The Labour Party to get on with governing rather than getting
constantly tied up in this addiction to chaos crisis.
I don't think when the public think about Peter Mandelson
they'll think that's a problem contained to a different era of
the Labour Party, especially because their views of that
Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are so bad they're
not going to give him any benefit of the doubt.
Do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Farage?
You will never persuade me to just suck up the depredations of
the of the Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to
prevent the incursions of the far right.
Because I look at the Labour government and they quite often
are mimicking Nigel Farage. I will never take that.
Do you think this will finish them off?
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
It's the scandal that just keeps getting worse.
Certainly the biggest crisis for Keir Starmer.
Could it finish him off or is it even bigger than that?
Is Labour's position recoverable or is it now a dead man walking?
The PM admits Peter Mandelson's relationship with the dead
paedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein came up as part
of the vetting process for ambassador to Washington.
But he says Mandelson lied and lied again, saying he betrayed
our country and our party. But what concerns were raised
during the process and were they overruled?
If so, who by? If Starmer wasn't warned, why
not? The stench of sleaze and
corruption hangs heavy in the air over Westminster right now.
So can the government escape it? Or is this the final straw for
Labour backbenchers already wondering whether to throw
Starmer overboard? Joining me to discuss this,
Starmer biographer Tom Baldwin, the political commentator Zoe
Williams, and the pollster and strategist Scarlett McGuire.
Tom, I mean, jaws are on the floor and getting wider by the
hour. Can you think of a worse
political scandal in our lifetime?
Or be opened? I do think it's a scandal.
I do think this is shocking, but essentially if you know, the
real sin happened under the last when Gordon Brown was Prime
Minister, when Peter Manderson was business secretary, that's
when he was disclosing confidential market sensitive
information apparently to Jeffrey Epstein.
The question about this government is why they appointed
Peter Madison and. What they were warned about.
Now, now, now, that's a good question.
But it's not a scandal about this government until it can be
shown that Keir Starmer knew what we know now does.
He does he have to know everything that we know now?
I mean, we knew from 2023 onwards, because the FT ran a
story about it, that Mandelson had maintained a relationship
with Epstein after he had been found to have been involved in
sex trafficking. And yet he carried on and there
would have been a vetting process.
We don't know what it said. Maybe we'll get to find out if
these papers are published. But whatever concerns it may
have raised were clearly overruled.
That does make it a scandal for this government.
There's a question, I think, whether the Prime Minister
should have known what essentially is unknowable
because Peter Manson was lying to the Prime Minister, lying to
his oldest friends, possibly even lying to himself about the
extent of his relationship with Epstein.
Now there was a vetting process. We now know that it did raise
concerns about Mammalson's continuing relationship with
Epstein that was in the public domain.
So I would just say. Lightly.
Well, I'd say. Lightly to journalists on this,
because there's a lot of hindsightry around and a lot of
the journalists now say it was always obvious, blah, blah,
blah. We're the same journalists who
are saying what a masterstroke point to Peter Mountain writing
falling. Not everyone, but a lot of them
were. A lot of them were saying it.
A lot of people were writing falling pieces about it and I'm
not sure whether Channel 4 News, I mean correct me if I'm wrong,
did a big podcast or a big section at Tom of Peter Manson's
appointment saying this is scandalous because we know that
Peter Manson continued to have relationships with Epstein after
his conviction, the FT did. I think if you Google what was
said at the time, there are articles across the media saying
this is high risk, this is a man who's had to resign in disgrace
twice but the premier and this might happen again, but hold on.
Hold on a moment. Just me to make his point.
The premise that this was a scandal because it was known
that Peter Mandelson continued to have relationships with
Jeffrey Epstein after the conviction that was known to the
media at the time of Peter Mandelson's appointment.
Were the media calling it a scandal then?
Yeah, I was. They weren't.
They weren't saying it was a scandal.
OK, I did. There was some on the
exceptions. No, come on, don't that.
You were Channel 4 News. That's.
