Latest / The Fourcast / Will Epstein Mandelson scandal bring down Starmer’s government?

Transcript

Will Epstein Mandelson scandal bring down Starmer’s government? · The Fourcast

0:00
The Labour Party to get on with governing rather than getting
0:03
constantly tied up in this addiction to chaos crisis.
0:09
I don't think when the public think about Peter Mandelson
0:11
they'll think that's a problem contained to a different era of
0:14
the Labour Party, especially because their views of that
0:18
Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are so bad they're
0:21
not going to give him any benefit of the doubt.
0:23
Do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Farage?
0:27
You will never persuade me to just suck up the depredations of
0:31
the of the Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to
0:34
prevent the incursions of the far right.
0:36
Because I look at the Labour government and they quite often
0:38
are mimicking Nigel Farage. I will never take that.
0:41
Do you think this will finish them off?
0:46
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
0:48
It's the scandal that just keeps getting worse.
0:50
Certainly the biggest crisis for Keir Starmer.
0:52
Could it finish him off or is it even bigger than that?
0:55
Is Labour's position recoverable or is it now a dead man walking?
0:59
The PM admits Peter Mandelson's relationship with the dead
1:02
paedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein came up as part
1:06
of the vetting process for ambassador to Washington.
1:08
But he says Mandelson lied and lied again, saying he betrayed
1:12
our country and our party. But what concerns were raised
1:15
during the process and were they overruled?
1:19
If so, who by? If Starmer wasn't warned, why
1:22
not? The stench of sleaze and
1:24
corruption hangs heavy in the air over Westminster right now.
1:28
So can the government escape it? Or is this the final straw for
1:32
Labour backbenchers already wondering whether to throw
1:35
Starmer overboard? Joining me to discuss this,
1:37
Starmer biographer Tom Baldwin, the political commentator Zoe
1:41
Williams, and the pollster and strategist Scarlett McGuire.
1:44
Tom, I mean, jaws are on the floor and getting wider by the
1:49
hour. Can you think of a worse
1:52
political scandal in our lifetime?
1:54
Or be opened? I do think it's a scandal.
1:57
I do think this is shocking, but essentially if you know, the
2:02
real sin happened under the last when Gordon Brown was Prime
2:06
Minister, when Peter Manderson was business secretary, that's
2:09
when he was disclosing confidential market sensitive
2:13
information apparently to Jeffrey Epstein.
2:17
The question about this government is why they appointed
2:21
Peter Madison and. What they were warned about.
2:23
Now, now, now, that's a good question.
2:25
But it's not a scandal about this government until it can be
2:31
shown that Keir Starmer knew what we know now does.
2:38
He does he have to know everything that we know now?
2:40
I mean, we knew from 2023 onwards, because the FT ran a
2:44
story about it, that Mandelson had maintained a relationship
2:48
with Epstein after he had been found to have been involved in
2:53
sex trafficking. And yet he carried on and there
2:57
would have been a vetting process.
2:59
We don't know what it said. Maybe we'll get to find out if
3:02
these papers are published. But whatever concerns it may
3:05
have raised were clearly overruled.
3:07
That does make it a scandal for this government.
3:11
There's a question, I think, whether the Prime Minister
3:15
should have known what essentially is unknowable
3:19
because Peter Manson was lying to the Prime Minister, lying to
3:24
his oldest friends, possibly even lying to himself about the
3:27
extent of his relationship with Epstein.
3:30
Now there was a vetting process. We now know that it did raise
3:36
concerns about Mammalson's continuing relationship with
3:40
Epstein that was in the public domain.
3:42
So I would just say. Lightly.
3:44
Well, I'd say. Lightly to journalists on this,
3:45
because there's a lot of hindsightry around and a lot of
3:49
the journalists now say it was always obvious, blah, blah,
3:51
blah. We're the same journalists who
3:54
are saying what a masterstroke point to Peter Mountain writing
3:56
falling. Not everyone, but a lot of them
3:59
were. A lot of them were saying it.
4:00
A lot of people were writing falling pieces about it and I'm
4:03
not sure whether Channel 4 News, I mean correct me if I'm wrong,
4:06
did a big podcast or a big section at Tom of Peter Manson's
4:10
appointment saying this is scandalous because we know that
4:14
Peter Manson continued to have relationships with Epstein after
4:17
his conviction, the FT did. I think if you Google what was
4:21
said at the time, there are articles across the media saying
4:24
this is high risk, this is a man who's had to resign in disgrace
4:27
twice but the premier and this might happen again, but hold on.
4:30
Hold on a moment. Just me to make his point.
4:32
The premise that this was a scandal because it was known
4:36
that Peter Mandelson continued to have relationships with
4:38
Jeffrey Epstein after the conviction that was known to the
4:41
media at the time of Peter Mandelson's appointment.
4:44
Were the media calling it a scandal then?
4:47
Yeah, I was. They weren't.
