Political maneuvering and Scottish election impact

Hello and welcome to Not Another One, the podcast with me, Steve Richards, Ian Martin, Tim Montgomery, and Miranda Green. Thank you for tuning in. Well you can guess what we are going to reflect on in our time together. Before we do, uh is everyone okay? Miranda, you weren't able to make it last week with the Best excuse for podcasts. You lost your voice. I know. I d I d you do know there was a part of me, Steve, that did think You know. Paging Dr. Freud, right? Because If you if your livelihood is yakking Um and you can't yak for like eight days. I've completely lost my voice for eight days. You know, I'm I don't know. Is this is like self self sabotage on a kind of phenomenally efficient um cellular level. I don't know. Anyway, as you can hear, I can speak again. Something that my family is not that pleased about, but I am. I can't believe they preferred silence. I'm not gonna go any further on, but there is a husky tone that I can't do. I'm not I've got to tell you, I'm not it's taking like this is like week three of this virus. And uh I know exactly where I got it. I got it on the number eighteen bus, which is a sort of cursed bus route. If any of our listeners uh take that bus regularly. Somebody's always either having fisticuffs or kicking off. breathing some dreadful disease at you. So I'm just Anyway. If if you get all I'm gonna say is if you get on a on public transport at the moment and somebody's coughing and spluttering. Just get off. Miss your meeting. Be late. Whatever it takes. Um but yeah anyway, I'm delighted to be back with you today and I will speak for as long as I can, Steve. Oh, I'm sure in our time together you will be Fine. But what do I I'm not I'm not a doctor. I mean I but I'm sure you'll be fine. Um so let's uh unless anyone else wants to reflect on what they've been up to. I was in Berlin at the weekend. Um it reminds me on a bigger scale of Belfast. Everywhere you go there are reminders of its extraordinary history. Um and uh yeah, no, it was very interesting. But did you all have good weekends? It's a long time ago and people will be listening to it when it's even further away. Uh you had good weekend seeing and Tim? Yeah, I mean I was also in Berlin, but I wasn't I didn't realize you were there. Well I yeah, I I came back on Friday evening, but yeah, so it wasn't there for the weekend, but I had uh forty eight hours in Berlin, which I have to say was fan absolutely fantastic. Uh, did a lot of really interesting stuff. I was attending a Conference on European security and went to possibly the best ever cocktail bar I've ever been to. It was like stepping into behind this sliding door was the world in nineteen twenty eight. Wow. It was so good. in a kind of Weimar way that I'm convinced that it doesn't it's not actually real and that if you went back and looked for it the next morning it would not have existed. But it was uh I was just reminded what a fantastic, interesting city Berlin is. It might as well have been. It was call Bellboy. Oh, it sounds wonderful. We should all go immediately. Everything was brilliant except to the friends we were staying with, very thoughtfully, because I'm a vegetarian, booked a vegan Michelin starred restaurant uh amidst all the brilliant and cheap restaurants in Berlin. We basically paid about five hundred Euros for an olive. But that apart it was brilliant. Uh shall we uh move on to events of recent days? Um and most recently in terms of the Uh Mandelson, Oli Robins, Starmer, Saga. uh Oli Robin's testimony. And there is a lot to reflect on it, uh his appearance at the Foreign Affairs Committee. But one of the things I find most astonishing, and there are many, um, is that in a way The original Guardian story that triggered this drama. was not wholly right. It's I mean in that uh evidence he gave, Oli Robin said uh that this vetting procedure leaned towards blocking Mandelson. They then had a conversation about whether the worries could be addressed and concluded they could be. And so it it's at no point, it seems to me, was it absolutely crystal clear. that the vetting process had unequivocally blocked him, which uh triggered this whole saga, the allegations that Starmer deliberately misled the commons, the sacking, which I consider to be unfair, and will Uh damage Arma. All of it triggered. Bye. A story that was more nuanced than originally appeared to be the case. Am I right about this? Tim? Oh w where to begin, to be honest, um Steve. I I think that's a large fair account that that you've given. Um Let me say this is a bigger observation. Um I love politics. We all do a around this podcast table. Most of our listeners do. I'm getting really bored with this now. And if I'm bored with this now Where are where are the public? I think the public have already made that judgment. That we're now lost in detail is important detail for how the country's run. It is an outrage. But my goodness, we get obsessed as immediate with certain things. We don't talk about the big challenges this country faces. We talk endlessly about stuff like this. And I think Starmer's done at some point is not just survived as Prime Minister, but certainly I think this particular scandal now is going to determine uh his future. And um but basic account of what's happening to Steve I think it's perfectly fair. So I I shouldn't have come to you first, really, Tim, because we're gonna be talking about it for the entire podcast. Miranda, uh it seems that quite a lot of what goes on has gone on, the huge pressure on the foreign office to speedily get this done, to get Mandelson