[0:00]Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast studio. >> It's Henry in Westminster. >> And here in the studio with me is Alva Ray from the New Statesman. Hello Alva. >> Hello. >> Very widely read cover story on this week's magazine.
[0:11]>> Oh, thank you. >> Is it true that Labour MPs were sending each other the PDF of it? >> Yeah, which paying for it? >> Which I'm very sad about. They should. I mean, it's it's two quid for two months at the moment, so they've got no excuse. Yeah.
[0:23]>> Although political magazines at very price points are available. And also coming back to newscast, it's Luke Sullivan who was an adviser to Kier Starmer recently. Hello Luke. >> Hello. Thanks for having me back. >> Um well actually Luke first of all
[0:34]before we dig into what's happening today. I remember you used to work in the whips office for labor. I did like making sure everybody was voting in the right way. How did it go so wrong in parliament yesterday when the government
[0:46]proposed that amendment to the the Tory motion to release all the all the Mandlesson files and it was took Angela Rener to stand up and say no we need an alternative here. This is a dreadful idea. What went wrong?
[0:57]>> Uh I think speed of events. I mean from the conversations I've had with people in government and it's exactly what you would imagine. The Tories tabled the
[1:08]amend the motion sort of 7:00 at night on Tuesday. The government had I think about 20 minutes to work out what to do. And I I think their intention was was I
[1:20]I do actually think that making sure things that raise the issue of national security uh shouldn't be released. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think it was a slightly clumsy amendment. They were working at
[1:32]speed. Uh and I think they hadn't quite grasped it. And I I remember waking up. >> I I saw the amendment when it went down and I did say to a couple of people, look, I think you're going to have a problem. Why aren't you referring this
[1:43]to the ISC or foreign affairs select committee? They got there in the end and actually I think it was the right position they've got. >> I I don't actually think people have quite grasped how wide ranging that
[1:55]motion was. We >> because the tries asked for so much stuff in messages >> did I mean me and a number of other people were during Brexit used this with
[2:06]K star and other government ministers. the humble address. >> The humble address. And and we we became pretty good at it. And >> I've never seen one as far ranging as that pass. We tried with Windrush to do
[2:18]one with Diane Abbott when she was shadow home secretary. And I think it basically said all WhatsApps, all messages. The government defeated it. Even it was quite tricky.
[2:28]>> The the actually com compiling with this uh with this um ruling I think is going to be really difficult. It asked for every piece of electronic communication between government ministers, cabinet
[2:39]ministers, special advisers, and Peter Mandlesson. Like I I I think >> being that it might mean it takes ages to see anything because there's such a huge trove of documents. Um Alva Lucas put a very brave face on it there. And
[2:50]he may be totally right about how that's that's how it all happened, but this will go down in history is one of the big kind of mis parliamentary missteps, won't it?
[3:00]>> Or not. Maybe I'm exaggerating it. I think I mean this this could be shaped by the fact that I was really in a bit of a Peter Mandelson appointment tunnel for the past few days, but I feel like
[3:10]it's less about the parliamentary shenanigans and just these questions around the initial appointment. I think probably people will forget about the events yesterday. It's it's it's the it's the wider scandal.
