[0:00]Patrick >> Laura Kunberg and you the newscaster. Hello. >> Hello. >> And you've had a Sunday scoop. You've been speaking to Lord Manderson, Peter Mandlesson. You can see that on I player
[0:10]and listen to it on BBC sounds. How did you find him? Um, Peter Manderson over the years has always been somebody who has had something of a swagger, something of a
[0:21]bit of dash and a bit of uh, along, some people might say, others might say, uh, sort of ridiculous uh, silkiness and confidence and he's got a reputation as
[0:32]being an incredible master communicator. My impression of him when we sat down yesterday was that he has been uh I think quite devastated by losing
[0:43]this job working with the White House. I think he has been absolutely devastated too by the loss of his
[0:53]reputation because of his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Um and I think he is at the moment a very changed person now whether or not
[1:05]he will you know bounce back and he clearly by deciding that he wanted to take a tiptoe into public to public this week to offer his take on President Trump as well as explain what really happened between him and Jeffrey
[1:15]Epstein. Um he clearly does want to move on. In fact he said that in part of our interview. He said I'm moving on. Um, but it was a very different Peter Mandlesson that we encountered yesterday to the one who people have over the
[1:27]years seen popping up on their screens. A sort of uber confident, Uber master communicator, and his critics would say an uber manipulator too of other politicians. >> I'm interested to hear how how you took
[1:38]it being sitting in front of him. And we'll discuss the content with our own Henry at home uh on this Sunday's newscast. >> Hello, it's Patty in the studio.
[1:49]>> It's Laura in the studio. And is Henry at home? [laughter] >> Henry at home is like a thing now, isn't it? Sounds like a sitcom. Henry at home. >> I I wouldn't watch that if I were anyone, but um
[1:59]>> I totally would, by the way. That sounds exactly the kind of thing up my street like to the man are born, keeping up appearances, Henry at home. It just trips off the tongue. >> Be a good child. >> I think that might be an insult, but I'll take it.
[2:10]>> It's not those comparisons. >> I'm a child of the 80s. That is absolutely not an insult at all. That's the highest compliment. Yes, you've been compared to Penelopey Keith Henry.
[2:20]>> Brushstrokes. Another one. Anybody else remember Brushstrokes? I love Brushstrokes. >> Right back in the news. Uh there's been a very big development in the career of
[2:30]Peter Mandlesson who was sacked as the UK ambassador and you've had the first interview with him which you're going to talk about. >> We are going to talk about and there was a lot in the interview to digest and it
[2:42]really is worth a listen to it in full. But if you haven't got time to do that or you're listening to newscasts uh before you've heard the whole interview, just to take you through the main kind of headlines of what he said, he told me
[2:53]he never saw anything, any behavior around Epstein, any young women, anything that ever gave him cause for concern. He said that Epstein and Epstein's lawyer had spent a long time
[3:04]convincing him that he'd done nothing wrong after he was convicted. He also said he believes he was kept separate from Epstein's sexual behavior and sex
[3:15]life because he was gay. So he basically said, "I had no idea about what was going on in that part of his life and I think that's probably because I'm a gay man." He also says, although neither he
[3:26]nor Downing Street had known about the emails when he was given the job as American ambassador, he did say Downing Street knew everything. So essentially he was having a bit of a pop at number
[3:37]10 there. although he doesn't dump on K starmer in a big way which they'll be very relieved about I think um but he does say that Downing Street knew everything. He also said look I'm sorry
[3:49]that there was a system that didn't protect these young women but he would not apologize and I asked him a couple of times he would not apologize or chose not to apologize for carrying on his friendship with Epstein after he had
[4:00]been convicted of abusing young women. So that's just a little summary of what he said during a long interview. There's also lots of really fascinating stuff
[4:10]about how he interprets Donald Trump. So that is also really important. >> He says that number 10 didn't know about the emails because neither did he. >> So you watched it for the first time,
[4:20]Henry, on the TV this morning. What stood out to you? Well, it was a fascinating interview in two distinct ways because first you had the man who
[4:30]the prime minister had trusted to interpret and deal with America on his behalf initially giving us his analysis
[4:40]of what has been perhaps the most in global terms consequential week a bit of Donald Trump's second presidency so far. And that was all
[4:51]quite significant. And then you also had Peter Mandlesson, the man who's been at the heart of the Labour Party, as you say, for 40 years, uh, I think, you know, fighting to justify his presence