Genuinely the weakest argument I've ever heard you make.
Because some people. Because some.
People in the media didn't put their money where their mouth
was two years ago, therefore nobody's got not a leg to stand
on now. And this isn't a scandal that
doesn't even make logical sense, Tom.
And you know, it's no, no, the the logic is this, that for this
to be the biggest scandal of our lifetime.
Oh, OK, fine. I mean, if we're going.
To be a big scandal of our lifetime, it is that.
The premise of that is we know that Downing St. and Keir
Starmer knew about Madison's continuing links with Epstein
after his conviction. So did the media.
So the media did not declare this the biggest scandal of
their lifetime at the time. It is only a scandal now.
It is only a scandal now because of what we know now.
So the real question, the real question which would determine
whether it is a big scandal about this government, is
whether Down St. knew more than what was in the public domain
then. A, that A, that doesn't make
sense for the aforementioned reasons.
B, that none of that has to do with Keir Starmer's judgement.
Keir Starmer's judgement is what's at issue here.
And whether or not certain commentators called it out
properly at the time, whether Chris ran a package about it
doesn't make any difference. If he had, if he had a kind of
moral compass, if he could see the man in front of him, if he
could put priorities ahead of electoral calculation, which by
the way, I don't think Peter Mandelson did serve very well,
but that's what he thought he served, then if he doesn't have
those qualities, then those aren't qualities that you have.
And that's a. Question what what you know and
maybe we will find out and maybe we won't.
What he knew in the what? What?
The concerns were well and what was said about them in order to
sweep them asylum. But he's also, that is the key
question. But there is also a kind of more
fundamental question, which is, you know, there, there is there
a calculation was made that whatever the relationship was
between Peter Manderson and Epstein, it didn't matter so
long as nobody was looking directly at it.
Now, somebody you had a for whom that was a real matter of
conscience, for whom fraternising with a known
paedophile really was a moral issue, would have said, I just,
I'm just not wild about this. I'm not wild about sending
Mandelson as as ambassador to Trump, who is himself a known
associate of Epstein. Whether or not this is the
biggest or the second biggest or the third biggest, does it
matter? I mean, you know, won't the
public now just conclude that there is the stench of scandal
around Labour, who claims to be better than the last loss, and
it turns out maybe they weren't. I think you've hit the nail on
the head and and you know, unfortunately for those in #10
actually the public make their mind up quicker than quite a lot
of some of this information can come out about exactly who knew
what, when and etcetera. I think the problem for the
Labour Party and for for Keir Starmer and the government in
particular is that Peter Mandelson is incredibly well
known in this country. He's, you know, far better known
than Andy Burnham or Robert celebrate from any of the other
politicians we've seen and to the spotlight over the last few
weeks who aren't the sort of principal party leaders.
And he is synonymous with Labour because he's been around for so
long, he's been associated with so many different Labour
governments. And I don't think when the
public think about Peter Mandelson, they'll think that's
a problem contained to a different era of the Labour
Party. They will think about it as the
same Labour Party that we have now, especially because their
views of that Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are
so bad, they're not going to give him any benefit of the
doubt. And then the second part of that
is that OK, they know who Peter Mandelson is.
They don't think very well of Labour Party.
Sorry. The third one is that this plays
into all of their were suspicions about people in
politics anyway, you know, trust in politicians is an all time
low. It only seems to be sinking
further and further the longer that these the longer these
surveys track it. And this is people's this is
exactly what people think are up to.
It might be a bit more colourful, it might be more
outrageous, but unfortunately the public have this idea that
politicians and pretty much all politicians are just in it for
themselves and elite interests and they're up to no good.
So if they hear this, they hear Labour brand, they hear Peter
Manderson, I think they're going to make their own minds up, even
if they're jumping to conclusions.
So how do you think this is savable for Keir Starmer and his
administration? I mean, they're, they're they're
making an attempt at transparency and saying we'll
publish the papers, although they don't want to publish all
the papers and it looks like they're going to be forced into
it to some degree, You know, can he save Morgan McSweeney for a
start, his right hand man who seems to be the one who was
really pushing Mandelson's appointment.