[3:22]>> I'm realizing maybe my head is stuck in 2:51 p.m. on Wednesday the 4th of February rather than 2:51 p.m. on Thursday the 5th of February. Uh right, Henry, bring us up to date. So Kier Starmer went to East Sussex to do his
[3:33]big speech today which was meant to be about this pride in place initiative which is a huge pot of money for uh towns, villages, high streets to to spruce themselves up. Uh but of course
[3:44]it was dominated by the fallout from from the Mandlesson affair. Just kind of paint paint a picture of how it all went. Well, the prime minister had a big speech prepared uh long before this and
[3:54]by long before this I mean last week uh about this pride in place scheme uh which is part of the government's and the Labor party's political attempts
[4:05]more generally to kind of combat Reform UK and the rise of cynicism with politics as normal. Um it would have been ridiculous for him to just give that speech with no nod to what happened
[4:16]yesterday and what's happened this week. And clearly he realized that and he began the speech with I think it was probably about 10 minutes talking about
[4:26]Lord Mandolson uh or Mandlesson as he keeps referring to him with no title even though they haven't yet stripped him of that title. uh and uh he said
[4:37]well firstly and I think this is the sort of big news he apologized to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for having believed Peter Mandlesson and having given him the job as ambassador to the
[4:47]US but then and I think this really showed his recognition of the political peril he now finds himself in. He said that he acknowledged and understood the
[4:58]anger and frustration of Labour MPs. Now, in a sort of general sense, I think we'd all agree the victims of Jeffrey Epstein are more important than Labor MPs. But in a very specific sense, how
[5:09]does the prime minister keep his job? He needs to win back the support and the confidence and the trust of Labor MPs. And I think today was an attempt to just
[5:19]start doing so, but it's going to be a real climb. >> And here's how some of that sounded in the PM's own words. The victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most
[5:30]of us can barely comprehend and they've had to relive it again and again. They have seen accountability delayed
[5:42]and too often denied. To them, I want to say this. I am sorry.
[5:54]Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed
[6:04]Mandlesson's lies and appointed him. >> Luke, I don't know if you were watching that speech in real time as it was broadcast on all the news channels. What did you think of the apology? I I think
[6:14]it it came across very heartfelt and I think you could for a prime minister who's often accused of not being very emotional people seeing how he feels. I
[6:25]think it did come across for me and I like newscast listeners and viewers may have a different view. I thought it it came across uh very strongly but it's a
[6:35]sign I think as Henry's just said of the political peril and position that the prime minister finds himself in. And there is no denying how bad that
[6:44]position is. And I I also think for a for >> How bad would you say it is? >> Put that into words. >> I look I I I I don't think you can
[6:53]understate how serious the situation, the peril is that the prime minister finds himself in. And I think I think through the Q&A, although he didn't
[7:03]explicitly say I I I think you can get that sense from talking to people in number 10 government ministers, they get the stakes uh incredibly incredibly
[7:14]high. Uh and that's why you saw him, you know, fighting for his political premiership and he's going to I I think
[7:23]he he had a strong day today. I think he in many ways has done all the steps you would try to do to contain what is a
[7:32]deeply damaging political uh aspect. And I think the other point that I think does come through with K is this wheel
[7:41]to that cuts to the core that an issue where a a man has supported another man who's
[7:51]abused all his positions and you know for for somebody who has got I would say an unblenmished record on prosecuting you know violence against women and girls and trafficking to his very core I
[8:02]I I think he will be very very hurt. We we'll come back to that that in a second. But Alva, just explain why this is so hard to contain to use Luke's words, just the momentum that's building
[8:13]behind the scenes and actually in public amongst Kier Starmer's back ventures. >> Well, maybe you want to come on to this later, but really it come it comes just back to these questions of what Kier
[8:24]Starmer knew and when. So he he gave this apology and the phrase was, you know, that he's sorry for believing Mandlesson's lies, as he put it. But