to Washington as quickly as possible. has Morgan McSweeney's uh fingerprints all over it. Um Starmer is a sort of political plodder. Uh and it it it doesn't feel like him. putting on huge pressure. And indeed Ollie Robbins he didn't name individuals but referred to the uh number ten more generally. But it seems to me this whole thing has Morgan McSweeney written. We know he put pressure on for Mandelson to be appointed. And it seems was Uh of course Sama must take ultimate responsibility. But the the the pressure then put on to get this done quickly. uh was uh more a characteristic of Morgan Sweeney, don't you think, than Keir Starmer? Well to justify Kid's armor, he could have intervened and sort of it out. No, I I mean so here's the thing. Um my reaction to that question is exactly your grace note, which is there are a hundred and one ways of deflecting attention from S Keir Starmer's own role in the disastrous uh decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. And um you know, putting pointing the finger at Morgan McSqueene now gone and anyone else who's now gone. I think is slightly beside the point. I mean I completely agree with you that it bears those hallmarks and in fact we have Jonathan Powell's words, don't we? That the whole thing was being done in rather rather odd oddly hasty way. And also the cart had been put before the horse. That's the most important thing, that the appointment had been announced, publicised, you know, he was pretty much packing his bags and worrying about the how to get the dog there and back. before the security clearance had actually happened. So I think all that's right, but the central question and the reason why there was that awful moment in the House of Commons on Monday when Starmer made his statement to the House on all this, when the House of Commons was essentially laughing at the Prime Minister. because he was saying, you know, the the idea that we weren't told what was going on, the idea it is incredible. At which point eruption of laughter from from MPs. And it makes the Prime Minister look seriously lacking in a lot of the qualities we'd expect. uh from from our head of government, n and not just judgment, but also being the one taking the decisions, knowing what was going on. And now, frankly, he looks like somebody who isn't willing to take responsibility because of this decision to fire Oli Robbins, who appeared totally on top of things and very sort of dignified and sad in his testimony at the Select Committee on Tuesday morning. And in a sense, the contrast between the way number ten has behaved and the way that he behaved is really painful, I think. And He also made the point we want lots of people of talent and ability and a wide variety of skills to to come and work for the British government, not least in terms of diplomacy and you know sensitive roles in terms of our relations with the outside world. And the whole p w way that this process is supposed to operate is to encourage that, not put people off. And it's you know, as Tim said, it's another appalling sort of public saga where people just look at public life as a as a as a as a Yeah. Yeah, a collection of Clowns, fools, and the venle, I think. Which is which is is is really deeply deeply regrettable. Ian it seems to me that and I remember from our very first podcast uh which we had at the beginning of the general election, when we were reflecting then on the energy Keir Starmer and his entourage were putting in, trying to block Diane Abbott from standing, blocking other candidates from standing. And I think we all agree that kind of brutality would come back to haunting. And we've seen since then the sacking of Sue Gray, the sacking of directors of communication, the sacking of the Cabinet Secretary. And then on last Thursday night, the sacking of Oli Robins, as I say, in response to a story Which was more nuanced than Uh the original reporting Suggest it. Um and Do you agree that this is Counterproductive. Sucking. From Starmer's perspective. And also part of a pattern, because if it's a one off, that's perfectly understandable, prime ministers are under huge pressure and feel the need to do something. But it's part of a pattern. What do you think? certainly part of a pattern in that it it always seems to be when it comes down to it it it ultimately with the Prime Minister it's always someone else's fault. And that can really you know, whether it applies to a a child or a teenager or uh For all that he's saying, I take responsibility, there don't seem to don't seem to be any real consequences or accountability uh uh responsibility is not uh accompanied by accountability and there isn't any any kind of meaningful consequence. It's a person after person. It ends up just being uh getting getting whacked. Um, yeah, I mean I do I do I mean it it's isn't it pretty clear what happened. I mean I am and I I I have to say I find the process side of side of this I don't agree quite agree with Tim, I do still find it Interesting, I find it baffling. I mean I'm I'm start y y you see a glimpse of this. I know vetting's important, but you just get a glimpse of how the British system works. And my goodness, we are world leaders in buratic in bureaucratic uh process. you know that that was the key to economic growth would be would be absolutely booming. And it's cle it's clear a way of thinking and a mindset that has cascaded through large parts of the public sector, but also business as well. Just like everything process piled upon process. And then in the end. I mean the ludicrous thing about the situation that the Prime Minister doesn't seem a