Look. One of the frustrating things
about a lot of political discussions in podcasts like
this is we spend an awful lot of time talking about optics and
perceptions, and that's code for avoiding substance.
And, you know, one of the reasons why I think people are
actually aonated by politics is it's an endless discussion about
who's up and who's down, what people think about, you know,
this, what this focus group says rather than actually outcomes
for them in their real lives. But.
McSweeney. Is not a substance.
Because he is the core. Of this government, yeah.
So, so so, as I say, there are genuine questions which need to
be answered about what Downing St. and what Keir Starmer knew
prior to Peter Mandelson's appointment if they knew what
was already in the public domain.
But no more than those same questions should be answered by
the BBC, who thought that Peter Mouse was the right choice to be
the eminence Greece fronting their election coverage.
In 2024 knew more than what was in the public eye at the time,
which you have to assume is the case.
Why? Because they're the security
services. I've limited understanding of
vetting process, but what they will do is they will go through
everything's in the public domain and then they will sit
down with the person they're vetting and say is there
anything else we need to know? What about this relationship of
Epstein? What we have been told is that
Peter Madison lied at that in that instance.
Now, should you be hung whether you're a Down St. advisor or
Prime Minister for believing lies told by someone?
Now there's a question I do accept.
How about Peter Manson's record, right?
He resigned twice from the last Labour government before he was
reappointed and then apparently leaked this sensitive
information, which I think is shocking.
But yeah, I mean, come on, come on, you must remember, you want.
To talk about. But you must remember the first
scandal when he took that loan. Yeah, I agree.
That's what I'm just referring. To I used to live I used to live
around the corner from Peter Manson in the 90s in in Notting.
Hill. There goes neighborhood.
I had this little squat in Holland Park.
Anyway, you've walked past every day, everybody in the press was
saying this man is toast. He's not honest, he takes loans.
That's not how Labour politicians are supposed.
We were promised something different.
It was 97. We were promised a better kind
of person and the and the Prince of Darkness was taking was just
dodgy. And everybody said he's not
going to last. And he would come out and
stretch on his front doorstep and pick up his newspaper.
And I kept passing him thinking he doesn't look like a man who's
taken this seriously and he doesn't look like a man who's
not going to last. Now, the problem Peter Mandelson
is, is complete impunity, absolute.
You know, he always said he's completely Teflon coated.
He, he, he never gives up. But by gives up, he means he's
unshameable. And everybody knew that.
So why are we sitting here having this argument about
whether where the kid did the right thing or the wrong thing
about a vetting meeting? Well, my question is, to me it
was really obvious what kind of man we were dealing.
With, I mean, you know, you've, you've put a case as to why it
shouldn't be pointed at Starmer and Downing Street.
But given what's Scarlett has said about public opinion, and
it seems blindingly obvious as well how public opinion is going
to go on this, the question is how, how can he escape this?
What? What should he do?
Well, I think what he's done this week in terms of he's moved
relatively speed down. He can argue he could done
somethings faster. But in terms of, you know, Peter
Manson getting Peter Manson out of Labour Party, getting Peter
Manson out of the House of Lords, stripping Peter Manson of
his peerage through people Anderson of his membership of
the Privy Council. I mean, all these things are
being done. It's right that there is now an
investigation into what was known in that vetting process.
That seems to me the substantial issue here.
And we can talk forever about perceptions and optics, but what
the government has to do now is get to the bottom of what was
known and let the public know what was known.
Now I I I the point I'm making about, but how?
Do you stop the public blaming the government and say and, and,
and jumping to all those conclusions that Scarlett is
talking about, that they're all in it for themselves and they're
all as bad as each other? When we're going to have
investigation after investigation, possibly police
investigation, possible criminal case.
I mean, this is going to go on forever now.
It's a, it's a good, it's a good piece of advice.