[8:33]really for all the journalists listening and members of the public who've been following this closely, but certainly for Labour MPs and ministers, I think it
[8:42]just raises questions about what what actually he did know and whether it was just a case of believing Peter Mandlesson's lies because what we know and I and I set this out in the cover
[8:54]story and lots of other journ journalists have set this out as well. What we know is that before appointing Peter Mandlesson, the cabinet office did
[9:04]its due diligence on on the six people who were under consideration for the role and it compiled this report which was basically like a Google exercise. It was just sort of what was easily googleable about a person. They couldn't
[9:15]do any of the sort of deep vetting that would come later. But my understanding is that this report, so this is from PE people familiar with what was in it and and also civil servants have said some
[9:27]of this on the record to to parliament. Um that detailed Mandlesson's business links to Russia and China and the details of the last two times he
[9:37]resigned from government. Um, and it had a section on Jeffrey Epstein and it included a link to slash the details of a report that we're all aware of from
[9:46]2023 by the Financial Times which said that Mandlesson had stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's flat after his conviction or while he was in prison for child sex offenses. And there were also links to
[9:58]photographs of Peter Mandlesson and Jeffrey Epstein together. So, we know that Kier Starmer saw that report and his chief of staff and that was already in the public domain, but there is no
[10:09]doubt that he saw that. That was sent to him and he confirmed it in PMQs yesterday. >> And so, we're told by number 10 that when he received that report, Kier
[10:19]Starmer asked Morgan Mcweeny to follow it up with Peter Mandles, >> chief of staff, >> asked him some he asked Peter Mandlesson some questions. Down Street is now saying Peter Manderson lied and Peter
[10:31]Manderson is saying he was asked three questions and he replied truthfully and that's kind of what this all hinges on. But really, but then it comes down to does this mean that Kier Starmer
[10:43]believed the word of Peter Mandelson over the reporting in the Financial Times and what he could see before his own eyes in terms of those photographs? like that, you know, he's he's he's
[10:54]saying, "Oh, I believed Peter Mandlesson's lies." But I think a lot of people still have questions around that when they know what he knew at that point. >> And that's very important context when we then listen to the question that Chris Mason put to the prime minister at
[11:06]this after this speech. And we can listen to that now. Prime Minister, why was it that a man who had already twice resigned from government and crucially had a publicly known ongoing friendship
[11:17]with a convicted pedophile was appointed by you as ambassador to Washington? And given all of this, what do you say to those in the country and those in your
[11:29]own party who say, frankly, that you have run out of steam? Well, Chris, let me just um address that head on and um perhaps clarify something I said at
[11:40]Prime Minister's questions yesterday um about the relationship between Mandlesson and Epstein because um what I meant was it has been known publicly for
[11:51]some time um that they knew each other. Um and that is precisely why uh when we were going through the appointment
[12:01]process for the ambassador role um we asked questions about the nature and extent of that relationship
[12:10]and what I didn't say yesterday partly uh inhibited by the approach of the police is that that is precisely why those questions were asked questions about the nature and extent of the
[12:22]relationship whether Mandlesson had stayed as was suggested at Epstein's premises. Um, and the answers given to those
[12:33]questions were intentionally intended to create the impression that Mandlesson barely knew Epstein.
[12:43]Deliberately to create that impression. I had no reason at that stage to think that was anything other than the truth.
[12:54]and therefore we proceeded. What I learned in September was that it was not the truth when further emails came to light I think Bloomberg
[13:04]and um having asked some further questions including questions about whether Madison received gifts and benefits and hospitality the nature of
[13:14]the relationship. Um I sacked Madison from the role. >> Yeah, Henry. So just just tie up together what Alva was saying about what we we've learned from the new statesman
[13:26]about Peter Mandlesson's appointment and the prime minister's version of that that we heard today. >> Well look fundamentally this is all now a question of the prime minister's judgment and there will be more to come