4:47
They weren't saying it was a scandal.
4:48
OK, I did. There was some on the
4:49
exceptions. No, come on, don't that.
4:51
You were Channel 4 News. That's.
4:53
Genuinely the weakest argument I've ever heard you make.
4:55
Because some people. Because some.
4:58
People in the media didn't put their money where their mouth
5:00
was two years ago, therefore nobody's got not a leg to stand
5:04
on now. And this isn't a scandal that
5:05
doesn't even make logical sense, Tom.
5:07
And you know, it's no, no, the the logic is this, that for this
5:11
to be the biggest scandal of our lifetime.
5:13
Oh, OK, fine. I mean, if we're going.
5:15
To be a big scandal of our lifetime, it is that.
5:17
The premise of that is we know that Downing St. and Keir
5:21
Starmer knew about Madison's continuing links with Epstein
5:26
after his conviction. So did the media.
5:28
So the media did not declare this the biggest scandal of
5:31
their lifetime at the time. It is only a scandal now.
5:34
It is only a scandal now because of what we know now.
5:37
So the real question, the real question which would determine
5:40
whether it is a big scandal about this government, is
5:43
whether Down St. knew more than what was in the public domain
5:46
then. A, that A, that doesn't make
5:48
sense for the aforementioned reasons.
5:50
B, that none of that has to do with Keir Starmer's judgement.
5:52
Keir Starmer's judgement is what's at issue here.
5:55
And whether or not certain commentators called it out
5:58
properly at the time, whether Chris ran a package about it
6:01
doesn't make any difference. If he had, if he had a kind of
6:04
moral compass, if he could see the man in front of him, if he
6:08
could put priorities ahead of electoral calculation, which by
6:11
the way, I don't think Peter Mandelson did serve very well,
6:14
but that's what he thought he served, then if he doesn't have
6:17
those qualities, then those aren't qualities that you have.
6:20
And that's a. Question what what you know and
6:22
maybe we will find out and maybe we won't.
6:25
What he knew in the what? What?
6:27
The concerns were well and what was said about them in order to
6:30
sweep them asylum. But he's also, that is the key
6:32
question. But there is also a kind of more
6:33
fundamental question, which is, you know, there, there is there
6:38
a calculation was made that whatever the relationship was
6:41
between Peter Manderson and Epstein, it didn't matter so
6:44
long as nobody was looking directly at it.
6:46
Now, somebody you had a for whom that was a real matter of
6:49
conscience, for whom fraternising with a known
6:51
paedophile really was a moral issue, would have said, I just,
6:56
I'm just not wild about this. I'm not wild about sending
6:59
Mandelson as as ambassador to Trump, who is himself a known
7:04
associate of Epstein. Whether or not this is the
7:08
biggest or the second biggest or the third biggest, does it
7:12
matter? I mean, you know, won't the
7:14
public now just conclude that there is the stench of scandal
7:19
around Labour, who claims to be better than the last loss, and
7:22
it turns out maybe they weren't. I think you've hit the nail on
7:25
the head and and you know, unfortunately for those in #10
7:28
actually the public make their mind up quicker than quite a lot
7:31
of some of this information can come out about exactly who knew
7:34
what, when and etcetera. I think the problem for the
7:36
Labour Party and for for Keir Starmer and the government in
7:39
particular is that Peter Mandelson is incredibly well
7:42
known in this country. He's, you know, far better known
7:44
than Andy Burnham or Robert celebrate from any of the other
7:47
politicians we've seen and to the spotlight over the last few
7:49
weeks who aren't the sort of principal party leaders.
7:51
And he is synonymous with Labour because he's been around for so
7:54
long, he's been associated with so many different Labour
7:56
governments. And I don't think when the
7:57
public think about Peter Mandelson, they'll think that's
8:00
a problem contained to a different era of the Labour
8:02
Party. They will think about it as the
8:04
same Labour Party that we have now, especially because their
8:08
views of that Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are
8:11
so bad, they're not going to give him any benefit of the
8:13
doubt. And then the second part of that
8:16
is that OK, they know who Peter Mandelson is.
8:18
They don't think very well of Labour Party.
8:20
Sorry. The third one is that this plays
8:23
into all of their were suspicions about people in
8:25
politics anyway, you know, trust in politicians is an all time
8:29
low. It only seems to be sinking
8:30
further and further the longer that these the longer these
8:33
surveys track it. And this is people's this is
8:37
exactly what people think are up to.
8:38
It might be a bit more colourful, it might be more
8:41
outrageous, but unfortunately the public have this idea that
8:45
politicians and pretty much all politicians are just in it for
8:48
themselves and elite interests and they're up to no good.
8:50
So if they hear this, they hear Labour brand, they hear Peter
8:53
Manderson, I think they're going to make their own minds up, even
8:55
if they're jumping to conclusions.