[5:01]in public life by trying to deal with, uh, the question of why his association with Jeffrey Epstein continued for as long as it did and the nature of that
[5:12]association. Um, and and it's kind of quite hard to sort of analyze them both at the same time because they're so different. I mean, I think when it comes to the questions about his association
[5:21]with Jeffrey Epstein, there will be some people that that satisfied. For example, Gloria Dei on your panel, uh, former Labour politician and now journalist, including a GP News. I mean, she was a
[5:33]journalist before she was a politician as well. Yeah. >> Uh but I my hunch would be that it's still going to be pretty hard for him to return to the role in public life uh as
[5:43]a sort of uh regular ainer and influential figure in public in the Labour party that he was before he got appointed uh to the ambassador position. In terms of his analysis of America, uh
[5:55]I thought it was really interesting and I think I perhaps got and I'm interested in what you thought Laura. He was trying to be sort of loyal, but I thought the subtext was that he's not quite sure
[6:04]that this government is handling what Trump has done over the past 10 days quite right. >> I think that's absolutely bang on. Let's come to that perhaps in a while because
[6:14]I'm interested in how you think his apology for the system but decision not to apologize for his friendship with
[6:24]Epstein after Epstein's con conviction how you think that will play publicly and also with other politicians because Alexander the transport secretary was
[6:33]with us shortly after the interview and I have to say I think she seemed absolutely furious that he hadn't done that. What has happened here is that those new emails were published in
[6:43]September. Uh there was new information in there particularly relating to Peter Mandlesson's suggestion that the first conviction of Jeffrey Epstein was a
[6:54]wrongful conviction and that it should be challenged. That wasn't information that the prime minister had at the time he appointed him uh ambassador to the United States. As soon as he became
[7:05]aware of that new information, he obviously acted within hours to withdraw him from that post with immediate effect. >> But should Lord Mandlesson, in your view, have apologized to Epstein
[7:16]Epstein's victims for continuing his friendship with him after Epstein's first conviction? >> Well, I think what we saw there in that interview was at best deep naivity um
[7:27]from Peter Mandlesson. And I think it would have gone a long way for the women who were subjected to the most appalling treatment at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein uh for Peter to have apologized
[7:38]and taken that opportunity. Yes, I do. >> Was it naive though too for the government to have given him that job when his relationship with Epstein was known and he feels that he was it seems he feels he was badly treated because
[7:50]there was nothing secret about his friendship with him. I think the breadth and the nature of the relationship that Peter Mandlesson had with Jeffrey
[7:59]Epstein only became clear at the point at which those emails were published in September of last year. And that's why the prime minister acted swiftly, took
[8:09]immediate action to remove him as uh the ambassador to the United States. Whilst there would clearly be a discussion about due diligence before you appoint
[8:19]somebody to such a role um it is my understanding um that the detailed information was not available. Peter by his own admission said basically he couldn't remember the emails but it was
[8:30]there in black and white. He basically said to Jeffrey Epstein we believe I believe that this is a wrongful conviction and you should challenge it. And I think, you know, if if somebody
[8:40]that I was associated with uh was in that situation, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole is the truth of the matter. >> Yes. So, there's a lot going on in this Heidi Alexander reaction, which I think
[8:51]the first thing is the bombshell nature of those emails, which Peter Mandlesson told you he had forgotten about and number 10 didn't know about. And you think of everyone in your life imagining
[9:02]that a dead man's emails can come back 20 years after that he received them. Then you have to recall Kemmy Benedo's intervention in the Commons. That's part
[9:12]of this timeline. And then on the word timeline, it's the conviction. It's it's the conviction in a court, Laura and Henry, isn't it? It's not so much that I believe the lawyer. It's that in the
[9:23]middle of that, a court, a judge had decided that he he was guilty. And I think that's what's problematic for Lord Mandlesson here, although he's obviously
[9:31]trying to move on, is he, many people might think can't be blamed for the fact that one of his friends was doing appalling things. He calls Epste
[9:42]an evil monster. Where it changes is once Epstein has been convicted of doing terrible things to then say, "Your friends are here for you. Your friends love you. Fight for
