremental changes to 577 00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:50,400 education and public services, people feel a little bit better 578 00:27:50,400 --> 00:27:52,840 off, you know, when it comes to their energy bills. 579 00:27:53,240 --> 00:27:55,560 Is is that kind of change enough? 580 00:27:56,160 --> 00:27:58,320 To Yeah. Change the political weather. 581 00:27:58,320 --> 00:28:00,000 I think the keyword there was incremental. 582 00:28:00,120 --> 00:28:03,080 So I think Labour very cleverly campaigned for change in 2024. 583 00:28:03,080 --> 00:28:04,480 I think that was absolutely the right thing to do. 584 00:28:04,480 --> 00:28:06,880 However, they were not specific about what the change was and 585 00:28:06,880 --> 00:28:09,240 how they were going to get there and the public wanted wide 586 00:28:09,240 --> 00:28:12,040 scale, quick moving change. Change was probably impossible. 587 00:28:12,040 --> 00:28:12,760 Which they. Don't want to pay? 588 00:28:12,800 --> 00:28:14,720 For but they were but exactly, well, quite. 589 00:28:14,720 --> 00:28:16,160 And there's lots of contradictions in public 590 00:28:16,160 --> 00:28:17,960 opinion. What the public did not vote for 591 00:28:17,960 --> 00:28:20,480 was actually very slow and steady incremental change, no 592 00:28:20,480 --> 00:28:24,440 matter what they told pollsters. And I think this is the problem 593 00:28:24,440 --> 00:28:26,520 is, and again, I said three years is a long time, but it's 594 00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:28,960 actually not that long to try and convince the public of 595 00:28:28,960 --> 00:28:30,280 these. You know, the public are looking 596 00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:33,440 for huge sweeping changes to their lives to get better. 597 00:28:33,440 --> 00:28:35,480 And they're in that sort of mood where it's going to be quite 598 00:28:35,480 --> 00:28:37,920 hard to sell them incremental change. 599 00:28:38,400 --> 00:28:40,360 Sol. I think the keyword Scott used 600 00:28:40,360 --> 00:28:43,880 though that that public want these contradictory things. 601 00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:49,480 They want impossible change and one of the reasons why Kier 602 00:28:49,480 --> 00:28:53,280 seemed to work better on the international stage is he can. 603 00:28:53,720 --> 00:28:57,320 He's out there pursuing our national interest, I think 604 00:28:57,320 --> 00:29:00,720 pursuing actually recognizable British values and his values in 605 00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:03,120 a very dangerous situation, trying to make it a bit better. 606 00:29:03,440 --> 00:29:06,360 I think you could apply that to domestic politics as well, 607 00:29:06,560 --> 00:29:08,600 rather than saying you've got the silver bullet, rather than 608 00:29:08,600 --> 00:29:11,000 saying you've got some new magic formula which is going to change 609 00:29:11,000 --> 00:29:12,680 people's lives fundamentally in massive way. 610 00:29:12,680 --> 00:29:14,800 Immediately you say, look, it is really difficult. 611 00:29:15,000 --> 00:29:16,680 You've got failing public services, you've got failing 612 00:29:16,680 --> 00:29:18,320 public finance, you've got failing public trust. 613 00:29:18,320 --> 00:29:21,640 That's what they inherited. And in that frame they're going 614 00:29:21,640 --> 00:29:24,360 to try and make better decisions than the Tories, fairer 615 00:29:24,360 --> 00:29:26,080 decisions than the Tories. They're going to try and make 616 00:29:26,080 --> 00:29:28,560 things a bit better and they're definitely not going to make 617 00:29:28,560 --> 00:29:31,640 things much, much worse. And in the end, politics is a 618 00:29:31,640 --> 00:29:35,320 choice between you may not like everything about Keir Starmer 619 00:29:35,320 --> 00:29:40,040 and Labour, but do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel 620 00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:42,880 Farage with his Putin supporting mates? 621 00:29:43,480 --> 00:29:45,400 That's in charge, isn't it, Zoe? That that come on every every 622 00:29:45,400 --> 00:29:47,320 time you jump up and down on Keir Starmer's. 623 00:29:47,800 --> 00:29:51,880 On Keir Starmer's grave. Aren't you actually just helping 624 00:29:51,880 --> 00:29:53,280 put Nigel Farage? I was actually. 