8:56
So how do you think this is savable for Keir Starmer and his
9:01
administration? I mean, they're, they're they're
9:02
making an attempt at transparency and saying we'll
9:06
publish the papers, although they don't want to publish all
9:08
the papers and it looks like they're going to be forced into
9:10
it to some degree, You know, can he save Morgan McSweeney for a
9:15
start, his right hand man who seems to be the one who was
9:18
really pushing Mandelson's appointment.
9:21
Look. One of the frustrating things
9:23
about a lot of political discussions in podcasts like
9:27
this is we spend an awful lot of time talking about optics and
9:31
perceptions, and that's code for avoiding substance.
9:38
And, you know, one of the reasons why I think people are
9:39
actually aonated by politics is it's an endless discussion about
9:42
who's up and who's down, what people think about, you know,
9:45
this, what this focus group says rather than actually outcomes
9:48
for them in their real lives. But.
9:49
McSweeney. Is not a substance.
9:50
Because he is the core. Of this government, yeah.
9:52
So, so so, as I say, there are genuine questions which need to
9:57
be answered about what Downing St. and what Keir Starmer knew
10:02
prior to Peter Mandelson's appointment if they knew what
10:06
was already in the public domain.
10:08
But no more than those same questions should be answered by
10:11
the BBC, who thought that Peter Mouse was the right choice to be
10:14
the eminence Greece fronting their election coverage.
10:16
In 2024 knew more than what was in the public eye at the time,
10:19
which you have to assume is the case.
10:21
Why? Because they're the security
10:23
services. I've limited understanding of
10:27
vetting process, but what they will do is they will go through
10:31
everything's in the public domain and then they will sit
10:34
down with the person they're vetting and say is there
10:36
anything else we need to know? What about this relationship of
10:39
Epstein? What we have been told is that
10:42
Peter Madison lied at that in that instance.
10:46
Now, should you be hung whether you're a Down St. advisor or
10:51
Prime Minister for believing lies told by someone?
10:54
Now there's a question I do accept.
10:57
How about Peter Manson's record, right?
10:59
He resigned twice from the last Labour government before he was
11:04
reappointed and then apparently leaked this sensitive
11:07
information, which I think is shocking.
11:09
But yeah, I mean, come on, come on, you must remember, you want.
11:13
To talk about. But you must remember the first
11:15
scandal when he took that loan. Yeah, I agree.
11:17
That's what I'm just referring. To I used to live I used to live
11:19
around the corner from Peter Manson in the 90s in in Notting.
11:22
Hill. There goes neighborhood.
11:23
I had this little squat in Holland Park.
11:26
Anyway, you've walked past every day, everybody in the press was
11:29
saying this man is toast. He's not honest, he takes loans.
11:32
That's not how Labour politicians are supposed.
11:34
We were promised something different.
11:36
It was 97. We were promised a better kind
11:39
of person and the and the Prince of Darkness was taking was just
11:43
dodgy. And everybody said he's not
11:45
going to last. And he would come out and
11:47
stretch on his front doorstep and pick up his newspaper.
11:50
And I kept passing him thinking he doesn't look like a man who's
11:54
taken this seriously and he doesn't look like a man who's
11:56
not going to last. Now, the problem Peter Mandelson
11:58
is, is complete impunity, absolute.
12:01
You know, he always said he's completely Teflon coated.
12:04
He, he, he never gives up. But by gives up, he means he's
12:08
unshameable. And everybody knew that.
12:11
So why are we sitting here having this argument about
12:13
whether where the kid did the right thing or the wrong thing
12:16
about a vetting meeting? Well, my question is, to me it
12:18
was really obvious what kind of man we were dealing.
12:20
With, I mean, you know, you've, you've put a case as to why it
12:23
shouldn't be pointed at Starmer and Downing Street.
12:28
But given what's Scarlett has said about public opinion, and
12:31
it seems blindingly obvious as well how public opinion is going
12:35
to go on this, the question is how, how can he escape this?
12:39
What? What should he do?
12:41
Well, I think what he's done this week in terms of he's moved
12:45
relatively speed down. He can argue he could done
12:47
somethings faster. But in terms of, you know, Peter
12:50
Manson getting Peter Manson out of Labour Party, getting Peter
12:52
Manson out of the House of Lords, stripping Peter Manson of
12:54
his peerage through people Anderson of his membership of
12:57
the Privy Council. I mean, all these things are
12:58
being done. It's right that there is now an
13:01
investigation into what was known in that vetting process.
13:05
That seems to me the substantial issue here.
13:08
And we can talk forever about perceptions and optics, but what
13:13
the government has to do now is get to the bottom of what was
13:17
known and let the public know what was known.
13:20
Now I I I the point I'm making about, but how?
13:22
Do you stop the public blaming the government and say and, and,
13:25
and jumping to all those conclusions that Scarlett is
13:28
talking about, that they're all in it for themselves and they're
13:30
all as bad as each other? When we're going to have
13:33
investigation after investigation, possibly police
13:35
investigation, possible criminal case.