I think in general for the media, for government, for
anyone in public life to try and establish facts and stick to
facts and try and do substance rather than take decisions on
the basis of optics. Now no, no, no, no before I'm.
Saying the word optics as though this is just we're all just
being silly and worrying about what things look like.
I'm not worrying about what things look like.
I'm worrying about somebody who told a known paedophile and sex
offender it's secrets about the British state which were
deleterious to this. They had known that at the time.
If they know that, then sorry, sorry, sorry.
No, no, no. No, let me finish my point.
Let my finish my point. I'm not talking about optics.
I am talking about an immoral man who didn't did not care
about the victims of Epstein and did not care about the British
national interest. I'm talking about a man whose
morality has been in question for years.
And I'm talking about a party that now is like, Oh my
goodness, I cannot believe Peter lied to my faith.
Do you think? It's possible, Scarlett, to
separate, come on, the sins of Peter Mandelson from what Tom
argues, maybe the much lesser sins of this administration.
There, there will be a degree of separation, but I think it's
going to be harder for the government to untangle that than
they maybe think at this moment. Or maybe they do realise that
it's going to be that hard. But no, again, I think this is
the problem when you have a Prime Minister who's sort of
approval ratings are in the gutter, which they are, is that
people already want to believe the worst about Keir Starmer.
I find it quite astonishing around focus groups, people read
bad intentions into everything he does.
And now that's not, you know, so we can talk about optics, but
when you're then trying to land messages, that matters, you
know, even when you're trying to land things that should be
popular with voters or things that should at least be
uncontroversial. The voters are already
suspecting the worst of Keir Starmer and coming with that to
what what he then tells them. So I think it's going to be
very, very difficult for him to really come out of this
unscathed. It's.
Interesting that thing about the kind of level of unpopularity
and I can't. I've read loads of people making
quite tangential explanations for it, but I nothing's landed.
I don't. I think it's partly the mood of
the public. I think if you look, you know, I
don't think that Keir Starmer's, you know, the, the steep incline
of Kier Starmer's ratings, the the decline rather is in direct
proportion to how badly he has done.
I don't think anyone is mentioning that.
I think the public are in such an impatient mood and are so
distrustful of politicians. But again, This is why this
scandal is so dangerous. It is bizarre.
Because party gates and the trust budget and all the rest of
it, that his popularity is below, below them.
Because until this particular scandal erupted, you were
thinking, well, he's he's maybe made some mistakes and political
mistakes, but what's he done that was so bad that he has this
level of unpopularity? And that's it.
And the public, the public, you know, they're hungry for change.
They don't think they're getting it.
And fundamentally they think he's dishonest.
I was always quite, I was quite surprised a few months ago, I
think maybe even a year ago, got one of those word clouds back,
You know, what do you think of Keir Starmer in a word, liar was
the biggest word that was quite astonishing to me at the time
because we've not really had this examples of dishonesty as
such like we do with Boris Johnson.
But that is a perception that he's dishonest, that he doesn't
mean what he says, that he goes back on his word.
And again, This is why something like this is damaging.
But. What about the one of the One of
the really interesting things about politics at the moment is,
according to some polls, the five most popular prime
ministers in polling history are in rank order.
Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Trust, Rishi Sunak.
Cheers, Tom. Each of one, Each of them, yeah,
each of them has broken the previous one's record for
unpopularity. Now, I think there's something
else going on there which goes beyond rational assessment of
the capabilities and morality of each of those prime ministers.
Well, you know, I know why I think Keir Starmer does goes
back on his word. And that's because that's
political and that's coming from the point of view of the left.
I remember the 10 pledges that were extremely left wing, which
we we're immediately gone back on.
But what I don't understand is how that gets on to into the
mainstream, into the right. I don't understand why reform
voters hate them as much as they do.
I just don't get it. Do do you think this will finish
Starmer off? It's really, really hard to say
it is this once once he's finished, because, you know, he
was already in freefall that that kind of skirmish over
whether Burnham could stand in Gatton and Barton, Gatton and
Dartton was was, you know, embarrassing, I thought.