capable of grasping on I don't know why, uh, is that he said, if you remember, he said well he said several times that the frustrating thing about being in government is that you pull a lever and nothing happens. Well, what happened here is that he pulled a lever. He doesn't seem to realise that's what he did in essentially saying, I've picked my person to get this done. The system then did what he w did what he wanted to do. That's a really good point. Yeah. And he s sort of s stands there looking baffled about it. I'm sure we'll talk about, you know, the long term the long term kind of implic implications. But it is you're I I don't I'm not sure. I'd be interested in everyone's view on this about the extent to which this story is really about the vetting or about even specifically the Mandl Mandelson question. Sometimes you get House of Commons moments. And I'm I'm thinking the the of the bit leading up to Steve, you mentioned or Miranda mentioned the Commons laughing at the Pri laughing at the Prime Minister. Which is never a good look. Leading up to that, the House of Commons was completely silent. Yeah. That's always a that's as Quentin Lett said on social media and in his sketch, that's always a really bad sign for a for a for a Prime Minister. And I I just think it's it it it it could be this scandal, it could be another scandal. I think you you you essentially see the political class making up its mind, uh, or or completing the decision making process about the Prime Minister and his capacity to to lead. And this is almost just to me just just a kind of kind of excuse. But that doesn't that doesn't mean Yeah. It could does mean he he he doesn't survive for quite some time actually, but I I I think that was that was m Westminster uh coming uh coming to a judgment, would be my view. I I I agree uh well we're gonna come on to where the sleeves Keir Starmer in the government. uh after a break. But before we get to that break, there is one thing that I want to point out. Uh we all agree this is damaging uh to Starmer and deserves to be uh damaging. However, the hysteria on Thursday night and Friday um was in a different place altogether. Virtually everyone I saw on Twitter or X was saying Starmer must have known Ollie Robbins would have told someone in number ten, and therefore he deliberately misled Parliament. And that's what made the story reach boiling point. And it's absolutely clear, and was by then actually. But he didn't. Oli Robbins is absolutely clear that in far as uh there was an element of the betting process which had doubts or to quote Rob Oli Robbins lent towards blocking. Mandelson. Um he didn't tell Starmer. And so it is very interesting how a story reaches fever pitch on something that wasn't true. Um and and it never added up. The idea that Starmer would sack Oli Robbins when Ollie Robbins knew that he had told number ten about this would have been insane. But that was the allegation and King Bade not made it and others that really got the story. uh to boiling point. And and and there was no basis For that at all. No, I I think you're absolutely right there, Steven. It's n it's a it's a sort of flaw in how we all operate that that that that happens. But if you think of the moti people's motivations, it's also inevitable, isn't it? I mean in that you know, you quite rightly reminded us that in our first ever episode of not another one we dwelt on the irritating way that everyone was talking about Keir Starmer being ruthless, as if that was an unalloyed positive in all circumstances. And we're now seeing the many ways in which it's not. In terms of him getting rid of person after person rather than look at look himself in the mirror. But I think uh you know also I can't remember where I'm going with this. Can't remember where I was going with this. What was the question? Yeah I'm sorry. How is it age I can't believe it. Given how young we are actually I think no I know your point is the whole thing's been based on a misunderstanding, right? But the but the motivation for example of the motivation of the opposition parties I I think there is plenty of material which is deeply and justifiably damaging for the way Keir Starmer runs his uh government, beginning with the decision to appoint Mandelson. But what got this story to this level. of fever uh was was could not have been right from the beginning. Uh that uh everyone was saying he must have known and Ollie Robbins must have told number ten. Uh we've had confirmation from Oli Robbins he didn't. Now what as I say, what interests me is that actually what was to know was not quite as dramatic as everyone thought on Friday. But nonetheless he didn't tell that to Starmer either. No, but the motivation, for example, of so K Kemi Badenok, who's won plaudits over the last few couple of days because she ran with that misunderstanding, no? I mean her line which seemed like a killer line which is either he didn't know what was going on, in which case he's incompetent, or he did know what was going on and he's lying. And actually neither of those things are true. Yes, but there's uh, but there's a th there's a third way. Which gets to the get you guess the point. I think to uh that's a brilliant phrase of Miranda, where am I going with this? Actually I think it I think if the Prime Minister had used that in the House of Commons yesterday, probably if he just s and said, I've no idea where I'm going with this people might have felt some sympathy. But look, there's a th there's a third way, and there's even an episode of Yes Minister about it, right? It's it is and this is this is to the heart of doubts that