13:37
I mean, this is going to go on forever now.
13:40
It's a, it's a good, it's a good piece of advice.
13:43
I think in general for the media, for government, for
13:46
anyone in public life to try and establish facts and stick to
13:50
facts and try and do substance rather than take decisions on
13:55
the basis of optics. Now no, no, no, no before I'm.
13:58
Saying the word optics as though this is just we're all just
14:01
being silly and worrying about what things look like.
14:04
I'm not worrying about what things look like.
14:06
I'm worrying about somebody who told a known paedophile and sex
14:10
offender it's secrets about the British state which were
14:13
deleterious to this. They had known that at the time.
14:15
If they know that, then sorry, sorry, sorry.
14:17
No, no, no. No, let me finish my point.
14:19
Let my finish my point. I'm not talking about optics.
14:21
I am talking about an immoral man who didn't did not care
14:25
about the victims of Epstein and did not care about the British
14:27
national interest. I'm talking about a man whose
14:30
morality has been in question for years.
14:33
And I'm talking about a party that now is like, Oh my
14:36
goodness, I cannot believe Peter lied to my faith.
14:39
Do you think? It's possible, Scarlett, to
14:40
separate, come on, the sins of Peter Mandelson from what Tom
14:45
argues, maybe the much lesser sins of this administration.
14:49
There, there will be a degree of separation, but I think it's
14:52
going to be harder for the government to untangle that than
14:55
they maybe think at this moment. Or maybe they do realise that
14:58
it's going to be that hard. But no, again, I think this is
15:00
the problem when you have a Prime Minister who's sort of
15:03
approval ratings are in the gutter, which they are, is that
15:06
people already want to believe the worst about Keir Starmer.
15:08
I find it quite astonishing around focus groups, people read
15:11
bad intentions into everything he does.
15:13
And now that's not, you know, so we can talk about optics, but
15:15
when you're then trying to land messages, that matters, you
15:17
know, even when you're trying to land things that should be
15:19
popular with voters or things that should at least be
15:21
uncontroversial. The voters are already
15:23
suspecting the worst of Keir Starmer and coming with that to
15:26
what what he then tells them. So I think it's going to be
15:28
very, very difficult for him to really come out of this
15:31
unscathed. It's.
15:32
Interesting that thing about the kind of level of unpopularity
15:35
and I can't. I've read loads of people making
15:38
quite tangential explanations for it, but I nothing's landed.
15:42
I don't. I think it's partly the mood of
15:44
the public. I think if you look, you know, I
15:45
don't think that Keir Starmer's, you know, the, the steep incline
15:49
of Kier Starmer's ratings, the the decline rather is in direct
15:52
proportion to how badly he has done.
15:54
I don't think anyone is mentioning that.
15:56
I think the public are in such an impatient mood and are so
15:58
distrustful of politicians. But again, This is why this
16:00
scandal is so dangerous. It is bizarre.
16:01
Because party gates and the trust budget and all the rest of
16:05
it, that his popularity is below, below them.
16:08
Because until this particular scandal erupted, you were
16:11
thinking, well, he's he's maybe made some mistakes and political
16:13
mistakes, but what's he done that was so bad that he has this
16:17
level of unpopularity? And that's it.
16:20
And the public, the public, you know, they're hungry for change.
16:22
They don't think they're getting it.
16:23
And fundamentally they think he's dishonest.
16:24
I was always quite, I was quite surprised a few months ago, I
16:26
think maybe even a year ago, got one of those word clouds back,
16:29
You know, what do you think of Keir Starmer in a word, liar was
16:31
the biggest word that was quite astonishing to me at the time
16:33
because we've not really had this examples of dishonesty as
16:36
such like we do with Boris Johnson.
16:37
But that is a perception that he's dishonest, that he doesn't
16:39
mean what he says, that he goes back on his word.
16:41
And again, This is why something like this is damaging.
16:43
But. What about the one of the One of
16:44
the really interesting things about politics at the moment is,
16:47
according to some polls, the five most popular prime
16:50
ministers in polling history are in rank order.
16:53
Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Trust, Rishi Sunak.
16:56
Cheers, Tom. Each of one, Each of them, yeah,
16:58
each of them has broken the previous one's record for
17:01
unpopularity. Now, I think there's something
17:03
else going on there which goes beyond rational assessment of
17:08
the capabilities and morality of each of those prime ministers.
17:12
Well, you know, I know why I think Keir Starmer does goes
17:15
back on his word. And that's because that's
17:17
political and that's coming from the point of view of the left.
17:20
I remember the 10 pledges that were extremely left wing, which
17:24
we we're immediately gone back on.
17:26
But what I don't understand is how that gets on to into the
17:29
mainstream, into the right. I don't understand why reform
17:32
voters hate them as much as they do.