And it showed weakness even though a lot of people thought
there was nothing else they could have done.
So if it finishes Starmer, you could say definitely that was
because of Peter Manderson, but you could equally say the damn
that he was mortally wounded beforehand.
With apologies to the people of Gordon and Denton Tom, how do
you stop Labour backbenchers saying this is it, we've now got
to move? I think you have to get some
sense proportion on what has actually happened in terms of
the scandalous nature of whatever Keir Starmer's
decisions were. And I think that proportion is
lacking in the media coverage at the moment.
I think it's lacking it on Labour backbenchers.
Now, I do think, and what I was trying to say to Zoe earlier, is
that there is a good case that given what we knew about Peter
Mandelson, it was always going to be a ropy appointment.
And yeah, they fought the risks. They were outweighed by the
benefits. But you know, if you look at the
interview with The Times yesterday, there are five areas
where he's completely at odds with Keir Starmer's foreign
policy. On China, on Greenland, on a
rules based international, on Europe, indeed on Trump.
And Peter Masten started doing this even before he was sacked.
He did a speech at Ditchley Park where he basically praised
Donald Trump's bombing of Iran. That's not Keir Starmer's
policy. So for the ambassador to the
United States pursuing his own foreign policy in his usual
arrogant, high handed vain way, seems to me that I think by now
I think his ambassadors would be untenable even without Epstein.
So in that sense it was a bad appointment.
I agree with you, it was a bad appointment.
What I don't agree is that we should be saying this is the
worst ever scandal around Keir Starmer to afflict any Prime
Minister ever, when we actually don't know the fact.
That anyone's saying, Keira, what Keir Starmer has done is
the worst scandal, you know, of our lifetime.
I think people are saying that what Mandelson has done, yeah,
is the biggest scandal and. In the last Labour government.
But also I mean. You know that anyone can
remember, and the point is, it's almost impossible to stop that
infecting Keir Starmer, even if Keir Starmer's sins are
relatively small. But also, I don't think it's
right to stop it infecting Keir Starmer.
And I just explain why I say that when those of us who said
when Mandelson was appointed, this is a this appointment
stinks. We're told grow up because
because we need a good relationship with with Trump.
And the implication was only Mandelson knows how to.
Only Mandelson is sycophantic enough to give Trump the
treatment that he requires, right, Which I believe is true.
I'm sure nobody else is as sycophantic as Peter Mandelson.
And I'm sure nobody else cozies up to somebody whose whose
values are so completely disgusting in such a convincing
way. I can't think of anybody else in
Labour who could. But can I just say, like, if
anybody in this circumstance had some absolute values, like I
don't want a sycophantic relationship with somebody who's
kind of like skirting quite close to fascism already.
I don't want that relationship with the US, even though
historically that's the relationship we've had.
If anybody had any absolute values here, then this wouldn't
have happened. I don't think you can have.
Absolute values there. But yeah, I know.
But but Tom. Maybe.
You know, at some point, at some
point, you say I don't want a sycophantic relationship.
You don't have a sycophantic relationship with Russia because
you disapprove of its leader. So, so sorry.
Sorry. I agree.
Putting a narcissist obsessed by wealth and power into current
DC, Washington, DC was a bad idea.
It was like putting a sort of, you know, a, you know, a child,
a child addicted to chocolate into a sweet shop, Right.
So, so, so it was a bad idea. I agree.
Yeah, but that wasn't our idea. That's not clear.
But but but what you're doing is you're then jumping from there
to some fundamental to a moral judgement that are you are you
saying you don't want to have a relationship with United States.
But sorry if I. Have a relationship.
I we, we want people don't need democracy to be sustained in
Europe. We have to have American
security guarantees. That's why we need to.
Work, I'm not having you misrepresent my point like that.