625 00:29:53,560 --> 00:29:56,640 Trying to put myself on mute in real life just then, just 626 00:29:56,640 --> 00:29:58,240 because I was so desperate to jump in. 627 00:29:59,400 --> 00:30:02,040 Look, the the this argument doesn't work. 628 00:30:02,200 --> 00:30:05,040 We had this argument in September when Angela Rayner had 629 00:30:05,200 --> 00:30:08,320 a huge scandal and you were saying take your medicine if it 630 00:30:08,320 --> 00:30:11,120 wouldn't you rather get behind Keir Starmer than have Nigel 631 00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:14,520 Farage in charge? Now you, you will never persuade 632 00:30:14,520 --> 00:30:19,280 me to take to, to just suck up the depredations of the of a 633 00:30:19,280 --> 00:30:22,640 Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to prevent the 634 00:30:22,640 --> 00:30:24,720 incursions of the far right. Because I look at the Labour 635 00:30:24,720 --> 00:30:27,840 government and they quite often are mimicking Nigel Farage. 636 00:30:27,920 --> 00:30:29,600 They quite often are mimicking can be bad. 637 00:30:29,600 --> 00:30:32,200 Not a lot of the language Shabana Mahmoud comes out with 638 00:30:32,360 --> 00:30:33,760 makes me feel sick to my stomach. 639 00:30:33,960 --> 00:30:37,240 Now I personally, and it's just me, I don't speak as a 640 00:30:37,240 --> 00:30:38,600 columnist, I'm talking as a voter. 641 00:30:38,800 --> 00:30:41,200 I will never take that. I will never swallow it. 642 00:30:41,320 --> 00:30:44,000 And when Nigel Farage gets in and you blame me, I'll be 643 00:30:44,000 --> 00:30:48,160 standing here blaming you. But even if I would take it, the 644 00:30:48,160 --> 00:30:52,280 electorate is done with it. Nobody's saying, OK, let's take 645 00:30:52,280 --> 00:30:54,960 incremental change. I've never seen a bit of 646 00:30:55,640 --> 00:30:58,920 relegate and regulation that I don't want to add to Starmer. 647 00:30:59,880 --> 00:31:03,080 Let's take that over because the far right is more of a threat. 648 00:31:03,080 --> 00:31:05,440 People are done with that kind of logic and they're going to go 649 00:31:05,440 --> 00:31:06,640 Zach Prolansky. They just don't. 650 00:31:06,960 --> 00:31:09,520 I would just say that Zoe does sound like an awful lot of the 651 00:31:09,520 --> 00:31:11,920 voters that get on the left of the spectrum in my focus group, 652 00:31:11,920 --> 00:31:13,000 I thought. You've been saying an awful 653 00:31:13,000 --> 00:31:15,040 person. No, not at all, but that have 654 00:31:15,040 --> 00:31:16,920 been that have been saying this for months and I think This is 655 00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:18,520 why Gordon and Denton is actually such a threat to 656 00:31:18,520 --> 00:31:20,720 stomach maybe not even in the immediate term, but in the long 657 00:31:20,720 --> 00:31:22,240 term. It's a bit of a pre. 658 00:31:22,440 --> 00:31:24,920 It's a curtain raiser and what we might expect from the 2029 659 00:31:24,920 --> 00:31:27,640 election in that we know there's a potential for a progressive 660 00:31:27,640 --> 00:31:29,840 tactical vote out there. We saw that in the carefully by 661 00:31:29,840 --> 00:31:32,320 election in Wales that successfully stopped reform that 662 00:31:32,320 --> 00:31:34,760 was rallying behind Clyde come really crucially that involved 663 00:31:34,760 --> 00:31:36,480 really squashing the Labour vote right down. 664 00:31:36,680 --> 00:31:40,360 The problem for Labour is what if the Greens successfully make 665 00:31:40,360 --> 00:31:42,400 the case in Gordon and Denton, which is not somewhere they have 666 00:31:42,400 --> 00:31:44,760 a huge footprint, not some where they have, you know, business 667 00:31:44,760 --> 00:31:45,880 and actually doing incredibly well. 668 00:31:46,000 --> 00:31:48,160 What if the Greens substantially make the case there that they 669 00:31:48,160 --> 00:31:49,640 are the best ones to take on reform? 670 00:31:49,800 --> 00:31:51,600 That is a whole new problem for Labour. 671 00:31:52,000 --> 00:31:55,000 I sort of agree that that I agree but with both of you on 672 00:31:55,000 --> 00:32:01,680 this, that that for Labour to rebuild a coalition of left and 673 00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:05,880 centre left voters, it needs to tell a centre left story. 