[9:53]your early release." to carry on then for years after contact and association when you're somebody with a big presence in public life. Um that's where it
[10:03]becomes tricky and I think Henry that even some people in his own uh his own party the Labour party or I think some people who are inclined to feel warmly
[10:15]or to feel sympathy towards him are going to find that bit of it remains very hard to understand or justify. >> Yeah. And I thought a really fascinating exchange was when you asked Peter
[10:25]Mandlesson about his sacking and he said that he understood why he'd been sacked. And I think that was Peter Mandlesson, the former spin doctor, the former
[10:37]senior left tenant of not just Tony Blair, but I think it's often forgotten Neil Kinn before him as well. uh you know that Peter Mandles would obviously I think have advised a
[10:48]leader who he was close to to sack someone who was embroiled in the same uh issue that that the Peter Manderson as the UK ambassador to the US uh became embroiled. I mean perhaps that's unfair
[11:00]but that that's certainly my reading of that section of it. But I do think you can also understand why Lord Mandlesson might feel frustrated with number 10. >> Uh because actually other than the
[11:10]content of the emails, the fact that Lord Mandlesson had continued an association with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction was already in the public domain.
[11:19]>> What the emails told us was that in vivid detail was that Lord Mandles thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent after his conviction. Well, it kind of only makes sense for him to
[11:31]continue his association with Jeffrey Epstein if he thought he was innocent. Uh, and I think number 10 never quite managed to explain why they'd thought that association was okay in the first
[11:42]place. Then they got emails describing the fact that Lord Mandlesson thought Jeffrey Epstein was innocent after his conviction rather than guilty and continued that association and decided at that point to sack him. And we we
[11:54]know why they sacked him. it was because the political pressure became unbearable and many people would say it should have been unbearable beforehand. Um but nevertheless I think you know there are still issues for number 10 here but of
[12:05]course they they've kind of gone because they sacked him and and that's why they sacked him. It is nonetheless awkward for them that this comes back up. You know, just at a moment when
[12:16]number 10 is, you know, trying so hard and so determined to try to get onto the issues that they think are going to try to cheer up the public, whether it's, you know, money for potholes that Heidi
[12:25]Alexander was talking about today or the support for energy bills or this that and the other. You know, yet again, this raises its head. The foreign situation is absolutely
[12:37]head spinning and dominating so many headlines. And again, inevitably they are going to find themselves with headlines about something that was deeply deeply embarrassing. But I just
[12:47]wonder how you think people are going to respond to it maybe more broadly. I mean, Patty, you had the former Tory leader Ruth Davis, Tory Scottish leader, not former Tory leader. There were people who hoped that one day she might become this Tory leader, but politics
[12:59]has taken a different turn. Um, she's now in the House of Lords and Ruth Davidson was with you on Broadcasting House this morning. We we have a a panel
[13:07]of guests who we invite in advance and it's by coincidence that Baroness Davidson was on today. She is married to a woman and therefore when it came to
[13:18]address all of our guests today, she was just simply one of the people who was responding. But it's obviously relevant to this conversation as she reacts specifically to the section when Peter Madison told you that he was treated
[13:29]differently because he was gay. >> Let's not use your sexuality as a shield here, Peter. There is no way that some that Peter um Epstein was holding straight parties and gay parties. I I
[13:40]just I don't for a second believe that somebody is as student and as switched on uh as Peter Mandlesson can't make the link between going to some place nicknamed widely nicknamed Pedo Island
[13:50]on an airplane called the Lolita Express um was in some way completely in the dark. Now, obviously I I don't know what Peter saw or what he didn't see, but um
[14:00]I I think that and have been continually agrieved that in something that was deeply troubling about young women, vulnerable young women being exploited
[14:10]by rich, bulletproof men, that the only people that have ever been prosecuted in this has been a woman. It's worth saying Peter Madison did say in the interview, he said, "I never saw anything. I never saw young women." He said, "So in the times that he stayed at Epstein's
[14:21]properties, there were two middle-aged housekeepers there." He said also Epstein himself wasn't always there. Um so he said very adamantly he never saw anything. There were never young women
[14:32]floating around. However, it's interesting to hear Ruth Davidson respond in that way saying look don't put your sexuality out there as part of this conversation. >> Just to return to the sort of other half
