Starmer's Future and Leadership Challenges

This is an ad from BetterHelp. Some days it feels like you're carrying something no one else can see: stress, grief, responsibility. The kind of heaviness that doesn't show up in photos but, follows you everywhere . You don't have to hold it alone. With better help, you can talk to someone who helps lighten what you've been carrying for far too long. Take the weight off. Start therapy anytime from anywhere online with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash random podcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there, integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time from startups to scale ups online in person and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your one dollar a month trial at Shopify.com/slash setup . ACAST recommend s . Hi guys, I'm Jamila Brown, the host of a new podcast called Ethically Questionable, which is a show about having everything you want in life without destroying the planet. We have got some incredible guests that are coming in From culture shapers to industry innovators. We even have a Bravo Lebretty or two. So if you are like us and want to live the good life whilst doing good for people, good for planet, then you have to come and join the ride. We film it inside of a pole star, which is super fun, carpool karaoke style. Lots of laughs on your feed every Tuesday. Ethically questionable. Make sure you subscribe now. ACARS powers the world's top podcasts, includinging Sav Grace, Get a Grip, and the show you're listening to right now . Hallo and welcome to not another one the podcast with me, Steve Richards, Tim Montgomery, Miranda Green , and Ian Martin, thank you very much for tuning in. As we are recording, uh we've seen uh Morgan McSweeney. Some of us, uh, or well actually I had a very brief conversation with him once and that's about it. But uh uh most of us will have seen him for the first time in public, this figure who has been much referenced uh in uh political commentary for the last few ye ars. Um, and yet here he was for the first time. What we're not going to do is revisit the Mandelson affair, which is driving everyone crazy. Um and driving crazy last week, and here we are seven days on. But what we're going to discuss, because we've all known uh personally quite a few prime ministers and their senior advisors, um going back several years . What that relationship tells us about the Prime Minister, uh, the degree to which they are dependent on these unelected figures . If mythology is correct, McSweeney was probably the most powerful of all of them in that he chose Keir Starmer to be Labour leader. In effect, Keir Starmer didn't go racing after him. And we've read huge amounts about the power he has wielded, and of course he has accepted it was his recommendation that Mandelson went to uh Washington. Um I just wonder , just from a kind of kind almost like a psychological thing, did any of you learn much about this character from the two and a half hours he was in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Miranda? Well I have to confess that having sat through the entirety of the previous uh evidence session with Sir Philip Barton, who was head of the Foreign Office before Ollie Robbins, by the time Morgan McSweeney started, I was sort of punch drunk and was finding the entire thing purgatorial. So when the BBC Parliament channel told me that they were leaving Morgan McSweeney's crucial evidence to go and uh cover the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I took that as my cue to get on with my life, Steve. But I d yeah, but so I did watch the first sort of five, ten minutes of it. I mean I really did th I felt that BBC Parliament did me a favour, I must say. I I watched the first bit where he sort of was visibly nervous, which I thought was very interesting, and sort of was quite suck up y to the chair of the committee. Thanked her for Epstein, which I think everybody feels saying that gets them off the hook for various other um crimes and misdemeanours. So I th I thought the sort of phenomenon of him sort of at bay and realizing that he'd become a sort of hate figure was quite interesting because of course nobody is that. And to your point, Steve, and to your sort of wider point about these Svengali figures who are always cast as the villain of the piece, you know, nobody is ever that because in reality politics is not a cartoon, you know, so nobody is the hooded claw. So in a sense it was really interesting as you say to see this, you know ho ordinary human figure under c under questioning, as opposed to the sort of shadowy figure as portrayed by the press for the last well, before Labour One, right? Back back to you know twenty twenty-one, which he talked about a bit when he started to sort of create a strategy for a Keir Star mer Labour movement. So there we are, yes, I thought the sort of contrast between the cartoons Svengali and um a real guy desperately trying to dis distance himself from Peter Mandelson was interesting. It's also the case, Tim, isn't it? We were talking about before we started recording, but often reality is more complicated than the sort of caricature on the surface. And um I actually had fallen for the idea that Mandelson had become such an influence on McSweeney and therefore on Starmer , that this was almost like a kind of mandelsome project in some respects. But McSweeney made the point that when he was forming Labour Together, this now famous or infamous group within Labour, Mandelson opposed it and wasn't keen on it. And clearly there were differences