674 00:32:05,880 --> 00:32:07,960 And I think there's lots of great things this government's 675 00:32:07,960 --> 00:32:10,640 been doing, but quite often it's been sort of sheep dressed as 676 00:32:10,640 --> 00:32:15,880 wolf has been trying to present quite standard Social Democratic 677 00:32:15,880 --> 00:32:19,400 things as a sort of scary kind of almost right wing insurgent 678 00:32:19,400 --> 00:32:21,440 thing to do. As if, as if they're not 679 00:32:21,440 --> 00:32:24,000 interested in the people who always voted Labour, they're 680 00:32:24,000 --> 00:32:26,200 interested in the people on the other side of all of voting 681 00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:28,400 reform. And you know, Labour have lost 682 00:32:28,400 --> 00:32:30,680 three times as many votes to progressive parties and it has 683 00:32:30,680 --> 00:32:32,400 to reform. I've never understood a 684 00:32:32,400 --> 00:32:35,520 political strategy which means they just chase after the latter 685 00:32:35,520 --> 00:32:38,080 rather than former. It makes no sense to me. 686 00:32:38,360 --> 00:32:42,040 And so I, I think there's an absence of a story about the 687 00:32:42,040 --> 00:32:44,440 Prime Minister, there's an absence about the government, 688 00:32:44,680 --> 00:32:47,960 about the country and the world, which would help join all the 689 00:32:47,960 --> 00:32:52,240 bullet points, join the dots of the policies that they're doing. 690 00:32:52,360 --> 00:32:56,000 They need to tell a story about where we're trying to go, what 691 00:32:56,000 --> 00:32:59,920 we're trying to do, which will allow people to make that choice 692 00:32:59,920 --> 00:33:04,000 between them and the really scary prospect of the kind of 693 00:33:04,200 --> 00:33:06,600 populist far right government we've never seen before in this 694 00:33:06,600 --> 00:33:08,320 country. That's that's that's, that's, 695 00:33:08,320 --> 00:33:10,840 that's, that's the political strategy that they they need to 696 00:33:10,840 --> 00:33:13,080 do. There is there has been far too 697 00:33:13,080 --> 00:33:15,320 much time doing, you know, immigration announcements to 698 00:33:15,320 --> 00:33:18,000 make themselves look a bit like reform or try to contest that 699 00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:19,280 same territory. I don't think it's doing them 700 00:33:19,280 --> 00:33:20,480 any good. I think it's doing them harm. 701 00:33:20,640 --> 00:33:22,920 And do you? Think they can ultimately 702 00:33:22,920 --> 00:33:25,120 separate Mandelson from the Labour brand? 703 00:33:26,960 --> 00:33:30,920 Look, there is endless people have been thrown out of a 704 00:33:30,920 --> 00:33:34,680 political party and thrown out of politics because of scandals. 705 00:33:34,680 --> 00:33:39,320 I don't think that destroys the Labour Party or necessary taints 706 00:33:39,320 --> 00:33:42,280 everyone of the Labour Party with the same sins that Peter 707 00:33:42,280 --> 00:33:44,200 Mandelson committed. But. 708 00:33:44,720 --> 00:33:47,480 He's not a normal politician. He's not a normal politician in 709 00:33:47,480 --> 00:33:50,560 many, many ways. Yeah, he's been sacked multiple 710 00:33:50,560 --> 00:33:52,440 times. He kept popping back up. 711 00:33:52,680 --> 00:33:54,600 I surprised he popped back again this time. 712 00:33:55,000 --> 00:33:56,480 I know. As a matter of fact, Keir 713 00:33:56,480 --> 00:33:59,400 Starmer had some result salvations about appointing him 714 00:33:59,880 --> 00:34:01,880 and those reservations were overcome. 715 00:34:02,920 --> 00:34:10,080 But it you know, I'd just say again, Zoe condemned at the 716 00:34:10,080 --> 00:34:12,760 time, well done. But but there are lots of people 717 00:34:12,760 --> 00:34:14,040 now sound like you're being sarcastic. 718 00:34:14,040 --> 00:34:16,159 I'm not being I'm really I'm not being sarcastic. 719 00:34:16,400 --> 00:34:19,440 I'm, I am saying generally well done because a lot of the people 720 00:34:19,440 --> 00:34:22,880 now who are saying it was obvious all along it was always 721 00:34:22,880 --> 00:34:25,000 a scandal didn't regard it as such. 722 00:34:25,199 --> 00:34:28,040 At the time, can I just say so something though, Tom, you sound 723 00:34:28,120 --> 00:34:31,760 like you do politics by AI. You're like, well, nobody can 724 00:34:31,760 --> 00:34:34,440 possibly have known that thing because that person lied. 725 00:34:34,440 --> 00:34:36,960 And until that person stops lying, the truth can never be 726 00:34:36,960 --> 00:34:38,840 known. Well, it's the, it's the kind of 727 00:34:38,840 --> 00:34:41,920 thing a computer would say. I mean, it's a logical sequence. 728 00:34:41,920 --> 00:34:45,639 It is logical, but a lot of people do know what they're 729 00:34:45,639 --> 00:34:47,639 dealing with and knew what they were dealing with for ages. 730 00:34:47,639 --> 00:34:49,600 Of Peter Mendelssohn, you know, you don't actually. 731 00:34:49,760 --> 00:34:52,800 So he can lie to your face and you can be able to sniff it out. 732 00:34:53,040 --> 00:34:55,960 Tom Baldwin, Scarlett McGuire, Zoe Williams, thank you all very 733 00:34:55,960 --> 00:34:57,960 much indeed. That's it for this episode of 734 00:34:57,960 --> 00:35:00,200 the The Forecast. Until next time, bye bye.