[14:44]of the interview which is Lord Mandlesson speaking as a former UK ambassador to the US. Um I mean we should just dwell briefly on what he said about Greenland. Lord Mandlesson appears to be confident that Donald
[14:55]Trump is not going to invade Greenland essentially, at least by force. But he also did suggest that there is going to end up being some sort of resolution to this situation in which the US has a
[15:07]much bigger role in securing or pleasing the Arctic, stopping China and Russia uh from having a role there. I thought that was really interesting. And I just think
[15:18]one thing worth mentioning is that just a few days before Christmas, number 10 announced who the successor to Lord Manderson will be. And it's a man called Christian Turner, who most newscasters
[15:29]won't have heard of, and they won't have heard of him because unlike Lord Manderson, he's a career diplomat. >> And I think it's just worth saying the chronology of this. Number 10 didn't
[15:39]decide our ambassador to the US must be Peter Mandlesson. They decided we need a different kind of ambassador in the Trump presidency. We need a politician,
[15:50]someone who is different to the profile of person you get in the foreign office. So they didn't just interview Lord Manderson. They also interviewed George Osborne, former conservative chancellor. Uh I think we're led to understand that David Milliband had conversations about
[16:01]it, former Labour foreign secretary, but Kathy Ashton, the former Labour politician who had a big role in the EU, uh was spoken to about it. So I do just think it's really interesting at this
[16:12]time of big uh flux to say the least in the international situation that Downing Street in the foreign office reverted to type. I'm Christian Taylor is very distinguished former ambassador to
[16:23]various places. But it is quite interesting that you have Lord Mandlesson a former politician interpreting what Donald Trump is saying at least to some degree as bluster. And I just I'm curious whether the new
[16:35]inhabitant of the role steeped unlike Lord Manderson in the foreign office will end up having a different perspective and how number 10 will come to value or not value that advice because one thing that everybody said at
[16:46]the time that Lord Manderson was being sacked was that they thought he was doing a very good job. Also uh he wrote in the spectator a piece about how Europe this is Europe's moment which
[16:56]it's losing to step up and be quick swift strong and that's in a lot of the Sunday papers. One part of our job here on Sunday's newscast is the best of broadcast and the best of print
[17:08]>> and there's a lot of writing today about how Europe's not got its accurate mojo at the moment in dealing with the White House. And I think that's very clear. That's why Peter Manderson was willing
[17:19]this week to step back in front of a microphone which to newscasters he has not been willing to come in front of a microphone up until this point. And I think because he wanted to share and tell people this he believes an
[17:30]important message about how to interpret Donald Trump and how to respond to Donald Trump. And one of the things he said to us is like there I know fine well there are people in this country and I'm paraphrasing who would rather
[17:42]clutch their pearls. He did use that phrase. who would rather clutch their pearls than actually deal with the realities of the world. But we have to deal with the world as it is now. There
[17:51]is no point, he says, worrying about Donald Trump's tone and how he says things. The point here is that Europe must show to be taken seriously. They have to spend more on hard power. They
[18:02]have to invest more in their military. We have to take a more sort of muscular approach. and he didn't say it rudely, but he made it very clear that he
[18:13]doesn't think that the UK's plans to spend more on defense are anything like as detailed as they are as they ought to be in this context and I wrote a bit
[18:24]about that for the website yesterday that is clearly and we've talked about it a lot in the last couple of years but this issue is becoming more and more and more and more pressing. Yes, the government has put in a very significant
[18:35]increase to defense spending, but where the money is going to come from is not clear after the next couple of years, and there's reports in the last few days that there's a gaping hole of more than
[18:45]20 billion pounds, nearly 30 billion pounds in the existing defense budget. So I think that's a message that he also really wanted to land and I think
[18:56]newscasters are going to hear other people using that and using that argument more and more in the coming months. It's an argument the conservatives are already making and privately there are more
[19:07]people in labor circles who sort of say, "Oh gosh, yes it is. It's all very difficult. We're going to have to kind of find money somewhere." Um but we know what the state of the books is. We know what the level of the debt is. We know what the level of welfare spending is.
