[0:00]Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio >> and it's Chris in the studio >> and it's Alex in the studio >> and it's Daniela in the studio >> and it's interesting having you two sat opposite me because Daniela I feel you've been covering the fallout from
[0:10]the Epstein files for well like a decade or more now almost and it's come and gone in politics but it's now really smashed into British politics. It's interesting to have the the the two of you here and and you as well.
[0:22]>> Yeah, I was just about to say Alex is really boring [laughter] next to me. cuz they're in they're in my they're the visual representation of the two worlds. >> I believe you honestly. >> Uh right. Anyway, Alex. [laughter]
[0:34]>> So interesting. >> Um give me a way of uh working out how much trouble Kier Starmer is in but without sounding like somebody going on social media who's saying, "Oh, he's
[0:45]going to have to resign by tomorrow lunchtime." Like what's a what's a what's a a a good way of working out where he is? >> All right. So let me just tell you one thing that happened today which I think
[0:55]was a sign of just how seriously Kier Stalmer and his team are taking this moment. They were due to do a big speech talking about pride and unity in local communities and what happened. He had to rip up the top of that speech and
[1:07]totally rewrite it to address headon the questions that are swirling about his judgment and leadership. And that to me is a clear sign that aside from the million and one different perspectives
[1:19]you'll get either on social media or even talking to Labour MPs that within the number 10 operation themselves, they recognize that this is a real moment of vulnerability and they had to do something about it. >> And then Chris, two things because you you were at that speech in Hastings.
[1:30]One, what was it like in the room when he did the apology? What was his demeanor like? And then what was it like when journalist after journalist after journalist was just really being quite forensic about what he knew when?
[1:41]>> So the first thing was the room was full. The room was not really big enough for the number of journalists who were there because, you know, they hadn't anticipated it would be as newsworthy as
[1:50]as it clearly was. I thought Kala was awkward today. I thought he was uncomfortable. And I don't say that as a
[1:59]criticism. uh if if as a human being if you've decided as a result of a sequence of events that we can unpack the extent to which this is his fault or not if if you're standing there in front of the
[2:10]cameras as Alex says at the start of what is meant to be a speech about something else and and you're apologizing to the to the to the victims of the most horrific abuse because you
[2:20]have concluded that your own actions and the actions of others have contributed to something that you feel you need to apologize for. Um, that's quite a thing, isn't it? And and I, you know, in the
[2:32]space of 15 seconds, I think he said sorry three times. You know, you think of the number of times that we have conversations on newscast about politicians where there is a demand that they apologize for something and and for
[2:43]whatever reason they're choosing not to. And there he was uh doing just that. Now he was making an argument in that speech in contrast as he sees it to Lord
[2:53]Mandlesson about how he and he said most politicians of every political outlook are approach their job with integrity and and and do it do it as he would see
[3:04]it in the right way. Uh and he saw today through that prism. >> And then Chris the the questions from journalists like yourself was all about the timeline of who knew what when and what does that reveal about Karma's
[3:15]judgment? Yeah, and this is where, you know, politics is a is a is a rough old a rough old game because a lot of this we asked six or seven months ago back in
[3:26]September when Lord Manderson was sacked as as ambassador. The curiosity with this news story from through the Westminster prison of the last few days is that there's been all of these revelations relating to to Lord
[3:38]Mandlesson that you know rightly are subject to a huge amount of scrutiny. But actually we've now got to the place politically where the question is about the prime minister's judgment and the prime minister's judgment at the time in
[3:50]hiring Lord Mandlesen. In other words, what could he have reasonably found out that was in the public domain at the time? What reasonably via a vetting process that they're now pretty critical of both publicly and privately? Could
[4:01]that have turned up? Could it realistically have got even close to the kind of information we've got now? And then they are obviously being incredibly blunt about what they accuse Lord
[4:11]Mandlesson of as they describe it lies. And we should say that, you know, Lord Mandlesson's had plenty of opportunity to comment publicly and has chosen not to, but we understand that he's of the of the view that he answered the
[4:21]questions in front of the vetting process uh accurately and that he'll cooperate with the um with the with the police. Uh we'll come back to the political implications in a second, but
[4:31]Daniela, uh there's been more claims over the last couple of days on in in the royal space and and a big story that the BBC's been covering that we've not done so much on newscast because we've been looking at the politics, but that
[4:43]infamous photo of then Prince Andrew and Virginia Jafrey um more than 20 years ago, a photo that he said might not even be real. The emails released by the
[4:55]Epstein from the Epstein releases suggest that it is real. >> Yeah, that photo I think everyone will remember and in my mind it really does symbolize the start of the real public
[5:05]downfall of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. It's that one of him standing with Virginia Grey who of course accused him of sexual abuse. There's Gileain Maxwell in the background. He appears to have his arm around Virginia Dupre's waist.