between them. And as he pointed out, he was in his mid-40 Yeah, I I think it often happens the press. I've I've been on both sides of this equation writing about people, you know, inside the inner tent. And I I was, you know, in the inner tent being written about. I became um chief of staff to Ian Duncan Smith. Um uh uh and the last two months of his leadership was great timing and uh I brought him down very quickly. He still tells the story of that. But the press latched on to the fact that I was an evangelical Christian and it was the only thing they wrote about me during those um two months. And I think that often happens, it was it happened to be true, but it's it's often the case thing the press they they find something particularly what they think is interesting or different about you, and the the rest of the stuff which maybe sort of more grey and humdrum but actually is probably why you got to that job or whatever that takes second fiddle to what is the sexier thing to describe you as and I could easily believe I don't there may be more to the story than um uh Morgan McSweeney said, but I could easily believe that it was the leak with Mandelson that was the sexier thing for the press to write about than anything else to do with him. And that's why we've always been referred to Morgan Sweeney as it as a dementee of um Mandelson rather than perhaps some of the more complex and subtle dimensions of his character . It's interesting it isn't it? I know people who uh revere Morgan McSweeney, and I got a text from someone who I know well about how unbelievably impressive he is, quotes, um, during the hearing in front of that Foreign Affairs uh com mittee. And yet, when you look at the record, at least on the surface, Morgan McSweeney was this key figure in the Starmer entourage, uh, some argue as powerful as Starmer, uh, some argue more powerful because he was such an influence. And when he left, Labour were in third place. Um, he apparently tried to sideline the soft left to a more muscular than I can ever recall the soft left being. And there is this contrast between this mild mannered figure and his record which is mixed, I think, at best. Yeah, that's a good it's a good point, Steve. But I mean I think a l a lot of things have got mixed up really and I I think it it reveals quite a lot about the Labour operation, you know, from from twenty twenty that they made really quite basic mate mistakes in in in terms of grand strategy because very often it's the case that the person I've I think McSweeney's uh you know record and in in in terms terms of taking control of the party, which obviously needed do needed doing and was highly successful politically and in electoral terms, and then the election campaign, which okay was was dull and there too little scrutiny of Labour, but if if you're in the party that's wanting to win, it was a pr it was a pretty impressive operation. But very often those people who prepare you for power or win the election and are the the the masterminds of that process, that doesn't mean that they're going to be good at government. Mm. So it was a slight it's an uh un unusual scenario I would think, or may maybe un unwise to just assume that because he had done this extraordinary thing that he was then c going to be a good person at running the machinery of government and you know, moving the pieces around the chessboard in in in in uh in Whitehall and dealing with the senior civil service. It sort of turned out he he he he wasn't really. I still think I still stick to my position that of the available choices that Labour you know Labour had, that that that sw McSweeney analysis of where Li Labour needed to try and pitch itself with the Greens on the left and then reform rising on the on on the right is broadly you know is broadly correct. Some people would dismiss the idea of it being blue labour, but it it's tinged with it's bluish. Bluish labour. I think that was the place that Labour needed to go rather There's also the the the basic fundamental truth in politics, having seen lots of chiefs of staff to leaders and prime ministers, is that they not only have to be very talented, but they have to really believe in the individual for it to work, for it to make a meaningful difference. They have to think, right, the problem the country has the following problem s. This person I've seen close up is so impressive that I think that they are the on that they are the answer to the country's problems and I'm all in on trying to help them deliver this. Now that is not , even without being uncharitable, that's not the case with with McSweeney and Starmer. There is always the suspicion that Starmer was a vehicle, uh, and and you know handle driven very successfully by by McSweeney, but no sense that he'd f that he had found his found his Thatcher. He'd found someone who could di who could dish the left and potentially win an election. That's a very different thing from thinking that you'd found the equivalent of Clement Attlee or Margaret Thatcher or even you know even uh someone Jim Callahan who regular l listeners will know I'm a great fan of. So something from the start was missing I would say. Uh what what Ian just said certainly reminds me of Dominic Cummings and his relationship with Boris Johnson. Dominic Cummings was very much of the opinion that he was the solution to the country's problems and that he knew what to do, and the Prime Minister was really an I I think that is a really good parallel. I mean, I was thinking exactly the same thing, Tim. That this is, you know, how far do we think that uh you know, as