17:33
I just don't get it. Do do you think this will finish
17:35
Starmer off? It's really, really hard to say
17:39
it is this once once he's finished, because, you know, he
17:43
was already in freefall that that kind of skirmish over
17:46
whether Burnham could stand in Gatton and Barton, Gatton and
17:50
Dartton was was, you know, embarrassing, I thought.
17:55
And it showed weakness even though a lot of people thought
17:58
there was nothing else they could have done.
17:59
So if it finishes Starmer, you could say definitely that was
18:03
because of Peter Manderson, but you could equally say the damn
18:06
that he was mortally wounded beforehand.
18:08
With apologies to the people of Gordon and Denton Tom, how do
18:13
you stop Labour backbenchers saying this is it, we've now got
18:18
to move? I think you have to get some
18:20
sense proportion on what has actually happened in terms of
18:24
the scandalous nature of whatever Keir Starmer's
18:26
decisions were. And I think that proportion is
18:29
lacking in the media coverage at the moment.
18:31
I think it's lacking it on Labour backbenchers.
18:34
Now, I do think, and what I was trying to say to Zoe earlier, is
18:37
that there is a good case that given what we knew about Peter
18:41
Mandelson, it was always going to be a ropy appointment.
18:45
And yeah, they fought the risks. They were outweighed by the
18:47
benefits. But you know, if you look at the
18:51
interview with The Times yesterday, there are five areas
18:56
where he's completely at odds with Keir Starmer's foreign
18:59
policy. On China, on Greenland, on a
19:02
rules based international, on Europe, indeed on Trump.
19:05
And Peter Masten started doing this even before he was sacked.
19:09
He did a speech at Ditchley Park where he basically praised
19:12
Donald Trump's bombing of Iran. That's not Keir Starmer's
19:15
policy. So for the ambassador to the
19:16
United States pursuing his own foreign policy in his usual
19:20
arrogant, high handed vain way, seems to me that I think by now
19:25
I think his ambassadors would be untenable even without Epstein.
19:29
So in that sense it was a bad appointment.
19:31
I agree with you, it was a bad appointment.
19:32
What I don't agree is that we should be saying this is the
19:36
worst ever scandal around Keir Starmer to afflict any Prime
19:39
Minister ever, when we actually don't know the fact.
19:42
That anyone's saying, Keira, what Keir Starmer has done is
19:45
the worst scandal, you know, of our lifetime.
19:48
I think people are saying that what Mandelson has done, yeah,
19:51
is the biggest scandal and. In the last Labour government.
19:54
But also I mean. You know that anyone can
19:57
remember, and the point is, it's almost impossible to stop that
20:00
infecting Keir Starmer, even if Keir Starmer's sins are
20:03
relatively small. But also, I don't think it's
20:05
right to stop it infecting Keir Starmer.
20:07
And I just explain why I say that when those of us who said
20:10
when Mandelson was appointed, this is a this appointment
20:13
stinks. We're told grow up because
20:16
because we need a good relationship with with Trump.
20:19
And the implication was only Mandelson knows how to.
20:23
Only Mandelson is sycophantic enough to give Trump the
20:26
treatment that he requires, right, Which I believe is true.
20:29
I'm sure nobody else is as sycophantic as Peter Mandelson.
20:32
And I'm sure nobody else cozies up to somebody whose whose
20:35
values are so completely disgusting in such a convincing
20:39
way. I can't think of anybody else in
20:40
Labour who could. But can I just say, like, if
20:44
anybody in this circumstance had some absolute values, like I
20:49
don't want a sycophantic relationship with somebody who's
20:52
kind of like skirting quite close to fascism already.
20:56
I don't want that relationship with the US, even though
20:58
historically that's the relationship we've had.
21:01
If anybody had any absolute values here, then this wouldn't
21:04
have happened. I don't think you can have.
21:05
Absolute values there. But yeah, I know.
21:07
But but Tom. Maybe.
21:08
Maybe. You know, at some point, at some
21:11
point, you say I don't want a sycophantic relationship.
21:16
You don't have a sycophantic relationship with Russia because
21:19
you disapprove of its leader. So, so sorry.
21:22
Sorry. I agree.
21:23
Putting a narcissist obsessed by wealth and power into current
21:28
DC, Washington, DC was a bad idea.
21:31
It was like putting a sort of, you know, a, you know, a child,
21:34
a child addicted to chocolate into a sweet shop, Right.
21:37
So, so, so it was a bad idea. I agree.
21:39
Yeah, but that wasn't our idea. That's not clear.
21:42
But but but what you're doing is you're then jumping from there
21:45
to some fundamental to a moral judgement that are you are you
21:48
saying you don't want to have a relationship with United States.
21:50
But sorry if I. Have a relationship.
21:51
I we, we want people don't need democracy to be sustained in
21:54
Europe. We have to have American
21:56
security guarantees. That's why we need to.
21:57
Work, I'm not having you misrepresent my point like that.