I did not say no relationship with America, but I just said
not a relationship which is so sycophantic that only one man in
the country can do it. I think it's a slight side issue
as to what our relationship should be.
I mean, the government set a direction and.
Side. What it was gonna be I.
Mean believe in anything. The question on, I mean,
listening to you, Tom, it's a, it's a bit like you're saying
it's so unfair. No, and maybe it is.
I haven't said that use that phrase once.
No, I know you haven't but but that's that's the impression I'm
guessing. All I'm saying is.
You're saying fact of substance. The the facts are that what Keir
Starmer did wasn't that and. There's more facts to be
disclosed, so let's wait for those facts.
My, my question to you is really that isn't it obvious that the
scale of the Mandelson scandal is so big that it takes the
Labour brand that is almost inescapable for Keir Starmer and
Labour backbenchers will say we need to do something dramatic to
get out of this hole because we can't just hope that people will
listen to people like Tom Baldwin and say get a sense of
perspective. I think there are valid
criticisms of Keir Starmer in appointing Peter Mandelson.
I don't think myself it's a valid criticism to say he should
have known what was essentially unknowable because Peter
Mandelson, right? So, so, so I'm happy to have a
discussion about what is a valid argument that Peter Mandelson
was always going to be a risk, it was always going to go wrong.
Everything he's ever done in public life has gone wrong and
therefore is a bad appointment. I just think it's nuts to say he
should have known everything that he now knows when
essentially it was nobody. 'S saying that isn't.
Isn't isn't the point. Then then you revert to optics
and we. Don't know, it's not about.
Optics. It's about the political
realities that you've already got an incredibly unpopular
Prime Minister, you've already got a party that was thinking of
getting rid of him, campaigns well underway in in more than
one corner and now this, which just hangs over the Labour Party
brand. You know, how are you going to
stop backbenchers or how do you think they should stop
backbenchers saying we just need to act now to stop the rot and
change the story and give people somebody new to focus on.
I think, I think the argument that I'd be making is we're
what, 18 months into five year Parliament, Labour has a working
majority of 160. What really matters to people is
actually not the vetting process in Downing St. for this
ambassador or that person. It's not Rich Advisor is up and
Rich advisor is down. It's not who leaked what to
whom. It's not what the lobby think is
the important political story of the day.
It's actually what's happening in schools, what's happening in
hospitals, what's happening and what's happening in the world.
And this is a really dangerous, fragile moment for the world.
It is really, I'm scared. And the idea that, you know, the
Labour Party goes back staring at its naval bug, think about
leadership contest because Andy Burnham wants to be an MP or
something like that. You know, like, you know, it's
nuts, right? They should get on with
governing. They should get on with the
really hard yards of actually trying to bring change to real
people's lives in a real way, rather than getting constantly
tied up in this inside Westminster addiction to chaos
crisis. This idea that we have to change
Prime Minister every year or two years because the lobby says so.
It's it's, it's, it's, it's one of the reasons why people hate
politics and feel alienated by politics, because it's just
about politicians, not about their lives.
Is there any evidence that changing the leader would make
any difference? The neighbors popularity?
No there's not. And and any of the characters
who are left now, which is basically what Angela Rayner
wears. Streeting and whoever else wants
to throw their hat in the ring, you know that they would be
given a chance any more than Keir Starmer has been.
No, I mean, I think 2 apparently contradictory things about this
at the same time. Firstly, I think that Keir
Starmer's brand is irrecoverable with the public for some of the
reasons we've just been discussed.
And I think the public have firmly made-up their mind on
Keir Starmer. I think the problem Keir Starmer
has there is just how disliked he is by voters on the left as
well as voters on the right. So he lost the sort of Labour to
reform voters a while ago that, you know, Conservative voters
don't like him. None of that is really a
surprise to people, but it's the, the, the extent to which
your voters that have deserted the Labour Party to the left
dislike him. And even the ones that are
sticking on board with Labour, they're sort of lukewarm feeling
towards him. I, I think it's a really, really
big problem for the Prime Minister.