I think you y you you you see at Westminster about about the Prime Minister and his capacity to be and his capacity to lead. A Jim Callahan or which is pr b any of his predecessors, right, would have managed to observe the uh and this piece of Mandelson we're talking about. I mean you I mean what what what more warnings do you need, but would have managed to observe the the the rules, the letter while also finding out. Right? Jim Callahan would have said, Right, okay, so uh Ollie Robbins has signed off on this and there are no problems. And would know from the look on an official face that actually it was more complicated than that. But that's that's not the Starmer Starmer is not that he because he's not a politician in the conventional sense. He doesn't have that have that skill set. But ultimately the the the m the machine, the system, gave him what he wanted or does he not realise that that's what he did want and what he was asking for, but uh just don't know. Okay, let's take a short break and we'll come back. Uh there are uh although Tim says no one's interested, there are two absolutely fascinating other dimensions. Okay, welcome back to uh not another one. Uh Tim, I know you've got to go quite soon. So I want to ask you about really what this tells us about Starmer's style of government and how we can compare it with other Prime Ministers, and you work for a bit in um Boris Johnson's number ten and wrote very critically of what you saw. And it seems to me, although Starmer will be horrified at any hint of comparison, there is In one sense. that Johnson was famously casual about things. And it seems to me, although it in character, Starmer is this sort of process driven figure. That he is too. So for example, when he went to the House of Commons to say process was followed. I know under the sort of Blair Brown era, they would have neurotically checked every possible figure before going to the comments to utter those words. Have we checked with the foreign office? Have we checked with the cabinet office? And if Blair wasn't saying it, Campbell would have said it to him. And yet these checks clearly weren't done because in the end if Starmer had asked Ollie Robbins about the vetting process, Robbins probably would have told him. Or not the content of it, he's very clear about that, but the outcome. And and and that Doesn't seem to have happen. There is a sort of curious casual approach to some things from a figure renowned for being this director of public prosecution. And it's hard to explain. It is and there's been lots of strange things that we've learnt about the Prime Minister during this period. But I think it was Tim Shipman's sort of account that wasn't even a conversation between Keir Starmer and Peter Mandelson before he was appointed. I think in that very same piece, uh Tim wrote about the fact that The Prime Minister goes away at weekends with his box of reading material. But doesn't really come back with feedback. You know, Tony Blair, Margaret Factor, they scribble lots of points in the margins. People in Down the Street had an idea of what their Prime Minister Won't it. And I I think that you know the overall what I take away from what we've seen not just from this episode but other episodes. You look at the turnover in Stafford and Dan just been unprecedented, incredibly Uh uh people staff, to general visuals, to comms people, they've all changed. Um quite quickly sometimes, not even really given a chance to bed down into their jobs. Farmer does not seem to be a good leader of a team. Perhaps you know his um previous roles but he never really had to manage. I don't know. But I just don't think he's that has to be a very integrated machine to work. That the comms, the policy people, they have to know what their boss Once. And I I think it's been obvious for a while that the country doesn't really know where Kirst Dharma wants to go. I think it's now more obvious that even the people closest to him probably don't know either. And of course he probably doesn't know himself. interesting element to the Starmer leadership is his malleability. Because he is not wholly sure who he is as a political figure. Um and yet to his credit he is, I think at times a listener. It depends who he has listened to. So someone was saying to me very senior. Obviously we know Morgan McSweeney persuaded him to appoint Peter Mandelson. If he had seen Gordon Brown in the week that decision was made. and Brown had spent an hour with Starmer arguing that he shouldn't go near Mandelson, which is what Brown would have argued. He might well have gone a different way. So it was Brown who persuaded Starmer to back the lifting of the child benefit for people with more than two children. Uh for example, that there is a tendency if you get to him, he will act, and it McSweeney famously got to him m more than anyone else. Uh but there is this sense that apart from some areas like law, international law, workers rights, all of which he has a kind of personal conviction over. Uh he is unusually manipulable. What do you think about that? Uh I think that's probably true. And for quite different reasons to why it's been true of previous political leaders. I mean, people did used to say of Tony Blair sometimes as well, that he, you know, bore the impression of the last person he he had wanted to to to like him in the room. But that's because Tony Blair is a sort of weird extrovert. wanted to um to impress the person and uh make them feel that he was on their side and would then do the same to the person arguing the arguing the opposite. Whereas with Keir Starmer what's it about, it's