[13:37]out on what precise facts and what precise documents the prime minister had at his disposal when he made that
[13:46]judgment. But we know that at least to some degree, Sakir Stalmer knew that Peter Mandlesson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted in a Florida court for
[13:57]trafficking and appointed him as the UK ambassador to the US. Anyway, now nothing that has happened this week has actually changed that. I mean, I think that's quite an important point. The
[14:09]crucial moment at PMQ's yesterday, which seems to have kind of emotionally charged so many Labour MPs, was the prime minister admitting more clearly
[14:19]than ever that he had known that when he appointed Peter Mandlesson to an ambassadorial position. And he tried to sort of clarify what he'd said today, but essentially he's still admitting he knew that there was an ongoing relationship, even if he then took Peter
[14:29]Mandlesson's word that it was less meaningful than some people thought. um that has been implicit in the government's position since they
[14:39]sacked Peter Manderson in September. I mean, it's basically been available to anyone to sort of work out that that's the government's position given Peter Mandlesson's links to Jeffrey Epstein
[14:49]were a matter of public record since he was appointed. And look, I think you could you could make if you were in Downing Street, you can make a quite understandable case that the failure and
[15:01]the blindness go so much wider than Kia Starmmer here. I mean, Kem Bay has essentially transformed her leadership of the Conservative party through the arc of this story. She demolished
[15:11]Karma's position on having full confidence in Peter Mandlesson at PMQs back in September and he was sat the next day and she had an extremely successful PMQs yesterday. But as people have been pointing out, she did not
[15:22]criticize the appointment at the time. Journalists with a few exceptions uh you know did not press this point at the time of Peter Mandlesson's appointment. So there is kind of a plague on loads of
[15:34]houses here but K Star is the one who appointed him to this ambassadorial position and Karma is the prime minister when the music has stopped. And Alva, tell us a bit more about what you've learned about how Kristarmmer was and it
[15:45]sounds like he was swayed into supporting Mandlesen as the candidate for the ambassador because it wasn't his starting position that it should be him. >> Well, yeah, this is this is some of the interesting stuff I I uncovered in
[15:57]reporting this really quite serious story. Um Sue Gray, the original chief of staff in number 10 for not very long. uh she drew up a short list for the
[16:06]Washington ambassador role and it had two names and they were Karen Pierce who was the the then ambassador doing that job and very popular
[16:16]>> and very popular and David Milliband former foreign secretary of course and Peter Mandlesson there were lots of reports at that time that he was in the running for the job but he was not on
[16:26]the short list so that's a sort of um you know a con I think it's I mean this is such a serious story it maybe feels wrong to say It's an amusing detail, but I think that that is a little sign of
[16:37]how Peter Mandlesson operates and operated that his name was conveniently appearing in the papers in line for this role when at that point he wasn't in contention short list. >> It wasn't on the short list. Then the
[16:48]chief of staff changed to number 10. But probably more importantly, the US election took place and Donald Trump was elected. So the process for appointing the ambassador began again. They drew up
[16:59]a new short list. There were four diplomats on the list and two politicians and they were George Osborne and Peter Mandelson. And I'm told by someone very close to this that
[17:10]initially Kier Starmer favored George Osborne. He was sort of persuaded that because of the delicacy of the Trump relationship that he probably he needed someone a bit more special and with with
[17:21]a bit more political knowhow than a sort of conventional career diplomat. he was leaning towards George Osborne and that is the context in which these reports by the cabinet office were being done. So
[17:33]not only did Kier Starmer change his mind basically from George Osborne to Peter Mandlesson, he did it while also being presented with these details about Mandlesson staying in Epstein's flat and
[17:44]checking those details with Peter Mandlesson which I think is I think a lot of people would say is even more curious. Adam, I think one of the risks for K star that comes from Alva's
[17:55]brilliant reporting is that it just emphasizes this concern that some Labour MPs already had, which is that he's kind of a passenger in his own premiership. I mean, that's what's so interesting.