[5:17]Now in the newsight interview he said he had no recollection of course of meeting Virginia Duay. no recollection of that photo and seemed in his answers to cast out on whether it was genuine. Perhaps
[5:27]it had been doctorred was the phrase he used. But in the latest drop of Epstein files, there's an email in there from 2015 from Gileain Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein. And in it, she seems to suggest
[5:38]that that photo is true. It was 2001. It was her home in London. And that that photo was definitely true. Was real. It wasn't doctorred. It did happen. She was there. >> And it appears to be from her email
[5:50]address. It appears to be as you know I mean the problem as ever with all of these files is totally verifying and checking that all the addresses and they are correct but it comes from a Gain
[6:00]Maxwell to an Epstein in the names that are in the the two and the received bit at the top of the email. >> Yeah. And then there's another area where where our worlds have crossed over which is we're used to doing the
[6:10]doorstep which is like shouting the question at the politician who's under fire and they sometimes answer sometimes they don't and their demeanor can tell you the whole story. Royal reporters tend to have not have done that in the
[6:22]past, but now they are. >> Can I slightly defend royal reporter here? I think sometimes we get a bit of a >> actually I'm now remembering yeah people saying to Prince William, "Is your family racist after the Megan?"
[6:33]>> I mean that wasn't actually a royal correspondent who asked him in that moment. But you know we the idea that we you know I am a member of the royal pool. So you know I see you know travel with them a lot go around with them a
[6:43]lot. the idea that we don't question and don't ask and don't try and get guidance and find the right people. But I think we get no I'm not saying you were but there is an implication I think that
[6:54]somehow we are all raging monarchists and we don't ask anybody anything if it's difficult. I mean that isn't the case. I mean you know we have seen today the king out and about which is I think
[7:04]it's probably a bit like the royal equivalent of using kissed armor today. You know he he is it's the first time we've seen him this week properly out and about in you know in any kind of public space. And you know he was
[7:15]shouted out and asked some questions by journalists in the kind of oldfashioned doorstep way. You know, have you got any message from for the victims? What did you know? Those kind of questions. And you know, okay, it rarely happens, but
[7:26]it does happen sometimes. And this is clearly the moments where people are going to ask and people want to see if he's going to say something. >> He's never going to reply in that moment. He just isn't. But it is I think
[7:37]it's important to ask. There were a few hecklers around as well. Nothing particularly significant actually. I think the police were perhaps thinking that today in Essics on this engagement the king was on there might be a few
[7:48]more hecklers out there. There weren't. I think the thing to remember with it talking to a few people today about it is that the king is well aware of what is going on here. The idea just because
[7:59]they're not saying anything publicly, they're not across the kind of pain and the anguish and the difficulty that this is causing. He's not going to answer anything when he's being shouted at. But
[8:10]I think they don't also perhaps want to feel like they're hiding away either. They want to be out there. And if that means exposing them to being shouted at, that's what happens. And the other thing just to remember briefly is he is used
[8:20]to being shouted at and being people protesting. You know, I stood, you know, a couple of years ago I was standing next to him and someone threw an egg at him in York and landed literally at our feet. >> He, you know, he understands that's part
[8:31]of his sort of being out there in the public. It's important for him to be out there and be seen and he he understands that. And you gave me another amazing insight into how the royals or former royals in particular communicate when we
[8:42]did newscast on Monday and you were pointing out those pictures of Andrew, the paparazzi pictures of him out riding his horse and you were saying that's effectively him making a statement without saying anything.