probably not that, because he's uh it seems like more of an introvert. I think it's part of to partly to do with what Ian was talking about a minute or so ago, which is just the idea that he's not of politics. And one of the things that that people develop as experienced politicians or even as politicians, not uh not as experienced but with good instincts, is that they work out How to calibrate Yes, as you suggest, Steve, they have a clear idea of what they're in it for and what their own beliefs are, but they also work out ways to calibrate their judgment calls and their decisions. by talking to the right people and the people around them and sort of trusted aides who maybe don't even work for them, but people who they're on the phone quite a lot. And w what do we know about who Keir Starmer or indeed other senior members of his cabinet actually talk to? We know that everyone in those expert fields has been surprised not to be called. I mean I hear this all the time in certain policy areas, not least people with experience of of advising um previous chancellors, which is that there were a lot of people who were ready, willing and able to help this government succeed. They never got the call and even were rebuffed and offered to help and were rebuffed. So I think your point is is absolutely spot on, but I think it's part of a wiser kind of malaise about this government, which is that they don't seem to call on people who could help them and make help them make the right decisions. I suppose another way of looking at this is that when the curtain is uh pushed aside and we all have a look inside Number ten. Uh you can see chaos. I could easily imagine an equivalent uh outgoing civil servant describing how new Labor, for example, dealt with the issue of whether or not to join the Euro. And we would have seen Chaos. We know about Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Boris's wife, and all the uh chaos that had been uh unveiled when the curtain was shoved aside then. So what we have heard from Oli Robbins is that sense of chaos. Oh yeah, we're gonna we we we'll get rid of Matthew Doyle. What job can we give him? What about an ambassadorial role but don't tell the foreign secretary. But is that frenzy that unusual? Or actually we're just surprised every time light is shone on the hidden behind the scenes dramas of running a country. It's not y you're right, Steve. In the modern era it's not that unusual. You know, I'm reflecting. discussion with a friend the other day about one of my favourite books uh on politics, which I've mentioned before, Bernard um Donahue's fantastic diary, the the volume on his time with Jim Callahan is my favorite. And yeah, you're you're you're right, there is there' cer certainly chaotic elements to it that would be recognizable now. I mean, Rishi Sunek's number ten, okay, that was a bit more stable than Boris's um time and he was, you know, famously a time manager um and you know very rigorous about that. But I mean that that had its uh farcical elements uh you know as well. So something about the modern era, you know, as compared to you know politics in the nineteen forties, nineteen fifties, um says chaos. I mean a couple of things I just uh just just flag though. This I this this thing that Tim mentioned, it is it is it is really properly bizarre that there was no conversation between the Prime Minister and his nominee, uh his choice to be ambassador. Yeah. That is that is the that's a conversation Which pretty much every other Prime Minister or Teresa May would would have done it, but in most other Prime Minister cases I they would have actually quite enjoyed the politics of the conversation to say, Peter, right, you're really keen to do this Washington Gig I understand. Right. So walk me through that. And uh are there any problems, anything we should be aware of? Anything that you think is gonna be tough to handle? And you then have a conversation about how you can imagine Callahan doing it or Thatcher doing it. And Just that that that that elementary s political leadership skill he doesn't s it doesn't, you know, it seems to seem to take an interest in. On the malleable point, it's a really good point, Steve. I mean it's a strength in a i i it in a way that he's sort of quite open uh you know open minded. But I think what happens with a politician who is malleable like that is that then uh the the officials and those around Prime Minister know that you have to put a premium then on you have to limit access. Because if if if if the person is going to be swayed by um a half an hour phone call with Gordon Brown or a kind of semi random encounter where their mind might be changed, you have to try and keep it predictable. So you have to try and keep it to process and meetings and order and busyness. so they don't have too much time to freestyle. Whereas a politician who's in char who's genuinely in charge will combine the two, which is letting the machine do what the machine does to keep things running, but also carving out sufficient time for their favourite advisors and people that they could shoot the breeze with, which just doesn't I th but don't you think that those two points are linked, Ian? You know, in the Thatcher mould where you'd sit down with a a whiskey last thing at night, shoot the breeze and actually work out. you know, what you really think about something. But also your earlier point about the papers coming back without Starmer having scribbled his responses on things. I mean, I I know I've mentioned it before, but I really do recommend again the Caroline Slowcock book about working with Mrs. Thatcher in