you put it, Ian, that they thought that Starmer was just a sort of vehicle? Because in fact, the minute that uh Dominic Cummings was out of the central machine. That was the account he gave, wasn't it and then he sort of started publicly attacking Boris Johnson with with emoji of a shopping trolley to sort of indicate that without his guidance, i.e. Dominic Cummings' guidance, the m you know the machine had gone AWOL and the set person at the centre of it wasn't being adequately control led. But I I don't know if you get the feeling that Morgan McSweeney himself had an elevated sense of his own power. I don't know, kind of I I find, Steve, that accounts really differ from Labour people who really think that it had gone far too far in terms of Morgan McSweeney making the main decisions and being in control of the strategy and therefore the policy springing from the strategy, rather than policies being something that should be considered, you know, on merit through another forum and with the Prime Minister definitely making the decisions. And then those who think the whole thing was sort of a bit exaggerated, maybe because of all of the books that have come out about Starmer, in which Morgan McSweeney is actually the central character of the book, not Keir Starmer. And is that just Morgan Mc Creamy clearly was one of the sources of the Well exactly so the mythmak the mythmaking that comes about through those fat tomes on the on the interesting in the committee and I think again it's it's nuance. And I think his power was disproportionate and I think his um strateg y had flaws. I mean, if you look at it uh strategically, I think if you look at the rise of the Greens, uh his strategy has given them space to rise. Um and if you uh look at um his plans to sort of marginalize the so called soft left, you know, the last cabinet sacking Lucy Powell, trying to move Ed Millerband. I've never known the soft left more muscular than they are now. But what was interesting in that committee is he made clear, and it was partly in his interests to do so. Um, that in the end Keir Starmer took the decisions, and he said quite often he didn't take my advice. Sometimes he did, he did on Mandelson, and we both made a terrible mistake. Um, but he also said that Starmer 's style is to consult widely before making a decision. That he would have talked to David Lamy, who was more doubtful about Mandelson before coming to the decision. And McSweeney said, and I think that was true sometimes with Cummings and Johnson, that sometimes he would push something and Starmer would listen to others and take a different view. Now, in a way, that's quite flattering for Keir Starmer to be seen as more decisive, perhaps, or as an individual, than his current reputation suggests. But I think with Cummings, wasn't it true? For example, he was hugely opposed to carrying on with the high-speed railway. Johnson backed it. And there were quite a few examples of why Johnson did not follow Cummings' advice. So these relationships are complicated. Rarely is one the puppet to the puppeteer. I I think the most extraordinary moment though, Steve, was when effectively Dominic Cummings sacked Boris Johnson's Chancellor in Sajaj . You remember basically Dominic Cummings objected to some of the advisers around Sajir Javid and the accounts I heard later of the meeting was you had effectively the Prime Minister in a meeting with his adviser the Chancellor at war and he chose his advisor over his Chancellor. And I think there are many cabinet ministers, I think, today and in recent times who do feel that that the the the chief of staff or the the the guru inside number ten has more influence in them because they're always there, they're always at the Prime Minister's side, always at the Prime Minister's ear and able to wield that influ ence that they perhaps don't far away from a government department. And one of the interesting um ideas, I think, about civil service reform at the moment that has been put forward by a think tank is actually that we model the the um the New Zealand model. They have something called the beehive where actually all the ministers are housed in the same place, all the cabinet ministers are housed in the same place. And they go back to their departments when they need to go back to their departments, but their location is actually the beehive. And actually creating something like that in Britain would sort of restore the place of ministers in our public life. Yeah, and I think certainly what has happened since he's gone, uh since McSweeney has gone, is there have been quite a few political cabinets where some cabinet ministers have felt more emboldened than they might have done uh when uh McSweeney was so influential as to the composition of the cabinet, even if Starmer in the end was taking the final uh decisions. Uh watching all of this, do you think there's a case for setting up a m as well that's an interesting idea of the cabinet having much closer physical access to a prime minister because as we all know it's access that makes all the difference who's able to see a Prime Minister uh which is why the West Wing is the West Wing. You know, people want to have even if it's a cramped desk near the President, they want to be in the West Wing. Yeah. So I don't think Alistair Campbell in policy terms was hugely influential, but he saw Tony Blair all the time and that gave him an influence that uh cabinet ministers could never get close to in comparison, this thing of access. Um Ian, do you think there are institu tional reforms uh that would prevent the things that have