[18:06]Obviously, there is the judgment call to appoint Peter Mandelon. But this suggestion that's kind of always been there with K star right back to when uh he began his leadership campaign really
[18:16]which is that this is a man who doesn't feel politics deeply who has sort of thoughts and decisions supplied to him by advisers and obviously there's
[18:26]particular concerns that Labour MPs raise about Morgan Mcweeny his chief of staff in that context and so I think a risk for Kstarma right now is that this very specific story about Peter
[18:38]Mandlesson and Jeffrey Epstein just emphasizes concerns that were already there among Labour MPs which is you know hang on what does this man actually stand for what are the things that he
[18:49]personally and individually will actually press through and and one of the things that Labour MPs would have said was standards in public life and property but that gets to Luke's point which is that so much of that so much of
[19:00]the basis on which Karma defined himself in opposition against Boris Johnson appears to be undermined by this I mean, look, I don't want to ask you questions that you you can't answer or
[19:11]don't want to answer because we want to get them as much out of you as possible. >> I'll avoid them. >> Yeah, exactly. I mean, you you've trained many politicians to do that, I'm sure. Um, does is Kier Starmer sort of
[19:22]temperamentally, politically, and ethically kind of not the sort of person who would plump for for Peter Mandlesen for a job like this? Is this sort of out of character to
[19:32]start with for him choosing him? I I think I think those of us who uh from the outside were following this appointment and I I had left at the
[19:43]general election but you know like everyone else I was following this watching the the newspaper reports and my instinct was that and I think um your report sort of says this as well and
[19:55]other journalists have done this. I think he sucked with a long spoon with Peter Mandlesson. don't think intrinsically Peter Mandlesson was somebody that Kier Starma would spend
[20:05]time with. I think we'd had uh a period I think in opposition where uh on a rival uh news channel's um podcast Peter
[20:16]Mandlesson had been quite derogatory about Karma's weight and >> I I I seem to remember the prime minister the the now prime minister was not best pleased by that. I I don't
[20:26]think he w would have ordinarily gone uh of his own sort of um you know if he'd had a blank piece of paper but I think this also goes to the nature of how Kia
[20:37]works. Look, he will take advice. He will engage in, you know, the discussion around the different thinkings. And look, he he will, I'm sure, say,
[20:49]>> uh, yes, I did take advice, but ultimately it was my decision. And >> and I think that's what the reporting shows. There was obviously people who who pointed people in the direction and
[20:59]tried to implement it. That happens in all appointments. The other thing I'll just say which I think is worth putting on the record. There's a a little known uh journalist called Laura Kunberg who I
[21:09]think in September wrote what the actual questions were asked of Peter Mandlesson and they're contained in a in a blog on the BBC website. It's worth reading. So we do know what the questions that were
[21:21]asked of Peter Mandlesson. I think the government's position and it's understandable. It's it's it's what they have to get through the position. I'm I've been reflecting long and hard on
[21:33]this. I'm not sure. I don't think there'll be a smoking gun in in the in the due diligence in the reports. But what I think is the problem, and this comes back to the
[21:45]question that Kem Bay knock asked, and I think what finally got through to MPs, what the actual position was because I think as Henry said,
[21:56]>> well, yeah, because because Mandlesson was tempted by his Mandel was tainted by his association with Epstein, irrespective of what we've learned now,
[22:06]>> tainted enough in most people's eyes in Westminster for him to never have been given the job. And and I think >> that's the that's the key problem. >> And I think for the government, I think it's understandable they want the due
[22:17]diligence out and they they want the documents out as quickly as possible partly because they want it out in one go, not drip drip drip. They want to try and find a way of exploding this story
[22:26]uh and having everything out there, but it will come back to this question of knowing everything you knew, did you think it was appropriate? And I think the prime minister really genuinely made
[22:37]a really strong apology and recognition of it. I suspect he will end up going quite considerably further in that because I I I think >> really how so? Well, I I think
[22:48]fundamentally you I think the lying part only gets you so far on as Alva said quite correctly,
[22:57]the FT report from 2023 not only said what the ongoing relationship was, it also raises questions of um Peter
[23:06]Mandlesson's truthfulness. So it was in there in black and white and that and I think at the heart of that that is going to be the question that is very difficult to answer and the prime
[23:18]minister is a very truthful person and he answered the question to Kem Bay in a very unpolitical but honest way and it's very difficult without putting your hands up and saying I think I'm I got
[23:30]this wrong. >> Alva, I think I've only just clocked this now now that we're we're talking this through collectively. So, from watching the prime minister's speech this morning, bang, he's straight out of the blocks with the apology, but then he
[23:41]falls back on this this argument that Peter Manderson lied to him. Now, if you're going to make an apology for hiring him in the first place, why wasn't that the starting point? It now seems that that's been retrofitted to
[23:52]the lying defense. >> Yes. This and this is the problem. And I think that's really interesting from Luke that that that you feel like he needs to just go further because this is what so many people in the Labour Party
[24:03]are so upset about like fundamentally if you know that there was some sort of relationship between Peter Mandles and Jeffrey Epstein beyond his conviction. Why why take that risk? Why do that?