[8:53]>> Yeah. When I was speaking to you on Monday, I mean, I didn't quite realize at that point how significant those photos were going to be. We had two photos basically on Monday which was him on horseback riding through Windsor
[9:03]Great Park and then that drive down the long walk in Windsor where he was sort of smiling and you know waving at people. Um I think those were the two photos that did it for him really in
[9:15]terms of Royal Lodge and I just don't think there was anybody in the royal household that could stomach it for a moment longer and that night he was moved up to Norfolk or was told he had to go. Um, you know, talking to a few
[9:26]people today about it, they say that they can't, somebody said to me they couldn't quite understand whether that was arrogance on his part or whether he lives in such a bubble he didn't
[9:36]actually really understand the gravity of what was happening on Monday. They couldn't give me an answer one way or the other, but it shows you how difficult the situation is to manage. Um, and then if we go back to the politics and we talk about today's
[9:47]episode of newscast that is available now on BBC Sounds. I had a chat with Luke Sullivan who used to be an adviser to Kier Starmer, also used to work in the Labour whips office, so knows all about how to supposedly get your MPs to
[9:58]do what you want them to do, which didn't quite work out this week for the current the current whips. Um, and he was quite candid about the situation that Kier Starmer finds himself in and the pressures coming from the Labor back
[10:09]benches. So, have a listen to this. I don't think you can understate how serious the situation and the peril is that the prime minister finds himself
[10:18]in. And I think I think through the Q&A, although he didn't explicitly say I I I think you can get that sense from talking to people in number 10
[10:28]government ministers, they get the stakes uh incredibly incredibly high. Uh and that's why you saw him, you know, fighting for his political premiership.
[10:40]So quite quite dramatic description from Luke Sullivan there and you can hear the rest of what he was saying if you scan the QR code which is on your screen right now. Um Alex, what is the mood like amongst Labor MPs?
[10:50]>> Grim, pretty bleak. Um that's absolutely fair to say. There's an awful lot of anger and I think that there is sometimes there can be a tendency in some quarters
[11:00]of the media, including ourselves, to get a bit sort of, you know, hyperbolic when you have prime ministers or people in power in a bad situation. I genuinely don't think that the reporting of this
[11:11]has been overstated. There is a really grim mood. It has I think more than I realized kind of consolidated in the last 24 hours or so after the moment at
[11:22]Prime Minister's questions um and then all everything that followed with this whole wrangle in parliament over how they were going to release the information surrounding the Mandlesson appointment etc etc and then even through today with the prime minister
[11:34]saying what he did. Some people saying right thing to do to apologize to the victims but there are still lots and lots of questions here and here's the thing there is something really strange about politics and momentum can be the
[11:45]magic thing or it can be the absolute killer and I think what's happening here with Kharma is that over a period of time there have been a series of things which in and of themselves MPs might
[11:57]have kind of shrugged off got over um the government could have picked up and moved on from but I think there's sort of been now a series of these things which have left MPs with quite low resilience when they feel like something
[12:09]is going wrong from the center and this has been one of those things along with all of the obvious questions about the people at the heart of this the victims and why that makes this such a salient important issue but it's sort of another
[12:19]thing that has just really made people feel bleak having said all of that I am not suggesting that that means the prime minister is going to imminently be ousted because there's a range of views
[12:31]in the parliamentary Labor party some are absolutely saying don't even think about that right now as much as others are saying the time has come and more importantly there's no real plan there's no real successor and Kisama right now
[12:43]is saying it's not going anywhere so the next few weeks and months I got no idea but in terms of just mood I'd say it's pretty pretty dismal >> and just to go from the macro if you like to the micro around the last couple
[12:54]of days at Westminster so two things one a fair element of what the prime minister had to do today in the news conference in uh in Hastings over and above the the profound nature of that
[13:05]apology um was effectively tacitly acknowledged. He he made a bit of a mess of things yesterday at Prime Minister's questions. Now, he wasn't helped by the fact that he was told very late by the
[13:17]police, "Please be careful about what you say because we don't want to jeopardize any potential future legal proceedings involving Lord Mandlesson." So, the script was rewritten very late. But he did tie himself in a bit of a
[13:28]knot around the whole question of what he knew and when which I think heightened at least in the in the first instance that anxiety that was already pretty high amongst Labor MPs because of so many other things that have happened
[13:40]over the last couple of months. In addition to that, the lack of discipline that there currently is and the lack of grip that the center have on this gargantuan parliamentary Labour party of
[13:50]400 plus MPs means that they were staring at a defeat in the face in the commons yesterday that this whole business of them having to effectively move on the whole mechanism around what
[14:02]the docu who who's scrutinizing which documents get published around the appointment of Lord Mandlesson etc etc. The net consequence of which they are staring at a huge amount of information.