Downing Street in her last two or three years as Prime Minister. Because in there it's documented um that everything would come back with with brilliant or no no no written on it. Because because there was an instinctive response to the proposals therein. And how can a government operate if the person at the top Isn't giving feedback and isn't giving guidance on on that stuff. Really hard. I've got I've got to dash that. Can I just throw in one last random thought Christmas edition of the podcast, I think we're all asked to name our secret crush on the opposition benches. And I mentioned every form. And my crush has only grown over that. I often disagree with that. I disagree with that vehicle. A lot of stuff. But I always get the impression she's a brilliant thing in a politician. She's telling us what she thinks. Maybe she has a grievance against Darmer because she didn't put him on the front put he didn't put her on the front bench. But I I th I think I um under appreciate who Emily Thornbury is. She she's a left wing person to her core, but she's also got sense of how parliament should behave. Certain people like Peter Mountain should never have been supposed to power as he wants. It's interesting it's the woman who's taken that position so strongly in Parliament because of the extent. But no, I I'll disagree with her on many things, but she we need more politicians of that mould, I'm I'm actually convinced that I agree, and it's another one he um Sack to you may uh and really without thinking through how where this would leave her and actually she's been really she's been quite restrained with him. I mean she must on one level uh be living. And she's said publicly she was taken aback. You know and she's never had an explanation as to why. I mean, part of it we know is that he wanted to bring in somebody else who he has worked with very closely. in this area over which he has genuine passion um which is international law. But it's it yeah, sh she's been given a stage in spite of that, hasn't she? Like a lot of people who he has sacked, they have emerged, Lucy Powell being another. Uh, in some ways with a more powerful stage. But it it is interesting, isn't it? I mean we should say he didn't really sack her, did she? He just didn't appoint her once they were in government, right? So she'd been the shadow. If you didn't get the job of Attorney General. But they are there are a lot of women in that position though. And and and I have to say It's a dull and repetitive point to make, chaps, but I'm gonna make it, which is that Karen Pierce, right? So the preceding ambassador in the States was thought to have the ear of the Trump administration. They really liked her and got on with her. They weren't campaigning for Karen Pierce to be replaced by Peter Mandelson, in fact far from it. There were a whole bunch of stories at the time about whether they would be unhappy with the appointment and block it. So Karen Pierce was just sort of thrown under the bus for Peter Mandelson. Good point. Um I would love to see her um in Ollie Robbins' job and in charge of the Foreign Office just as a kind of You know, poetic justice, frankly. I do think she might be in line for that job. But again, and you know, when you contrast that with with what they were saying about trying to find a job for Matthew Doyle in the di on the diplomatic circuit, which he was not qualified for, and the way they treated Karen Pierce, there is something slightly odd going on there, don't you think? Jobs for the boys, not for the girls. Something or something or I mean I can I just make one I think it's I think you're right I think you're right, Miranda, but just one quick point in his in his defense, which regular listeners will remember. And I think it it it's important to have a bit of uh try and have a bit of humility about it, is that He what regular listeners will remember he's not the only person who thought that appointing um Peter Mendelson was a good idea. I mean it quite it it was it was uh it was a fashionable idea at the time. I certainly on this podcast was in favour of it. I I think s I think I think Tim was as well, saw the logic of it, but it was a risk based decision and it was a high risk decision. I think what's it would just be so refreshing if he could acknowledge that. If he could say the calculation I made was that we live in unusual times. and I wanted you know someone sort of e who I thought could navigate this very difficult period in um in international relations and U S U K relations. And uh I I I took a I took a risk with Peter Mandelson, that turned out to be a mistake that's on That's on me. You can imagine I mean Farage if he becomes Prime Minister, he's gonna make all sorts of uh yeah out some some outlandish, some high risk appointments. And he's not gonna he's not he he's not gonna go to the House of Commons and and grovel after it. He's gonna shrug his shoulders and say, Well, some things work in politics and other things don't. Um but uh But the sense I have of of w of him being a spectator. But I mean, d did he really want Mandelson as as ambassador, or did Morgan McSweeney want it. And it became associated with Morgan McSweeney's mission and then tied up with what uh Starmer wrote to McSweeney. But you're you're just left, I'm afraid, I know we've got to have a break now, but you're left you're you're left with an impression of um of uh you know, in in in office but not in not in power, but I do think at some point Steve we should discuss you know long term longer term prospects. I mean there there is a scenario in which Starmer Starmer actually survives all