been happening now? It's partly character, obviously the decision about Mandels and some of the other things that have been going wrong . But I'm increasingly of the view there needs to be a Prime Minister's department. That number ten is I mean, I know we've been talking about the power of Morgan Sweeney and Dominic Cummings, but is in the end too underpowered, uh that little townhouse with a few people in it, compared to someone saying there's ten thousand in the cabinet office . Yeah, I'd I sort of uh d well, just respectfully disagree, Steve, actually. I I think I mean I I know what you mean, and over the years I've sort of toyed with you know, turned the idea over in my head, is it is is it a good idea or not? It essentially what you'd end up with is sort of number 10 fused with the cabinet office taking over that space and a bigger you know a bigger thing. I I don't think the answer to whats' ailing us here is more process. I think we're w we're we're almost at we're at the end of a forty or fifty year period of accumul of of accumulation of excess I think that most of what's going wrong is failance failure failures of judgment and without being censorious because we're all, you know, we're all flawed, but also weakness es of character. And something, I don't know what, but I would like to hear everyone's view. Something is really badly wrong with our system and the way in which it's producing leaders and it's producing cabinets and our politics is being run. I mean we now have the turnover of Prime Ministers, you know, we used to try and take the Mickey out of, you know, uh out of Italian politics, but Italian politics under Maloney is uh is positively stable compared to British politics. And we have this we have this thing that you know, w e even within two within two years for all of Starmer's failings, like the first thing that people reach for is removing, changing the Prime Minister. We do this faster and faster and faster. And something is I don't think it's I don't think it's um Brexit because it starts you, know, arguably before that . So and even even Cummings is a manifestation of something that's wrong with the system. Because he is, for all of his flaws, you know, part genius, part twit. When he's when he's brilliant and when he hits on something, he is he can be absolutely absolutely brilliant. Now he clearly sensed that there is something fundamentally wrong, not just with our politicians, but with uh with the way in which our system functions. I don't know exactly what it is or how you get back to something with better quality of people, better judgment or better judgments taken. I don't know I don't know what it is. But I don't think building another department, Steve well I can see the c I can see the case for the office of the Prime Minister. I just I don't think that's really gonna change very much. That's just moving things around. Okay, let's take a break and then I want to explore just one other micro element of the uh saga that has triggered our wider conversation and and and then end with a look of where we are politically after another kind of turbulent few days. But let's take a break first This is an ad from BetterHelp. Some days it feels like you're carrying something no one else can see: stress, grief, responsibility, the kind of heaviness that doesn't show up in photos but follows you everywhere. You don't have to hold it alone. With better help, you can talk to someone who helps lighten what you've been carrying for far too long. Take the weight off . Start therapy anytime from anywhere online with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash random podcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there. Integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time. From startups to scale-ups, online, in person, and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com slash setup okay welcome back to not another one. I promised at the beginning we won't talk about the Peter Mandelson saga. We're going to look at wider issues about lead ership, chief of staffs, and their relationships. But I just wanted to focus on one thing in relation to this particular leader and prime minister, uh, which has been in a way underexplored. Miranda, he was pretty keen on appointing George Osborne as Washington ambassador, which seems just politically whatever else utterly bizarre. Yes, it does seem bizarre, but what do those two characters have in common? I suppose they have a widely held reputation for being extremely wily . And uh don't you get the impression that they just thought um you know they basically needed some sort of modern Odysseus to send into Washington to cope with the Trump administration. And it's, you know, well documented that uh the Trump White House actually didn't see the need for a change. That was all coming from London. And they clearly needed that to be able to cope with the unpredictable return of uh of Donald Trump. They needed to have some sort of superhuman demigod you know, demi god of the of the dark political arts, um which which which then would probably lead you to those two names. I mean, I think in a sense it's that analysis of what was needed that was that was probably not not quite right. You know, what they needed was an incredibly skilled uh diplomat which they already had. So yeah, I mean it is it's very, very surprising and uh you know, it would be what would it be? It would be George Osborne's ninth job of his portfolio ? Or are we into double figures now? I'm not sure. I think a couple of years ago it was seven jobs and they're still mounting