[19:18]We know how much people want to spend money on hospitals and schools. But if the government's promises on spending on defense are to be kept, that's going to mean either lots of money being cut from
[19:28]others or borrowed or coming from tax. >> Yeah. Well, I wonder if we should change the subject now because you also had a leader interview. >> Yes.
[19:40]>> With Kem Bened. >> Yes. Next episode in the box set. >> In the box set of leader interviews. and Henry um over to you to tell us what kind of Kem Bay not we got. There was a
[19:51]period in her political leadership when she was being laughed at as conservative leader and I mentioned earlier in this newscast how one of the defining moments was when she went after Kier Stalmer
[20:03]over Peter Mandelton. So what kind of chem Bono presented herself to the nation today? Henry >> uh the the post PMQs at which she went for K Starmer over Peter Mandles and
[20:14]Kemmy Badnock. I mean I think that was uh by coincidence or uh or by consequence the turning point in Kem Bay's leadership actually uh because it was the first time she clearly landed
[20:26]some blows on the prime minister and she grew in confidence. It was very shortly before party conference where she gave an excellent speech and um she is not a laughingtock anymore. She was a laughing stop frankly for the majority of her
[20:37]time as leader of the Conservative party. Um and more to the point uh there have now been a clutch of polls uh in the new year in this new year in which uh they've been ahead of Labor uh in
[20:49]second place. Uh and if that becomes a trend I think that will have quite a big uh um impact on the conversations around the Labour leadership. But anyway, uh Kemmy Bnock actually came armed with a new story, quite a significant one,
[21:01]which I think we'll be talking about for a while, which is that she said like Australia, the UK should ban under 16s from accessing social media platforms.
[21:12]That is a interesting shift in policy from the Conservatives. I think it will pile pressure on the Labor government, some of whose MPs already want them to do the same. And I wouldn't be at all
[21:23]shocked if this is government policy uh by the time of the next election. You do get the sense actually when you talk to people in Labor about this and you know we've talked a lot about it at the weekends haven't we that there's just a
[21:33]hint that they're kind of looking for a bit of a way out on it you know because this has been building and bubbling and today a teaching union came out lots of in support of this lots of campaigners have been calling for it a while then
[21:44]Australia moves in and the Australian government under Anthony Albani is something of a kindred spirit to the Labor government here and you just get a sense especially after the row over the Grock
[21:56]uh AI platform behavior this week. You just have a bit of a hint that the government is kind of looking for a way to toughen up these laws and to make a move here without too much
[22:07]embarrassment. >> Yeah, >> we don't know if that's going to be the case, but there's going to be action in parliament because the Tories are going to try and get this through the House of Lords and then Gavit back into the Commons. There's another vote coming as
[22:18]well about banning phones in schools, using the law to do that rather than just saying to head teachers, oh, you should probably ban them. And you just get this building sense. But it's really interesting, Patty, from another point
[22:28]of view because it's not a very Tory policy theoretically if you think, well, don't they stand for freedom of speech and should be up to parents, not the government to tell families what to do? >> Yes. She's trying to speak in
[22:39]doorstepable issues, it seems to me, because she's also said she'd abolish many business rates. And now she said she's going to ban social media use for
[22:49]under 16s. These are simple sentences which define policy and put some idea in voters's mind who she is, what she stands for. And I suppose the interesting thing is for all of us is
[23:00]that we know social media can be a cesspit >> and we navigate it as adults. But the question is for loads of our listeners, how do you navigate it as a child and