this. Yeah, exactly. And that's what we'll do, but first we'll take a short break. Okay, welcome back. Obviously um the intricate detail fascinates some. As Tim suggested at the beginning, it might not be something most voters are following very closely. But what will affect everyone in the end is the question of where this leaves Keir Starmer. Uh and whether it increases the likelihood of a challenge in some form soon. Let me be more precise about soon could it happen after Labour are slaughtered in the May elections. And I would just put the context this. That although I think this has shone light on uh damaging elements of the Starmer McSweeney era in number ten, which is what this was. I've got absolutely no doubt that we've got to put McSweeney in to explain the whole Manderson saga. Um the factor that remains constant, isn't it, Miranda? that it's not clear that any candidate is willing to put themselves forward after the May slaughter? Or do you suspect that this drama still being played out, it will dominate when people hear this, uh, will have had Prime Minister's questions on it again. But this drama makes it more likely That there will be a challenge after the May elections. So I think it makes it clear because as we've discussed, Monday in the Commons was such a kind of parliamentary moment. of you know the authority falling from the Prime Minister that it i he he he is not going to last um It's a question of when and how, not if. That would be my instinct on it. But as you say, with the Labour Party, they're a bit less regicidal in tendency than the Conservative Part, and it's it's quite a lot more difficult to replace him. I gather that um you know the NEC, Labor's Exec National Executive Com um Committee, there will be some people replaced on that in the summer. Uh so the decision that was made, for example, to stop Andy Burnham standing or putting himself forward as the candidate for the Gorton and Denton by election. If another by election comes up, perhaps a differently populated NEC would actually approve an Andy Burnham candidacy in a by election, and then you've got Burnham in the Commons and able to challenge. And and I I get the impression that actually some of the hold on, don't do anything rash people. It's not what the country or the party needs messages. least from Lucy Powell. deputer of the Labour Party with her own mandate from uh the the Labor membership. You know, she warned strongly over the weekend against some sort of uh move against arma. But she m might well not say that at all, were Burnham back in the commons and able to challenge. uh himself. And I think there is quite a lot of high level manoeuvring going on, uh, within the Labour Party in terms of you know getting ducks in a row or w working out the chess moves that are necessary to replace him efficiently. So I don't know. I mean, I've you know, I've said to you before that I do tend to think that a really disastrous set of election results psychologically affects a party in a way that it can override a rational response. uh and it's possible that there'll be a flurry of uh sort of challenge type activity after May. But I think it's probably more likely that the caution that's being expressed by people like Lucy Powell is to do with actually an an an efficient plan to replace him, which may take a bit longer. I think all of that's very interesting, uh, Ian, because I agree with Miranda that quite a significant section of the soft left who could be players in this have decided that at the very least they need the option. of Andy Burnham. So they won't move after May, uh until Burnham gets back into the comments, which I suspect would happen. Uh assuming he could find a winnable seat. He won't be blocked again. However As Miranda says, the slaughter when it happens is always a shock, however much you prepare for it. And as someone else was pointing out to me the other day, Um sometimes Ruthless Uh A ruthless bid for leadership works. Um they reminded me of Margaret Thatcher going for Heath in february nineteen seventy five, um, as one example of this. And the opposite, David Miliban not going, Roy Jenkins not going, means they end up not becoming leader stroke prime minister. And I wonder whether one of those in the commons might think right, I'll be ruthless and do it a brilliant point, Steve. And she, Angela Rena, is is behaving like someone who's a who who's planning to make a move like that. Uh to do something to do something audacious. She is I mean in behind the scenes she is uh she's making a major play on defence an area that I um w work on a lot with the London Defence Conference and um she's I'm I'm told be uh letting it be known that uh she's the person who would who would sort out um who would sort out defence, good luck with that. but that actually her whole reindustrialization agenda would rest on getting to um five percent, three and a half percent, plus one and a half percent. How that then how that then squares with the other 'cause the other charge as well is she could she has that there's a doubt about her and defence and and security not being her not being her area area. So she she can shore that up by reassuring people, but that then creates doubts about her um fiscal reliability. So let's let's see what let's s let's see what she does to try and reassure people. people on the economy, but she looks to me as though she's getting ready to she's as though she's getting ready to say, look, this is an Emperor's new clothes moment. Look, you just look at what is happening to the Labour Party it is in danger of dying. um and politics is changing dramatically. The