up, aren't they? Manson's dodgy personal uh relations, you you could make an argument that actually um the r the decision worked because we were getting a better trade deal when Mandleton was there. Relations between uh White House and number ten were relatively harmonious. And of course, what we've seen since Mandelson vacated the position is actually quite a significant deterioration in the relationship. Now, it may well be that that deterioration would have happened anyway, but what you certainly can say is that when Manelson was there, it was going okay, and since he left, it's got a lot worse. Um, and I think Osborne and Manelson just had that sort of political skill, not often be able to apply to themselves but to other people, that you know, that probably did in a way explain and perhaps even justify why they they were the two candidates that uh Keirstarmer was considering yeah I mean and I uh personally find uh Osborne interesting and his political curiosity uh attractive. But uh most Labour people see him as the architect of austerity which they regard as uh uh uh a huge uh error, the consequences of which are still being played out. And I think it would have been politically explosive for them to do it. And I'm surprised well I'm not surprised because in a way I think because they their target was the left, the soft left, the hard left, that was that's what caused them fury. And they look with much greater generosity, I think, to the architect of austerity, even though I'm sure they both oppose I'm talking about Starmer and McSweeney, who were contemplating George Osborne. But I I can tell you if, if that had happened, it would have been a different sort of political row, but there would have been one, I think. But isn't it though, Steve, it's a c it's a classic move, sort of postmodern political move of its kind. Parallels with what Gordon Brown did bringing in the government of all the talents. Do you remember all of that sort of stuff? Yeah. So here's this idea. What do you do if you have a power base that's too narrow , as Brown had when he hadn't um won elect he hadn't won an election but becomes prime minister, or if you are Starmer and you've won an election, but you've won actually with you've got won a massive majority, but with a very s small share of the the vote. So the theory would be that you have to build out and you have to show that you are calling in people from different political tradition traditions and building something bigger. So I think that's what would have been their uh their thought. There's a different discussion, I do think, to have about the record of the coalition. About which I'm increasingly skeptical. But but also the the key thing there is the trade deal, as Tim said, no. In the in that you know, Mandelson's relevant experience was as EU trade commissioner and Osborne's as as Chancellor and somebody who's you know very good with the numbers. So that's not daft to prioritise that aspect of the of the sec second second Trump presidency at all. But as you say, Steve, it was a question of choosing which sort of political potential potential political explosion you wanted, an immediate rebellion from your own party, or as it turns out, the kind of set of explosions that have been set off by the Mandelson appointment over the next two, three, four years, which you know you could say that might not have happened, but as we've been endlessly discussing now for weeks, it was pretty predictable that there were risks there. Do you think the media are too obsessed by these behind the scenes figures because we don't see them and therefore they can become easily mythologized. And we are thrilled if we can speak to them privately because we have access that no members of the public have. And we sort of end up overstating their influence. So I'm I'm just trying to think. You see, I mean, uh David Cameron's chief of staff wasn't really talked about at all, was he? Um and Ed Llewellyn. Ed Ed Lowellin who quietly got on with things behind the scenes, was very modest . And then became an ambassador. To Paris, I believe. Yeah, pretty nice. Pretty nice experience. He did have foreign policy experience. I think you know he was chief aide to Chris Patton when Chris Patton was in Hong Kong. I think he'd worked with Paddy Ashdown in Bosnia. Exactly. Exactly. He had the he had the right C V so it wasn't an eccentric thing. It's not just a question of right C V though. I mean he is a you can do you know, Tim recited the record but uh you know, the C V but he he's also you know, he is a first class diplomat. I mean that's that you know that's the main reason he's been appointed to these to these jobs. I mean just I'm I th I think no no Ian, no disrespect to his to his uh capabilities. I think it's just that we were pointing up the contrast with some of the people who we were apparently considering sending as diplomats who see they really did wasn't up to it right there's an ir there's an irony there when you look at what's I mean I I do at some point we should have a discussion about the coalition because I keep hearing it referenced all the time. And is isn't it isn't it just fascinating the way in which, you know, the differing fortunes of those who emerge from the coalition. You described it, you know, very well there, the Ed Llewell and Hardly made any headlines when he was uh when he was with David Cameron all the all those years. And then has out of it sort of sprung back into diplomacy and has had a very successful career and uh professionally, you know, happy happy time and then others who were much bigger political