And I do struggle to see how if your Labour, especially if the
big, you know, if the big tactic is to rally a vote to stop
Farage, stop reform, which probably is as things look at
the moment, the best tactic that Labour could come up with.
That it's really difficult to rally behind someone, you know,
rally people behind someone who's so unpopular.
It's just you're off to a really hard start.
And but that being said, there's no evidence anyone would do any
better. Tom's already mentioned the how
the last few prime ministers have fared and the fact that
each one of them have seen similar falls in ratings.
I do think it is difficult to see how anyone survives contact
with the electorate, especially in this very difficult position
that Labour are in and all the different people they have to
try and keep happy and the state, the country in it.
It's a really, really difficult job.
So. So does that mean it's
unrecoverable? No, I, I don't, I sort of think
it's unrecoverable and we've got a long way to go.
I mean, think about, you know, it's been under 2 years.
We've got more than three years to go.
Imagine what else might happen. You know, it's been, it's been
an absolutely jam packed 18 months.
But I do think This is why things like the Gordon and
Denton by election could actually be even more hazardous
for Keir Starmer than than this current scandal.
But to Tom's point about the things that actually matter to
people's lives, from your focus groups, if Labour improves the
National Health Service, if they make incremental changes to
education and public services, people feel a little bit better
off, you know, when it comes to their energy bills.
Is is that kind of change enough?
To Yeah. Change the political weather.
I think the keyword there was incremental.
So I think Labour very cleverly campaigned for change in 2024.
I think that was absolutely the right thing to do.
However, they were not specific about what the change was and
how they were going to get there and the public wanted wide
scale, quick moving change. Change was probably impossible.
Which they. Don't want to pay?
For but they were but exactly, well, quite.
And there's lots of contradictions in public
opinion. What the public did not vote for
was actually very slow and steady incremental change, no
matter what they told pollsters. And I think this is the problem
is, and again, I said three years is a long time, but it's
actually not that long to try and convince the public of
these. You know, the public are looking
for huge sweeping changes to their lives to get better.
And they're in that sort of mood where it's going to be quite
hard to sell them incremental change.
Sol. I think the keyword Scott used
though that that public want these contradictory things.
They want impossible change and one of the reasons why Kier
seemed to work better on the international stage is he can.
He's out there pursuing our national interest, I think
pursuing actually recognizable British values and his values in
a very dangerous situation, trying to make it a bit better.
I think you could apply that to domestic politics as well,
rather than saying you've got the silver bullet, rather than
saying you've got some new magic formula which is going to change
people's lives fundamentally in massive way.
Immediately you say, look, it is really difficult.
You've got failing public services, you've got failing
public finance, you've got failing public trust.
That's what they inherited. And in that frame they're going
to try and make better decisions than the Tories, fairer
decisions than the Tories. They're going to try and make
things a bit better and they're definitely not going to make
things much, much worse. And in the end, politics is a
choice between you may not like everything about Keir Starmer
and Labour, but do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel
Farage with his Putin supporting mates?
That's in charge, isn't it, Zoe? That that come on every every
time you jump up and down on Keir Starmer's.
On Keir Starmer's grave. Aren't you actually just helping
put Nigel Farage? I was actually.
Trying to put myself on mute in real life just then, just
because I was so desperate to jump in.
Look, the the this argument doesn't work.
We had this argument in September when Angela Rayner had
a huge scandal and you were saying take your medicine if it
wouldn't you rather get behind Keir Starmer than have Nigel
Farage in charge? Now you, you will never persuade
me to take to, to just suck up the depredations of the of a
Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to prevent the
incursions of the far right. Because I look at the Labour
government and they quite often are mimicking Nigel Farage.
They quite often are mimicking can be bad.
Not a lot of the language Shabana Mahmoud comes out with
makes me feel sick to my stomach.
Now I personally, and it's just me, I don't speak as a
columnist, I'm talking as a voter.
I will never take that. I will never swallow it.