party has to do something dramatic. Let's see. I mean one thing that may work against her and I we we don't we don't know the result until until until May the seventh or or or or May the eighth. And I would keep I would just encourage people to keep a really close eye on Scotland, not just 'cause it's a fantastic, beautiful country and all the rest of it, but for the following reasons. Something not really picked up yet in um not picked up yet in London, is are the are the changes in the polls in Scotland. Now very not Scotland notoriously sort of difficult and under polled and difficult to to get a clear read read out on. But some polls suggesting that the idea of that's just running away with it, potentially getting a majority or close to it, uh that some something has shifted. Now if the nationalists uh if the nationalists uh get the number of seats below level which where they can't pair up with the Greens and can't put in John Swinney as first minister. Now I'm not predicting this, I'm just saying that people are saying it's now a possi it it is a possibility. You then have the possibility of the unionist parties Which goodness, how does this work? Includes reform, but that would be Labour Tories Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems I've heard it from the horse's mouth are absolutely clear that if the opportunity arises they will not put in John Swinney as um as as first minister. Then plus reform If that ad adds up to en uh enough votes, you could end up with a situation where what looks like a triumph for the nationalist is tur is turned in a couple of weeks' time into potentially even a Labour first minister. So I just I would keep an eye on on on Scotland, which I've long said, you know, when when you wake up in the morning and Scotland is lost to Labor, this is a catastrophic moment for the Labor tribe and that then potentially creates a trigger. But you I'm just j just saying you know k just have have have one eye on a surprise result in in Scotland. Some people whose views I You know, respect from you know from various parties are flagging that on WhatsApp groups and stuff in in the last in the last week in a way that surprised me. So I just uh let's see. And Labour has more coalition partner options, as you say. And that's for not that's the problem for the SNP. Yeah, well that would certainly be fascinating. And uh in the light of what we've been discussing, a sort of a an unexpected uh twist. There could be many more uh to come. But so I think we're of the view that for now Um we work on the assumption, do we, Miranda, that in the immediate aftermath it's more likely that Keir Starmer stays? I I honestly don't know because it's been so strange over the last two days. And also I do think that um I mean it's very interesting what Ian says, and that's an i very important Well, it wouldn't be a detail on the night, would it? Because Friday would be dominated by a story of uh of of you know Anasawa having the option to cre to to to to run a Scottish government. That could that could save him. I I think it's quite interesting the extent to which David um David Milleband. Listen to me. Ed Millerband. Um was sort of tellcasters. on Tuesday that he had had lots of unhappiness about the Mandelson appointment and he had voiced it to the F foreign secretary. I think you might see quite a lot more Lisa Nandi esque outspokenness from other senior members of Labour, and maybe that builds to something after the shock of being knock knocked in the face by the electorate. Yeah, I've although I've had those Ed Millerband interviews, and of course, Keir Starmer has said repeatedly it was a mistake and that he takes responsibility for it. So in that sense, there is space for cabinet ministers to say it was a mistake when you've got Starmer saying it. Um, but I agree they have freedom if they choose to use it, to go wider than that at the moment, because he Starmer is in a vulnerable position and that gives space to the more confident, muscular cabinet ministers. But it also, Steve it also allows didn't you think that it allows Ed Miliband I what what I detected in it was Ed Ed Miliband that was code for him saying see what happens when you you kind of run off and spend all your time with you know Morgan McSweeney and unreliable people like Peter Mendelssohn, you know, stick with it stick with your real friends. Um and Ed Miliband would count himself as you know one of the Prime Minister's sort of few true friends in the um in the Labour movement. Yeah. And there's certainly for those who have, you know, in the past dared to question the judgment of Morgan McSweeney, uh, therefore Keir Starmer, uh can claim some vindication, certainly in this case, um and possibly on some other judgment matters too. But I'm f it's a festival of I Told You So, Steve. There's a lot of that going on. Uh lots of people praise that appointment and are now saying how could anyone have ever considered making it. Not guilty personally, but anyway. Um I didn't tell you so rather than I told you so for team team team Karen always, but anyway. Exactly. Yeah. Well, um, let's see how this uh develops. I mean I I thought it might fade. I don't think it will uh fade over the next few days. But let's see, let's see. I'll certainly dominate Prime Minister's questions, but a lot of you will be listening to this after Prime Minister's questions. So thank you very much for uh tuning in. Who knows where we will be when we gather next time. Things are so extraordinary in British politics at the moment. But thanks for listening to this one and we'll see you all very soon. Bye. Bye.