22:00
I did not say no relationship with America, but I just said
22:03
not a relationship which is so sycophantic that only one man in
22:07
the country can do it. I think it's a slight side issue
22:09
as to what our relationship should be.
22:11
I mean, the government set a direction and.
22:12
Side. What it was gonna be I.
22:14
Mean believe in anything. The question on, I mean,
22:17
listening to you, Tom, it's a, it's a bit like you're saying
22:19
it's so unfair. No, and maybe it is.
22:22
I haven't said that use that phrase once.
22:23
No, I know you haven't but but that's that's the impression I'm
22:26
guessing. All I'm saying is.
22:27
You're saying fact of substance. The the facts are that what Keir
22:30
Starmer did wasn't that and. There's more facts to be
22:32
disclosed, so let's wait for those facts.
22:34
My, my question to you is really that isn't it obvious that the
22:39
scale of the Mandelson scandal is so big that it takes the
22:43
Labour brand that is almost inescapable for Keir Starmer and
22:48
Labour backbenchers will say we need to do something dramatic to
22:52
get out of this hole because we can't just hope that people will
22:57
listen to people like Tom Baldwin and say get a sense of
22:59
perspective. I think there are valid
23:01
criticisms of Keir Starmer in appointing Peter Mandelson.
23:06
I don't think myself it's a valid criticism to say he should
23:11
have known what was essentially unknowable because Peter
23:14
Mandelson, right? So, so, so I'm happy to have a
23:17
discussion about what is a valid argument that Peter Mandelson
23:22
was always going to be a risk, it was always going to go wrong.
23:25
Everything he's ever done in public life has gone wrong and
23:27
therefore is a bad appointment. I just think it's nuts to say he
23:31
should have known everything that he now knows when
23:33
essentially it was nobody. 'S saying that isn't.
23:37
Isn't isn't the point. Then then you revert to optics
23:39
and we. Don't know, it's not about.
23:40
Optics. It's about the political
23:41
realities that you've already got an incredibly unpopular
23:45
Prime Minister, you've already got a party that was thinking of
23:48
getting rid of him, campaigns well underway in in more than
23:52
one corner and now this, which just hangs over the Labour Party
23:57
brand. You know, how are you going to
23:59
stop backbenchers or how do you think they should stop
24:02
backbenchers saying we just need to act now to stop the rot and
24:06
change the story and give people somebody new to focus on.
24:10
I think, I think the argument that I'd be making is we're
24:15
what, 18 months into five year Parliament, Labour has a working
24:19
majority of 160. What really matters to people is
24:25
actually not the vetting process in Downing St. for this
24:31
ambassador or that person. It's not Rich Advisor is up and
24:37
Rich advisor is down. It's not who leaked what to
24:40
whom. It's not what the lobby think is
24:42
the important political story of the day.
24:45
It's actually what's happening in schools, what's happening in
24:47
hospitals, what's happening and what's happening in the world.
24:49
And this is a really dangerous, fragile moment for the world.
24:53
It is really, I'm scared. And the idea that, you know, the
24:59
Labour Party goes back staring at its naval bug, think about
25:02
leadership contest because Andy Burnham wants to be an MP or
25:05
something like that. You know, like, you know, it's
25:06
nuts, right? They should get on with
25:08
governing. They should get on with the
25:10
really hard yards of actually trying to bring change to real
25:14
people's lives in a real way, rather than getting constantly
25:19
tied up in this inside Westminster addiction to chaos
25:26
crisis. This idea that we have to change
25:28
Prime Minister every year or two years because the lobby says so.
25:31
It's it's, it's, it's, it's one of the reasons why people hate
25:33
politics and feel alienated by politics, because it's just
25:36
about politicians, not about their lives.
25:39
Is there any evidence that changing the leader would make
25:42
any difference? The neighbors popularity?
25:45
No there's not. And and any of the characters
25:46
who are left now, which is basically what Angela Rayner
25:50
wears. Streeting and whoever else wants
25:52
to throw their hat in the ring, you know that they would be
25:55
given a chance any more than Keir Starmer has been.
25:57
No, I mean, I think 2 apparently contradictory things about this
26:00
at the same time. Firstly, I think that Keir
26:02
Starmer's brand is irrecoverable with the public for some of the
26:04
reasons we've just been discussed.
26:05
And I think the public have firmly made-up their mind on
26:08
Keir Starmer. I think the problem Keir Starmer
26:10
has there is just how disliked he is by voters on the left as
26:14
well as voters on the right. So he lost the sort of Labour to
26:16
reform voters a while ago that, you know, Conservative voters
26:19
don't like him. None of that is really a
26:20
surprise to people, but it's the, the, the extent to which
26:24
your voters that have deserted the Labour Party to the left
26:26
dislike him. And even the ones that are
26:28
sticking on board with Labour, they're sort of lukewarm feeling
26:31
towards him. I, I think it's a really, really
26:32
big problem for the Prime Minister.