[14:12]some of which might be useful to their argument about Lord Mandlesson. quite a lot of it might not might not be remotely helpful to them or indeed to the UK's relationship with America faces
[14:22]the prospect of being published and speaking to people at the upper echelons of government they have just got their head in their hands about that that the consequence of what happened in the
[14:33]commons over and above this is separate from the whole question of the prime minister's future although the two could clearly overlap >> is really is is also really quite something >> and is that because the the conservative
[14:44]motion which MPs were voting on on Wednesday was written so widely to not just be like official emails or the facts from Washington. It was actually the WhatsApps that people were sending
[14:55]around the conversations about this. They could be very revealing >> quite and also the fact it's now in the hands of a parliamentary committee to decide what goes out there >> completely to some degree. to yeah to
[15:05]some degree. Um but yes is is in answer to all of that and obviously there is a difference between what might be legitimately something that would be a
[15:15]national security concern to publish or even where a collection of cross party MPs who yes have their own partisan interest but regularly look at what it is legitimate for to be to be released
[15:26]with a with a serious headon and with the right kind of security clearance. There's clearly a big difference between stuff that is, as I say, a national security concern and stuff that's just
[15:36]politically really, really damaging or embarrassing or jeopardizes the relationship between the US and the and the UK. And maybe the committee would have some as as the government might see
[15:47]it, have some savvy around that uh around a national interest question as well as a political interest for a current government question. And they've already said the chair of the committee's made clear that he's not
[15:57]going to hold stuff back just because it might be embarrassing. You know, he it's going to have to be quite a clear line about whether or not this might damage international relations or national security. But it's interesting. I was
[16:07]talking to somebody who is quite aay with how these things work. And while the Conservative party is, you know, chem is is they are clearly quite pleased with what they've achieved
[16:18]yesterday in the Commons. Um there are those who think that maybe if they'd done a sort of slightly more narrow approach then it also might have just sort of sped up the process. We actually
[16:30]be seeing some documents now. >> This is the other question is how long will this now take? But there was an interesting note from the um the ISC, the intelligence and security committee that came out on Thursday evening that was basically saying my reading of it
[16:41]was look you know we only are going to make a judgment on the material that might be deemed to be prejuditial to the national interest or to national security or dipl diplomatic relations. We have an expectation the other stuff
[16:52]will be put out. It's just that kind of narrower field that we're going to make a judgment on. But we don't know how the mechanism of that. We know down street are talking to the ISC this committee to try and work it all out and we're told they're going to come to the commons and
[17:04]update us all about it before it happens. But you know there's this sort of and what is interesting as well is as much as there is this potential jeopardy around the release of some of this material. I thought it was so
[17:14]interesting that Karma both yesterday and today was making the argument that he wanted this material out there. You know, he was sort of even said, I share this frustration that we can't publish because the police have got in touch and
[17:25]said, "Be careful with what you put out because you don't want it to interfere with our investigation." But they want it will will prove the claim that they're currently making uh that uh Lord
[17:36]Manderson, as they say, lied, lied, and lied. >> There's two different streams here, though. There's the Downing Street stream, which is Lord Mandlesson told us lots of lies, so this was never going to
[17:46]come out no matter how hard we asked the question. And then there's the other stream which you hear from lots of Labour backbenchers going yeah but hang on you were prepared to appoint him even when you knew a little bit of this and
[17:56]to them that's the problem and the two streams actually don't join up. One doesn't cancel out the other. >> Exactly. >> Strikes me just listening to you both as well that we're effectively at the heart of this if we're dealing with the same
[18:07]story which is the the Epstein fallout. I am dealing with a silence actually officially around this largely. You two are dealing with so much noise from all
[18:17]sorts of angles and all sorts of strands and it does make me wonder >> whether the silence from Buckingham Palace can hold and it's as you say how contrite and sorry kissed armor was
[18:27]today. Do we need to hear that from the king maybe? I just wonder, we had those statements back in October, but I wonder whether in this moment as more stuff drops, as we see more, does there need
[18:38]to be some kind of other victim centered a sorry from the king and queen. I just wonder whether just saying nothing and not stepping into the conversation at this point for the royal family beyond I
[18:50]mean we had Prince Edward I know earlier in the week about the Prince Edward and people have got very different interpretations. >> I've had loads of arguments in the newsroom about quite what how that was picked. How would that have come about?