And when Nigel Farage gets in and you blame me, I'll be
standing here blaming you. But even if I would take it, the
electorate is done with it. Nobody's saying, OK, let's take
incremental change. I've never seen a bit of
relegate and regulation that I don't want to add to Starmer.
Let's take that over because the far right is more of a threat.
People are done with that kind of logic and they're going to go
Zach Prolansky. They just don't.
I would just say that Zoe does sound like an awful lot of the
voters that get on the left of the spectrum in my focus group,
I thought. You've been saying an awful
person. No, not at all, but that have
been that have been saying this for months and I think This is
why Gordon and Denton is actually such a threat to
stomach maybe not even in the immediate term, but in the long
term. It's a bit of a pre.
It's a curtain raiser and what we might expect from the 2029
election in that we know there's a potential for a progressive
tactical vote out there. We saw that in the carefully by
election in Wales that successfully stopped reform that
was rallying behind Clyde come really crucially that involved
really squashing the Labour vote right down.
The problem for Labour is what if the Greens successfully make
the case in Gordon and Denton, which is not somewhere they have
a huge footprint, not some where they have, you know, business
and actually doing incredibly well.
What if the Greens substantially make the case there that they
are the best ones to take on reform?
That is a whole new problem for Labour.
I sort of agree that that I agree but with both of you on
this, that that for Labour to rebuild a coalition of left and
centre left voters, it needs to tell a centre left story.
And I think there's lots of great things this government's
been doing, but quite often it's been sort of sheep dressed as
wolf has been trying to present quite standard Social Democratic
things as a sort of scary kind of almost right wing insurgent
thing to do. As if, as if they're not
interested in the people who always voted Labour, they're
interested in the people on the other side of all of voting
reform. And you know, Labour have lost
three times as many votes to progressive parties and it has
to reform. I've never understood a
political strategy which means they just chase after the latter
rather than former. It makes no sense to me.
And so I, I think there's an absence of a story about the
Prime Minister, there's an absence about the government,
about the country and the world, which would help join all the
bullet points, join the dots of the policies that they're doing.
They need to tell a story about where we're trying to go, what
we're trying to do, which will allow people to make that choice
between them and the really scary prospect of the kind of
populist far right government we've never seen before in this
country. That's that's that's, that's,
that's, that's the political strategy that they they need to
do. There is there has been far too
much time doing, you know, immigration announcements to
make themselves look a bit like reform or try to contest that
same territory. I don't think it's doing them
any good. I think it's doing them harm.
And do you? Think they can ultimately
separate Mandelson from the Labour brand?
Look, there is endless people have been thrown out of a
political party and thrown out of politics because of scandals.
I don't think that destroys the Labour Party or necessary taints
everyone of the Labour Party with the same sins that Peter
Mandelson committed. But.
He's not a normal politician. He's not a normal politician in
many, many ways. Yeah, he's been sacked multiple
times. He kept popping back up.
I surprised he popped back again this time.
I know. As a matter of fact, Keir
Starmer had some result salvations about appointing him
and those reservations were overcome.
But it you know, I'd just say again, Zoe condemned at the
time, well done. But but there are lots of people
now sound like you're being sarcastic.
I'm not being I'm really I'm not being sarcastic.
I'm, I am saying generally well done because a lot of the people
now who are saying it was obvious all along it was always
a scandal didn't regard it as such.
At the time, can I just say so something though, Tom, you sound
like you do politics by AI. You're like, well, nobody can
possibly have known that thing because that person lied.
And until that person stops lying, the truth can never be
known. Well, it's the, it's the kind of
thing a computer would say. I mean, it's a logical sequence.
It is logical, but a lot of people do know what they're
dealing with and knew what they were dealing with for ages.
Of Peter Mendelssohn, you know, you don't actually.
So he can lie to your face and you can be able to sniff it out.
Tom Baldwin, Scarlett McGuire, Zoe Williams, thank you all very
much indeed. That's it for this episode of
the The Forecast. Until next time, bye bye.