[23:10]what is the responsibility on the parent and what is the responsibility on the state? So I mean it is it is that's a conservative issue, family issues. >> It is and she says look that's the distinction. Adults can do what they
[23:21]like within the law. Kids should not be left vulnerable and parents are screaming out for help. What's interesting is whether you're talking to people about it in government or indeed people about it in the opposition
[23:31]parties, the comparison's been made to me that it's a bit like having seat belts in cars. No one's necessarily going to go out and do it on their own. And actually,
[23:41]sometimes you need government to step in and have a rule. Even though you don't necessarily want to force people to do it, even if you don't want to be on any state and finger wagging, sometimes there are issues where it has to come to
[23:52]government to step in. The flip side of this is, is it realistic to think that you can keep under 16s off social media? Is there a risk if you do it that all
[24:04]they'll do is to go to darker places on the internet or to platforms that aren't regulated because kids are smart and they can get around these things and is
[24:13]it even remotely workable? So, this is not a kind of slam dunk. You know, this is not a straightforward issue. And of course we would never, you know, we're not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but from a political point of
[24:25]view, as Henry suggested, there's no doubt the pressure on government to move on this is building. Tomorrow there's going to be guidance from, I think, the health secretary and the uh education
[24:37]secretary about screen time for under fives. But it does feel to me, Henry, that this whole area is becoming harder and hotter for the government to deal
[24:47]with. not least because at senior levels in the government there's a real skepticism about whether the regulator is doing a good enough job at trying to
[24:57]make sure all the harms are as minimized as they can be. >> That's I mean that last point is definitely true uh about frustration with uh >> said that didn't say you made it up.
[25:08]>> Sorry. [laughter] Sorry I didn't mean it like that. I just meant I've heard that too. I've encountered that frustration as well. >> That's definitely true. >> The last part of what Laura said is definitely true. the rest of it. >> Sorry, no, no, no. I meant it like that.
[25:19]I said it like that because all through what Laura was saying, I was thinking that I was going to make a different point, but I also just wanted to say I've encountered that frustration with uh the regulator ofcom as well. add that pressure is building I think on the
[25:34]government even this morning because Laura was interviewing Kemn uh uh a an influential viewer decided to use social media uh to say that they agreed with
[25:45]Kem Bay and that was Andy Bernham who as newscasters all know is the mayor of Greater Manchester and is also the great prince across the water uh for at least
[25:55]some uh people and Um, that's quite interesting and that's quite significant. Laura ended up putting it to Heidi Alexander which drew attention to the fact that the government is not just now in a different place to the
[26:05]Conservative party is also in a different place to some parts of the Labor movement and that is a bit of an uncomfortable position for them. >> So this is really news will eat itself. We're on the podcast talking about the
[26:16]broadcast and watching the broadcast was the mayor of Ba Manchester the former Labour MP and minister. What did he say? Did he say I Chem Bay's right? We should ban smart social media use
[26:28]>> pretty much. >> Yeah, essentially. I don't have an exact word in front of me. Uh but uh that that that is Oh, hang on. I've I've got it now. >> Yeah, let me just read it out for fun. >> He said, uh I find myself agreeing with
[26:39]a lot of what Kem Ben is saying about children and social media. It seems to me parents would welcome a cross party consensus around much bolder action. I
[26:49]mean that is Andy Bernham saying the Labour Party should join the consensus that the Conservative Party is forming here around much bolder action which is to say banning social media for under 16s.