[19:01]>> Well, he was planning to go to that government, you know, government summit as it was as it was called in um >> Dubai and he was talking about education, you know, his Duke of Edinburgh award, all sorts of bits and
[19:12]pieces around that. >> I mean, my sense is he knew there was potential for a question to be asked. He would have wanted his answer to be about victims. He is not um a sort of savvy media performer, Prince Edwards. So,
[19:24]it's not a comfortable space for him. And I think that really showed at first when he answered the question and sort of initially he said I don't know anyone here is going to be interested in this and you're thinking I think they will be
[19:34]actually whoever they are and then he just you know switched into we you know there are a lot of victims here we need to think about them it's really difficult. So I mean I think he perhaps knew it was coming but hadn't quite thought through exactly what he was
[19:46]going to say. felt like he kind of mucked up the sound bite cuz you were left with questions about who he was he actually feeling sorry for the royal family rather than >> exactly was he talking about himself and the wider family or was it just the victim's >> that's interesting so it sounds like it
[19:57]was a bit more makeshift than you I might have assumed >> or he'd thought about the fact he might be asked something and knew he was going to have to say something but he didn't
[20:08]kind of come out right because he's not perhaps as accustomed in those spaces and under that pressure to say something but I think generally people like to hear something from a member of the
[20:18]royal family and just hearing, you know, everything swirling in the politics. Do we need to hear something from the royal? >> It's so interesting if there's a dynamic there because the last couple of days in a way that I've not seen for ages
[20:29]because Downing Street feel I mean agrieved is an understatement boiling with anger. They have been leaping on every possible moment to interject themselves um into this in a way that
[20:41]sometimes you're trying to squeeze things out of whatever government department might be or whatever. they've been they've been desperate to get out there and make that case because they because they feel so angry about it. But
[20:51]that dynamic and how that might be then interpreted in the palace or whatever is fascinating and also >> most of the anger is there in the royal family but their their choice is silent. >> And also there's another juosition here to use a very pretentious word in that
[21:02]what did the king do a few days ago? He had a premiere for his documentary which is on Amazon Prime. So he's happy to go out and like sell that, >> but then that makes the silence on
[21:13]Epstein seem even more >> deafening. Yeah. >> Um Chris, can I put two names to you and then you can say whatever you want to say about them. >> Number one, it's like [laughter] a party game. It's like guess who? First one
[21:24]down Alex like a New Year's Eve party game. Um which when I played it, everyone put Laura Kunberg in for me for some reason. Um first name Angela Rainer. >> Yeah. And the reason I bring up her name
[21:36]is she was very highprofile leading the charge from the Labour backbenches in that debate on Wednesday about releasing the vetting files to say actually the way the government wanted to do it was wrong hinting that it was a bit of a
[21:47]cover up. Is that how how do we interpret that? Is that her back? Uh yes is the is the short answer to to your question. uh with a caveat. Um it was
[21:59]politically significant. Of course it is. When a recently departed deputy prime minister with their own power base within the Labor movement, very very
[22:09]well-liked by lots of people within the uh Labor Party, courted by some of those who have ambitions to be prime minister and then others will say and she has them herself. And then others say, well
[22:20]maybe that maybe she doesn't. You know, yesterday that Prime Minister's Qu that moment after Prime Minister's questions which was best personified I think with
[22:28]Ale Angela Raina's intervention just felt like one of those moments where you you can you can feel it's not even dripping. You can feel and it can be temporary but a flooding away of power
[22:40]from the center because they had gone in Downing Street with a proposition which is that these files would be examined by the cabinet secretary, the most senior civil servant and other kind of legal figures within the barrels of government
[22:51]and you had Angela Raina and plenty of others basically saying it doesn't wash. we're not willing to back it and then so
[23:00]so that mattered and matters the twist is Angela Raina is still she's still got to sort out various things with the tax authorities around the whole business that cost her a job in the first place