26:34
And I do struggle to see how if your Labour, especially if the
26:37
big, you know, if the big tactic is to rally a vote to stop
26:40
Farage, stop reform, which probably is as things look at
26:42
the moment, the best tactic that Labour could come up with.
26:45
That it's really difficult to rally behind someone, you know,
26:47
rally people behind someone who's so unpopular.
26:49
It's just you're off to a really hard start.
26:52
And but that being said, there's no evidence anyone would do any
26:55
better. Tom's already mentioned the how
26:58
the last few prime ministers have fared and the fact that
27:00
each one of them have seen similar falls in ratings.
27:03
I do think it is difficult to see how anyone survives contact
27:07
with the electorate, especially in this very difficult position
27:10
that Labour are in and all the different people they have to
27:12
try and keep happy and the state, the country in it.
27:14
It's a really, really difficult job.
27:16
So. So does that mean it's
27:17
unrecoverable? No, I, I don't, I sort of think
27:19
it's unrecoverable and we've got a long way to go.
27:21
I mean, think about, you know, it's been under 2 years.
27:22
We've got more than three years to go.
27:24
Imagine what else might happen. You know, it's been, it's been
27:26
an absolutely jam packed 18 months.
27:28
But I do think This is why things like the Gordon and
27:30
Denton by election could actually be even more hazardous
27:33
for Keir Starmer than than this current scandal.
27:35
But to Tom's point about the things that actually matter to
27:38
people's lives, from your focus groups, if Labour improves the
27:42
National Health Service, if they make incremental changes to
27:47
education and public services, people feel a little bit better
27:50
off, you know, when it comes to their energy bills.
27:53
Is is that kind of change enough?
27:56
To Yeah. Change the political weather.
27:58
I think the keyword there was incremental.
28:00
So I think Labour very cleverly campaigned for change in 2024.
28:03
I think that was absolutely the right thing to do.
28:04
However, they were not specific about what the change was and
28:06
how they were going to get there and the public wanted wide
28:09
scale, quick moving change. Change was probably impossible.
28:12
Which they. Don't want to pay?
28:12
For but they were but exactly, well, quite.
28:14
And there's lots of contradictions in public
28:16
opinion. What the public did not vote for
28:17
was actually very slow and steady incremental change, no
28:20
matter what they told pollsters. And I think this is the problem
28:24
is, and again, I said three years is a long time, but it's
28:26
actually not that long to try and convince the public of
28:28
these. You know, the public are looking
28:30
for huge sweeping changes to their lives to get better.
28:33
And they're in that sort of mood where it's going to be quite
28:35
hard to sell them incremental change.
28:38
Sol. I think the keyword Scott used
28:40
though that that public want these contradictory things.
28:43
They want impossible change and one of the reasons why Kier
28:49
seemed to work better on the international stage is he can.
28:53
He's out there pursuing our national interest, I think
28:57
pursuing actually recognizable British values and his values in
29:00
a very dangerous situation, trying to make it a bit better.
29:03
I think you could apply that to domestic politics as well,
29:06
rather than saying you've got the silver bullet, rather than
29:08
saying you've got some new magic formula which is going to change
29:11
people's lives fundamentally in massive way.
29:12
Immediately you say, look, it is really difficult.
29:15
You've got failing public services, you've got failing
29:16
public finance, you've got failing public trust.
29:18
That's what they inherited. And in that frame they're going
29:21
to try and make better decisions than the Tories, fairer
29:24
decisions than the Tories. They're going to try and make
29:26
things a bit better and they're definitely not going to make
29:28
things much, much worse. And in the end, politics is a
29:31
choice between you may not like everything about Keir Starmer
29:35
and Labour, but do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel
29:40
Farage with his Putin supporting mates?
29:43
That's in charge, isn't it, Zoe? That that come on every every
29:45
time you jump up and down on Keir Starmer's.
29:47
On Keir Starmer's grave. Aren't you actually just helping
29:51
put Nigel Farage? I was actually.
29:53
Trying to put myself on mute in real life just then, just
29:56
because I was so desperate to jump in.
29:59
Look, the the this argument doesn't work.
30:02
We had this argument in September when Angela Rayner had
30:05
a huge scandal and you were saying take your medicine if it
30:08
wouldn't you rather get behind Keir Starmer than have Nigel
30:11
Farage in charge? Now you, you will never persuade
30:14
me to take to, to just suck up the depredations of the of a
30:19
Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to prevent the
30:22
incursions of the far right. Because I look at the Labour
30:24
government and they quite often are mimicking Nigel Farage.
30:27
They quite often are mimicking can be bad.
30:29
Not a lot of the language Shabana Mahmoud comes out with
30:32
makes me feel sick to my stomach.
30:33
Now I personally, and it's just me, I don't speak as a
30:37
columnist, I'm talking as a voter.
30:38
I will never take that. I will never swallow it.