[24:15]What does that say about what you're thinking or not thinking about Jeffrey Epstein's victims and and the standards that you want to hold people taking on these big jobs to? I mean, I think it's sort of just worth reflecting for just a
[24:26]second because I've had so many conversations about it like just how upset so many women in Westminster are about this that like even people I have to say >> see that in the debate yesterday.
[24:36]>> Yeah. Like even I have to say people who probably worked with you Luke definitely worked have worked very closely with Morgan Mcweeny and Kier Starmer who are really upset and furious and and just
[24:47]have nothing you have nothing more to say really and who feel like there this is just such a terrible error of judgment on their part but that it also speaks to something as as someone was
[24:58]saying to me earlier speaks to something sort of a bit more rosen in Westminster and and they and in their view in the Labor party that people turn a blind eye
[25:08]to problems when it's their friends or it's their faction. And I just I I know that we we're giving this a lot of coverage and attention and asking the
[25:19]questions, but some of these people who are really upset aren't really saying so publicly because, you know, for their various reasons and the jobs that they hold. But it's sort of just worth, I think, reflecting that, >> you know, Kier Starmer leads a
[25:31]government that in theory has a mission of of tackling violence against women and girls. And that's, you know, that's a value that's so important to parts of the Labor Party. And just this idea that
[25:41]you would appoint a pedophile's friend to a job, even if you know, you're told, "Oh, he didn't it wasn't that close a relationship." Even if Peter Mandles was
[25:51]lying about parts of it, you could see the photographs and and I think it's what we haven't heard from the prime minister is an apology saying, "I got that wrong given what I knew. I should
[26:03]have made a different decision." And and then just on Henry and and Luke's points around the advice that he was being given, I think this is an interesting one. people will just reach their own
[26:13]conclusions on it because it's, you know, it's this line, you know, advisers advise, ministers decide. There's really no denial from Morgan Mweeny, the prime minister's chief of staff or the people
[26:25]around him or number 10 that he really pushed for this appointment. He thought it was a good idea that Peter Manderson would be good at the job basically for the tricky the tricky role of managing
[26:35]the relationship with Donald Trump. Not really any denial around that. This was the advice he gave the prime minister. Who do you hold responsible for the ultimate decision? Morgan Mweeny doesn't
[26:46]have a public platform. He can't defend himself publicly. He gives the advice. It is ultimately Kier Starmer who makes the decision. There are lots of people as Henry says who want Morgan Mweeny to
[26:57]go who blame him for that who see the prime minister as kind of passive in that relationship too often doing what Morgan Mweeny tells him to do. But is that fair? You know, it's and Luke in
[27:08]Luke's view it is and I I get the answer and and and it's just this is I think just the question dividing the Labor Party at the moment. >> I I get and you you've expressed it
[27:18]perfectly. There's a lot of different emotions at play and look Morgan Msweeny is a you know to some people is a you
[27:27]know electoral genius and guru to others he's a sort of uh you know figure of um you know who sort of
[27:37]>> they oppose on polit no but who they oppose on on political grounds and >> there is also as ever with the Labour party and any political party in a crisis there are people trying to settle
[27:48]schools Now, I understand why people are going after Morgan Mcweeni. Morgan will be the first to recognize why people are going after him. I'm not sure it helps
[28:00]the Labour Party or the Prime Minister. And I actually think in the grand scheme of things, it's a sideshow from what is a political crisis as we started the
[28:10]show and fundamentally have to deal with the problem. And yes, I'm sure the Labour Party will try and go down, you know, different avenues and and try and, you know, take revenge on their
[28:20]political enemies in different parts of the party, but it's not going to help the prime minister. >> Um Henry, I want to ask you a kind of theoretical question about how this might play out within Labor. Um because