[23:12]and that is a twist were there to be uh a vacancy uh anytime soon unless we were to suddenly hear out of you know out of the blue because that's how these things
[23:22]happen with the tax authorities that you know there's a resolution or or uh or whatever. But yeah, that was a that was a politically significant moment. >> And Alex, you can do the second name, although this one's slightly harder
[23:33]because it's not quite so public. [laughter] >> Morgan Mweeny, the prime minister. Um so so Morgan Mweeni is the prime minister's chief of staff and right now he has become a bit of a lightning rod for a
[23:44]lot of the eye and anger within the parliamentary labor party because it is sort of broadly accepted and number 10 haven't challenged this notion that he was quite instrumental in the appointment of Peter Manderson as the US
[23:55]ambassador because the two have a bit of a history and through the prism of the Labour party have known each other for some time and worked together fairly closely in one capacity or another. So um there is he has become for some a bit
[24:07]of a symbol of what some but not all in the Labour party would see some of the problems in Downing Street because he is a very instrumental figure. He's very close to Karma. Karmama I think even
[24:18]yesterday said he sort of credits Morgan Msweeni with winning the election or helping him win the election. He's been around for a long time and Karma would be loathed to depart from that and said yesterday he's got his full confidence.
[24:28]Downing Street reiter reiterated that position today, but you have got some MPs publicly calling for Morgan Mcweeny to go. You do get a bit of that in any
[24:38]of these situations. Um, and there's no sign from Downing Street that that's going to be a move yet, but it's clearly one to watch. And I would also say, you know, things can change. And I don't
[24:48]want to fall into the trap of sort of, you know, overstating where things are because it is unpredictable in the way that we've said because there's quite a lot we don't know about how things might play out and people have been known to
[24:59]pull things back from difficult or perilous positions before because that is always the nature of power and how quickly dynamics can shift. Entirely possible all of that can happen. But I think coming back to my first point, the
[25:10]problem for Morgan Mcweeny and Kia Starmer is this isn't the first time that those two people and their judgment in any various situation has been openly and actively questioned within the
[25:21]parliamentary labor party which is why those two figures obviously Karma but also Morgan Mcweeny have become quite key >> and the human undercurrent under all of this if you're a Labour MP for lots of
[25:33]Labour MPs irrespective of their pre-existing views about Kstarma or Morgan McWe anyone anyone else in the heart of government is they're just really disappointed. They just can't
[25:43]quite believe that this fairly rare if you look at the history books moment where Labour actually win a general election and they've got a really really solid majority albeit on a small share
[25:54]of the vote for a winning party that there's just that deep sense of dispondency that they've from their perspective that this government of theirs whether they're actually a member
[26:03]of the government or not has has has un in their view wildly underperformed and they're they're desperate to see it succeed. the ones that wish Kama well
[26:13]share that disappointment would love to see him be successful would love to see Labour in a better position in the opinion polls um and and and a lot of this is is a an articulation of that
[26:25]frustration as Alex was saying earlier this is then the latest case study on top of all the things we've talked about on newscast for the last 18 months that
[26:33]makes them think oh just maybe you know even though I've had people say to me they don't bury him many ill will the prime minister they'd love to see him succeed. They recognize that he was
[26:44]central to them winning their seat. Uh they will be the first to say that Morgan Mcweeny in the eyes of many was the genius who turned the Labour party around from a crushing defeat the biggest since 1935 to winning a big
[26:56]majority. And yet and yet and yet >> and no one no matter how great the art politics can go back in time and unhire Peter Mandlesen from being the ambassador. >> No, but you get the sense from Karma
[27:07]that he genuinely wishes that he could. And that is all for this episode of Newscast. Thank you very much for watching. If you'd like to listen to our daily episodes, they're available, yes, every day on BBC Sounds. And if you scan the QR code on the screen right now,
[27:19]where is it? It's around here somewhere. It will take you directly to us. So you can listen to us whenever you want. Daniela, thank you. >> Thanks, Adam. >> Alex, thanks to you, too. >> Pleasure as ever.
[27:29]>> And Chris, lovely to see you as well.