figures like Osborne himself, I'd would say, well, okay, he's he's got he's got all those jobs, but he's not in politics, which is his obsession and where he always wanted to be. David Cameron's had a you know a sort of mixed post post career. But anyway, that's a different episode. The the the the coalition and it's a good one we should do. Yeah. But but Steve I did think that was an interesting question of yours though about whether the kind of shadowy figure has a glamour and an attraction and that's why everyone obsesses about it. And I just there is one counter argument to that which is getting slightly wrong. That's that's my concern. You know, so so more than slightly perhaps. We don't yeah. Well yeah, there's always something to it, but I always used to say to people when people used to say to me, got Ed Balls he's a bully, a thug I sa I I I know quite well he's not a bully and a thug, you know it's tough. And now he's a national treasure, you know, after dancing at once Saturday night . One thing about all these shadowy figures that just happened to sort of look it's they're nearly all men, aren't they? They're nearly all men. In a sort of an age of equ equality where um actually you see a lot more women at the top of cabinet. In that sort of private space or whatever we want to call it inside the uh advisory space to the Prime Minister. The c the figures are nearly always men. One of the most fascinating examples though was a woman, Marcia Williams, with uh Wilson. Uh back a little way . Yeah, yeah, but before in a way there were many women in po elected women in po in pol in the House of Wilson. Well th there was the there was the d there was the dynamic duo of uh Fiona Hill uh was one of the Theresa May's joint chiefs of sh staff, wasn't she? With Nick Timothy and she she um yeah. Yeah. She was she was they were very powerful and they also didn't really speak publicly Yeah. want to get back into the you know the the the micro of the the Mandelson affair. This is I mean this is obviously important but very very boring. But I do wonder what it says about what we've seen of the civil service in the in the last few weeks and months, what we make of it. I mean one aspect of this which I think is really dangerous is the way in which it's now and I I think it's important that the system pushes back this idea that it it it's now seen as normal for officials or former officials to be gruelled by committee. I think it's I think it was important some of the pushback actually because that that is constitutionally not their role. And I think it's I think we a precedent could be established in which civil servants are then then grilled. But then you do hear it um there is a there's a lively debate, isn't there, on um in you know uh amongst polis in political circles and I'm sure amongst voters as well about what they make of having seen Robins and having seen the whole thing uh the whole thing up up close. Um I would I would say it's clear the thing has just become far too process driven. But in the defence of the civil service then m you know, maybe they would say that they're that they would lead if the political class could um you know th or they would respond if the political class could um you know could could lead. And I think it just does come back to this thing that something has gone deeply wrong with our leadership class, which I think they should be I mean i if they're hidden away the chances of of them uh responding with dynamism and energy and all that we want uh i is less. I think they need to be held to account. And we can see the power they exercise. I mean it is interesting that Oli Robbins took a decision of some political sensitivity which he did not feel obliged to tell Keir Starmer about . Now maybe he was right. Uh that's not the point I'm making really. It it it it illustrates the power of these senior figures and and I take the opposite view actually. I think they need to be held to account more the top civil servants uh than they are at the moment. But you know what you know what you know what though that is very interesting Steve and and um and my instinct would be to agree with you but I do think one of the interesting things that come out of these committee hearings is this desire for almost more process if they're going to be so accounts accountable. I mean, is it not notable that Emily Thornbury keeps saying and is there a note of this meeting? And is it recorded anywhere what how what was said in this phone call? I mean do we really want to you know everyone already complains that Whitehall is sclerotic and there's too much in the words of the government sludge pro you know process driven sludge if people are literally going to be grilled about every single conversation to this level, aren't you just introducing so much process and documentation and record keeping and minute keeping and all the rest of it that the possibilities for actual thought or action are squeezed out entirely. Yep. Yeah, yeah. Although record keeping is slightly different to what I mean. I agree with you all this note keeping. I I think one of us said that's all we would do is keep notes if we had to keep notes of everything. Um but I mean something different. I think they should be called to select committees. And sometimes they are responsible when things are going wrong. And they need to be held responsible. Remember, they are these departments, their fiefdoms. Uh you know the foreign secretaries come and go. We've already had two in this government. Um, but um quite often senior officials stay for a very long time But I don't but