30:41
And when Nigel Farage gets in and you blame me, I'll be
30:44
standing here blaming you. But even if I would take it, the
30:48
electorate is done with it. Nobody's saying, OK, let's take
30:52
incremental change. I've never seen a bit of
30:55
relegate and regulation that I don't want to add to Starmer.
30:59
Let's take that over because the far right is more of a threat.
31:03
People are done with that kind of logic and they're going to go
31:05
Zach Prolansky. They just don't.
31:06
I would just say that Zoe does sound like an awful lot of the
31:09
voters that get on the left of the spectrum in my focus group,
31:11
I thought. You've been saying an awful
31:13
person. No, not at all, but that have
31:15
been that have been saying this for months and I think This is
31:16
why Gordon and Denton is actually such a threat to
31:18
stomach maybe not even in the immediate term, but in the long
31:20
term. It's a bit of a pre.
31:22
It's a curtain raiser and what we might expect from the 2029
31:24
election in that we know there's a potential for a progressive
31:27
tactical vote out there. We saw that in the carefully by
31:29
election in Wales that successfully stopped reform that
31:32
was rallying behind Clyde come really crucially that involved
31:34
really squashing the Labour vote right down.
31:36
The problem for Labour is what if the Greens successfully make
31:40
the case in Gordon and Denton, which is not somewhere they have
31:42
a huge footprint, not some where they have, you know, business
31:44
and actually doing incredibly well.
31:46
What if the Greens substantially make the case there that they
31:48
are the best ones to take on reform?
31:49
That is a whole new problem for Labour.
31:52
I sort of agree that that I agree but with both of you on
31:55
this, that that for Labour to rebuild a coalition of left and
32:01
centre left voters, it needs to tell a centre left story.
32:05
And I think there's lots of great things this government's
32:07
been doing, but quite often it's been sort of sheep dressed as
32:10
wolf has been trying to present quite standard Social Democratic
32:15
things as a sort of scary kind of almost right wing insurgent
32:19
thing to do. As if, as if they're not
32:21
interested in the people who always voted Labour, they're
32:24
interested in the people on the other side of all of voting
32:26
reform. And you know, Labour have lost
32:28
three times as many votes to progressive parties and it has
32:30
to reform. I've never understood a
32:32
political strategy which means they just chase after the latter
32:35
rather than former. It makes no sense to me.
32:38
And so I, I think there's an absence of a story about the
32:42
Prime Minister, there's an absence about the government,
32:44
about the country and the world, which would help join all the
32:47
bullet points, join the dots of the policies that they're doing.
32:52
They need to tell a story about where we're trying to go, what
32:56
we're trying to do, which will allow people to make that choice
32:59
between them and the really scary prospect of the kind of
33:04
populist far right government we've never seen before in this
33:06
country. That's that's that's, that's,
33:08
that's, that's the political strategy that they they need to
33:10
do. There is there has been far too
33:13
much time doing, you know, immigration announcements to
33:15
make themselves look a bit like reform or try to contest that
33:18
same territory. I don't think it's doing them
33:19
any good. I think it's doing them harm.
33:20
And do you? Think they can ultimately
33:22
separate Mandelson from the Labour brand?
33:26
Look, there is endless people have been thrown out of a
33:30
political party and thrown out of politics because of scandals.
33:34
I don't think that destroys the Labour Party or necessary taints
33:39
everyone of the Labour Party with the same sins that Peter
33:42
Mandelson committed. But.
33:44
He's not a normal politician. He's not a normal politician in
33:47
many, many ways. Yeah, he's been sacked multiple
33:50
times. He kept popping back up.
33:52
I surprised he popped back again this time.
33:55
I know. As a matter of fact, Keir
33:56
Starmer had some result salvations about appointing him
33:59
and those reservations were overcome.
34:02
But it you know, I'd just say again, Zoe condemned at the
34:10
time, well done. But but there are lots of people
34:12
now sound like you're being sarcastic.
34:14
I'm not being I'm really I'm not being sarcastic.
34:16
I'm, I am saying generally well done because a lot of the people
34:19
now who are saying it was obvious all along it was always
34:22
a scandal didn't regard it as such.
34:25
At the time, can I just say so something though, Tom, you sound
34:28
like you do politics by AI. You're like, well, nobody can
34:31
possibly have known that thing because that person lied.
34:34
And until that person stops lying, the truth can never be
34:36
known. Well, it's the, it's the kind of
34:38
thing a computer would say. I mean, it's a logical sequence.
34:41
It is logical, but a lot of people do know what they're
34:45
dealing with and knew what they were dealing with for ages.
34:47
Of Peter Mendelssohn, you know, you don't actually.
34:49
So he can lie to your face and you can be able to sniff it out.
34:53
Tom Baldwin, Scarlett McGuire, Zoe Williams, thank you all very
34:55
much indeed. That's it for this episode of
34:57
the The Forecast. Until next time, bye bye.