[28:32]all we've really got to go on at the moment is a few MPs putting their head above the parapit publicly and saying they don't have confidence in the prime minister anymore and his position is untenable. And that's just that's a small handful at the moment. Although
[28:44]you can feel the vibes going that way from a lot more of them. And actually the only other thing we've got to go on is the opposition parties saying there should be some kind of vote in his leadership. But of course opposition parties would say that because they want
[28:55]to capitalize on it. >> Yeah, they would. And uh it's a bit confusing what they want. I mean they seem to be sort of calling for Labour MPs to have a confidence vote. I mean, actually, Chem Bo, if she wanted, has
[29:06]the power to call for a no confidence motion in the House of Commons, >> which would be in the whole government, wouldn't it? >> Exactly. I'm sure she's not going to reach for that. I mean, that would unite the Labour Party uh at a moment at which
[29:16]they're divided. Um, but look, I mean, clearly opposition parties have their tails up and you can see why. In terms of where it goes next, I think you are right to emphasize
[29:25]that it is still a small handful of MPs who've called for Starman to go publicly. I mean, there actually aren't even that many MPs who've called for Morgan Mcweeny to go publicly, which is obviously a less kind of significant
[29:37]thing for an MP to do because he's an adviser rather than the prime minister and their leader. That tells me I think that the prime minister's position isn't
[29:46]under imminent threat. Um, but things have I mean, this is just going to sound like fence sitting, but it's true. Things have moved so fast this week that I don't think you can discount
[29:56]completely things continuing to move fast. I actually think a lot will hinge on what MPs experience as they go back to their constituencies today and over
[30:06]the weekend. Is this some sort of Dominick Cummings Barnard Castle moment in their inboxes and on their doorsteps or is it not? That I think will govern how many MPs behave. But look, at the
[30:17]very least, this has soured the mood among Labour MPs before the Gorton and Denton bi-election, which is three weeks today, and where Karma made a big call not to let Andy Burton be the Labour candidate,
[30:29]>> and then of course before the elections in May, which we've talked about so much. >> So, we've we've talked a lot about the sort of the really serious feelings behind this and the really really serious questions that Kier Starmer is
[30:38]facing. But in terms of, you know, that last point from Henry, I think some of it is also about raw politics rather than just how upset people feel and
[30:49]disappointed they feel. Basically, it's not really clear who could replace Kier Starmer at this point. You know, Wes Streeting also knew Peter Mandlesson
[30:59]well that he hasn't really been in the news stories, but I'm, you know, I think that there's maybe a sense that this doesn't really help him in any way. and then Angela Rener is still, you know,
[31:10]undergoing an investigation into her tax affairs. That's not quite settled. That sounds so peripheral to everything we've been talking about, but I think it does inform what um Labor MPs call for and ask for. So, there's this sort of
[31:22]paradoxical feeling where people really want to scalp and want to see change and accountability, but they also sort of know that if Kier Starmer left at this moment, they might not get their preferred person for leader. And I think
[31:34]that's holding the Labor Party. I could be wrong, but it's holding them in a sort of strange stasis at the moment. >> Yeah, I I completely agree with that. I just wanted to make a just a point just
[31:44]zooming out from the immediate interest in Peter Mandlesson and the prime minister's uh appointment on um as
[31:53]ambassador. I I cut my teeth in politics in the dying days of the last Labor government. I was a very genius special adviser and for the last two years of
[32:02]that government. The issue that drove everything other than the financial crash was expenses. Expenses was one of
[32:11]these scandals I think that politics and those in public life in many ways have never recovered in terms of how they're viewed by the public. I think just
[32:22]looking at the different strands in this story, I think Peter Mandlesson is clearly the first political casualty of this, but I think there will be more.