Steve, just to just push back on that. I mean I I think of you know what attitude would I know times are different, but maybe they were actually better. What attitude would a c would a Callahan or a or a Thatcher or a Major have taken to taken to that suggestion? Because actually I'm not sure that dynamism I th I I mean I think that there's a di if if we want them to be dynamic, then they become almost political players in their own right. A lot of of course there's a r there's a role in public service for dynamism and reform and I'm but I'm s at the at the Mandarin level, very often the most effective thing we can do, and it's historically described in people's diaries as loads, loads and loads of evidence of it, is not dynamism, it is just quietly saying to a Prime Minister, are you absolutely sure or is that wise quietly? And it's that sort of sense and wisdom accumulated over the course of you know be,ing in public service for 20, 30, 40 years. Now that's that's invaluable, very often subjective, comes down to judgment. You can't sort of minute it or even subject it to process. It's just wisdom and and judgment of the kind that we you've seen in, you know, uh successfully with I don't know, Edward Bridges um you know ju uh as as cabinet secretary. That c or Robert Armstrong, that sort of level of uh quality in in the civil service man uh mandarins. I'd I'd rather see that. If we don't, if we I think what you're suggesting requires, and this may happen under reform, I'd love to hear Tim's view about whether reform moved to this, is that you're s I think you're then getting into a completely different system. And maybe we d maybe there is an argument for moving to that system, which is political appointments for the senior posts of the people who are going to run the departments and that then, because they have political appointments, well maybe they need confirmation hearings. Uh but that's going down the American that's going down the American route. There's a case to be made for it, but once you start to introduce the idea that they are that they are that they're public figures with a political profile, then the system completely completely changes. But Tim, do you think reform will just tear all this up? I don't know whether they'll tear this up. I think they certainly think there are far too many civil servants and they're not held to account for key objectives. I think they want to pay a lot of civil servants a lot more, uh, reward them for performance. Um and the the th th the the the the the other side of that, the quid pro quo, is that they will probably face more of the accountability that Steve has been advocating. But I certainly the the review that Danny Kruger is running at the moment is getting quite a lot of interesting feedback from inside the civil service. I think there's a lot of civil servants who feel very unhappy at the moment about the way the system is run and probably see reform as a way of changing that system more than any other party. Um so yeah, um what's this space? But at the moment it's more about that than w what you describe. Okay, well look let's take a short break and then we'll come back and assess where Kirst Armer is at the week uh after another week of kind of storm stormy political weather. We'll take a break first . This is an ad from better help. Some days it feels like you're carrying something no one else can see. Stress, grief, responsibility, the kind of heaviness that doesn't show up in photos but follows you everywhere. You don't have to hold it alone. With BetterHelp, you can talk to someone who helps lighten what you've been carrying for far too long. Take the weight off. Start therapy anytime from anywhere online with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash random podcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run, and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there, integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time, from startups to scale-ups, online, in person, and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com slash setup . Okay, uh welcome back. There have been times over the last few days, certainly reading the papers, listening to the bulletins and so on, podcasts, uh, that you really do begin to wonder whether Keir Starmer can get through after the May elections and yet all the external problems of uh any of the potential candidates mounting a challenge remain as in place as they were a month ago, six weeks ago, six months ago. So where where do you think he stands? That there's been a vote in the commons about putting him in front of the Privileges Committee. We're recording before the vote is held, but I'm pretty sure the government will win it. They're whipping it. But some are even saying the fact they're having to whip it shows that he has lost control of his parliamentary Labour Party to some ext ent, and that's the first sign of them moving. Um Tom McTaig used in his New Statesman uh article last week the the notion of the herd moving, uh referencing Boris Johnson's farewell speech outside number ten. Uh Tim, your reading of where Kirstarmer is? I don't know. I I'd bow to you, uh Stephen knowing where he is inside the party. Um I've been in Salisbury for a few days, away from the sort of the the Westminster hub . And you know, sometimes you you just listen to ordinary people and certain phrases or views keep coming back to you. And the thing that I've noticed just of in public perceptions, I always ask people the conversations I have that down here, you know, have a little bit of politics and then we return to normal life. But I've always asked about politics, and the thing that people are saying again and again is about Keir Star mer is that he abandons people, that he throws people to the wolves, that he ultimately doesn't take responsibility. So I I that that sort of the uniformity of hearing that has really struck me. I don't know what it means for his long term future. But i that sort of reputation I don't think is a good one to have. And I think when all the sort of Mandelson s crisis has moved on, I think that will be one of the lasting impressions left in the public mind . What would you uh do, Miranda, if you wanted to become Labour Prime Minister ? You're currently in the House of Commons and uh you know about the discontent of MPs and party members , um, and yet you are aware of all the problems uh that mounting a challenge involve. Would you go for it or wait? The famous Hamlet theme of delay delay, delay, delay. Well I suppose that would depend on whether I was um a powerful mayor of a city region without a seat in the in the commons already. In which case I might be really energetically trying to think how I could get myself back inside uh the Palace of Westminster in order to be there when the ball comes loose from the back of the scrum, as Boris Johnson always used to say. Um he certainly is. He's the man of today. Um but I if I was already an MP and for example I had a little local difficulty with the H MRC . Who could I be thinking of? I would be trying to sort that out as soon as possible so that it was no longer hanging over me. I'm of course talking about Angela Rayner because apparently I'm sure you've all heard this as well, chaps, the um the people who run focus groups say that Angela Rayners l you know her dis her her not her decision, her her her omission in terms of paying that extra stamp duty on her holiday home in Hove on the South Coast. That comes up spontaneously in focus groups and it's a real problem for her. So she has to put that behind her. So that needs to happen pretty fast. I think if I was any other of the runners and riders, I'd be sort of trying to work out whether Angela Rayner was sort of fatally disabled by that problem , and also by the way that she's portrayed by the right-wing press, and you know, is such an easy person to portray as a sort of scary lefty. I have to say, I don't think she is that. And she's actually been energetically, I mean, we at the FT we had a report on her doing a sort of charm offensive with the city. Uh she's been talking up her interest in more investment in defence , for example. You know, it's actually possible that she's more fiscally conservative and more moderate on economic questions than Andy Burnham. But she's sort of very easy for I mean I don't know if you read the mail on Sunday this weekend, but it was page after page after page about scary Angela. She's quite easy to portray in that way, which I think is actually wrong. Um so there we are, Steve, I don't know. I think I think I think I've I think if you're Andy Burnham, you just need to get yourself back into the commons, don't you? Yeah, he can't he can't make a move after uh the election. So so that that is clear. And that he is, I think, the one uh with the highest chance of winning such a contest adds to the complexity. It's interesting though Ian, isn't it? If if I were i I'm just putting my mind into these people, you we can do another discussion about what is best for the country, what's best for Labour. But if I were Wes Street in, I would be quite tempted to go after the elections because I don't think he could beat Andy Burnham. Um and as Miranda has suggested, uh Angela Rayner could be formidable, but the this whole tax thing needs to be resolved. So if I were him, I might be quite tempted, I've no idea what he's thinking, but I might be quite tempted to make a move then because I don't think the opportunity for him will get better. Uh because clearly there will be moves at some point. I know Kirstamer will try and block it again, but one way or another, if Andy Bernard wants to get back into the comments, I suspect he will get back in. At which point I think he will be the favourite uh in any leadership contest. So anyway, I I I just wonder what West reating is thinking. And I don't know, um but anyway, who knows? Who knows? Very interesting. I mean I th I I think uh yeah, I let's see, we've talked we've talked a lot about what the atmosphere is gonna be like in the in the hours and days afterwards and I th I do think a lot of this is gonna come down to Scotland, if you were I t we we we talked a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of of of Labour actually doing slightly better or the SNP doing slightly worse than anticipated. Not sure that that holds now. There's there is complete confusion about what the poll about what's actually really going on there seems to be an extraordinary number of don't knows yeah and undecideds and voters just being really uh you know apathetic about the whole thing so we'll we'll we'll see I think that think about it for a s a second from Keir Starmer's point of view because he has agency as well and he's clearly, for all of his flaws and all of the criticism of Starmer, he's clearly of he is incredibly competitive and determined. And I'll remember, prime ministers, unless they're put in a position where they have no choice, like the cabinet tells them they have to go or cabinet just deserts them and it's impossible to appoint another in Boris's case, unless that happens, they're desperate to stay on. It is this they're from the moment they become