[32:31]Uh, and I think it's very unclear to Westminster, to those of, you know, those in politics, where does this go and where does it end up? >> Well, the only other potential casualties could be Morgan Mcweeny or
[32:43]the prime minister. I I I I'm no I and I just looking at you know there was a debate yesterday where there were more recent government interactions and
[32:53]contracts the conservatives were um going after different contracts in the modern you know in the last in this Labor government. We don't know where this is going to end up. But, you know,
[33:03]this goes to a bigger point, which is we've spent a lot of time about the appointment. What Peter Mandlesson was doing allegedly, and there's a criminal investigation, so I'll be very careful
[33:12]with what I say. The problem is we in the bubble know and recognize this is so outrageous and, you know, beyond the
[33:21]pale. I do fear for the political class that for the British public it just reconfirms their view that all politicians are rotten in for
[33:31]themselves. And I do think the that I think this is going to go for a very long time especially if it ends up in court and I think for the danger for public life there's a real crisis here.
[33:42]Uh Henry, I'm going to give you the absolute last word and it's a bit of a bit of ancient history, but Luke did take us back to the the dying days of Gordon Brown's government. And I just remember as a very junior reporter there, okay, Gordon Brown, you could
[33:53]debate till the cows come home if he was a good or bad prime minister. What he was good at doing was surviving and snuffing out threats to his leadership. Karma does not have that reputation at
[34:05]all, does he? >> Well, look, I mean, it's a funny thing with Karma. He has been at times really underestimated as a politician. Uh he
[34:15]had an astonishingly fast rise. He played the Corbyn years to perfection uh in terms of setting himself up as the natural front runner even though natural front runners to succeed him even though
[34:26]they weren't sort of completely ideologically aligned even when he was in his shadow cabinet. Uh he then transformed himself and depending on where you stand that's either a good or bad thing and for many people on both
[34:38]sides of the argument a dishonest thing. But he transformed himself as leader into quite a different political personality. Uh but look, this is the biggest test of his metal yet. He's in
[34:47]government now. Uh he's essentially, I think it's fair to say objectively, and I think you know, Labour MPs who continue to support him would admit he's essentially never found a way to make a success of government in his 18 or
[34:59]months, 18 months or so that he's been in. Uh his task now is to just earn the right to try. >> And what happens next? We shall see. Henry, thank you very much. Thank you, >> Luke. Thanks to you, too. >> Thank you.
[35:11]>> And Alva, thanks for all your hard work on the new statement and newscast this week. >> Well, thanks for having me. >> And just a reminder that the BBC is continuing to approach Lord Mandlesson to put these allegations to him. He's not responded to repeated requests for
[35:22]comment, but the BBC understands his position is that he has not acted in any way criminally, and he was not motivated by financial gain. And he has apologized in several different forms for his
[35:33]relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And since we recorded this episode of newscast, one more development to bring you. A letter from the intelligence and security committee to Downing Street. The ISC are the ones who are going to
[35:44]scrutinize the documents related to Lord Mandlesson's vetting to see if they can be released with redactions, bits crossed out if they're sensitive to national security. This letter from the
[35:56]ISC says they expect the government to publish the vast majority of the documents which are not sensitive or related to national security as soon as possible and they're expecting only quite a small number of documents to
[36:08]head their way. They want to see them completely unredacted and then the committee says they will decide in what form they should be made public and they've also asked the government to
[36:18]give them a date for when they will receive that paperwork. So, a little bit more on the process which was so hotly debated in Parliament on Wednesday. And that is all for this episode of
[36:28]Newscast. We'll be back again for our TV show on BBC1 after question time. See you then.