[27:00]>> So interesting that he felt the need to say that publicly >> when his colleague in the cabinet is sitting on the tell very interesting and I think you know polling suggests this
[27:11]would be popular. polling doesn't always give you a true readout of how things would actually pan out, but polling suggests some elements of this would be popular. But, you know, let's see. But I
[27:20]think as ever, you know, it it's one of the myriad ways where our relationship with technology as a society is becoming more and more and more and more of the debate and the conversation in our
[27:32]politics, which is just it's a reflection of how we live our lives. Technology is more of a part of our lives and therefore it's more of a part of our politics. And I have to say it's not necessarily something that many
[27:42]people in politics whether in Whiteall or Hollywood or Cardiff or Storm or anywhere else there's not many people around who are experts in tech. And it was interesting the whole debate about
[27:53]Grock this week. As I understand it, it's not the only app where you can do the terrible thing of nudifying an image, but the kind of giant political
[28:04]sparks start flying because it's Elon Musk's app. And then all the politicians who spend a lot of time on X then get in a flap about what to do about X. And you can see how this just becomes a a kind
[28:16]of Catherine wheel spinning round and round, but with lots of people who aren't necessarily versed in the realities of technology. I'm not
[28:27]stressing they don't what they're talking about. I'm not a technological expert either. I just think there's a lot of debate in Westminster about tech that doesn't necessarily have a full understanding. A useful I want to move
[28:38]on to ask you about reform but let me just a useful way I've been finding this who's not an expert is to imagine myself in the future looking back and I think we we we will look back at this time and
[28:49]we will say that the Australian decision was a tipping point in this argument I think that's that's helping me understand where policyy's moving. I like to do that sometimes to understand
[29:00]what on earth I'm thinking. So with that in mind, can you both brief us because I didn't see it >> on the issue of will there be a pact between the Conservatives and reform?
[29:09]And whatever Chem Bay says on BBC1, does that automatically rule out a pact in the future? But to my point about the future, what's she saying about a pact? >> Well, she said this morning that reform
[29:20]authoritarian and that she would never have any deal with them. Um, if we go to 2029, let's put ourselves
[29:30]into the TARDIS, uh, which I think can go forward, not just backwards, but I'm not a big Doctor Who fan, so who knows? So, correct me if I am inevitably wrong.
[29:39]Can you imagine, dear newscaster, that Labor doesn't have a majority, reform doesn't have a majority, the Tories don't have a majority, but you've
[29:50]got two options. the Tories. But the Tories have two options. Do they say we would never work with the Reform Party because they are
[30:02]authoritarian and ghastly as Kevin Bnaugh was saying this morning and therefore we will miss out on the opportunity to get bums on seats in government and we will miss out on the opportunity to get the Labor Party out
[30:13]of power or do they hold their nose and say, "Okay, let's do some kind of a deal with reform in order to get some bums on seats back in government to get Labor
[30:24]out of power and in order to return to having influence over actually what is decided in this country by government rather than just being able to put
[30:33]political pressure on newscaster pick your version but I don't think that what Kam Benox says in January 2026
[30:43]is necessarily an accurate predictor of what that decision might be >> I think it also bites just before a general election as well
[30:52]>> because if it were and this is not actually as it stands an implausible scenario though of course we're several years away and lots of things can happen but if it seemed possible just before a
[31:03]general election that a split vote on the right was going to make it much likelier that the Labour party would remain in government I think you have to
[31:13]ask yourself this would the majority of conservative MPs rather Nigel Farage became prime minister or K star got another five years as prime minister I actually think
[31:25]the answer right now. I haven't asked all of them, but I'm pretty sure the answer right now is that they'd rather Nigel Farage was prime minister. And I think that's a bit underappreciated because that wouldn't necessarily have been the case with some past
[31:35]Conservative parliamentary parties and some past Labour leaders and some past incarnations of Nigel Farage. But I think that is where the Conservative party in parliament is broadly now. And
[31:47]I think that means that there would be if the polling landscape remained roughly similar to where it is now, quite a lot of frenzied conversations in the run-up to a general election to
[31:56]ensure avoiding a split between two parties of the right. >> Two other things to say. Don't forget in
[32:04]2019 it was Nigel Farage's decision to withdraw some candidates or to stand back in lots of seats that landed Boris Johnson with an enormous majority. Well, it seemed enormous at the time. majority
[32:16]of 80. Um, important fact number one. Important fact number two. If, as Henry says, the polling landscape remains roughly the same, I think a lot of the run into the next general election is
[32:27]going to be about the possibilities of who would do a deal with who. >> That's going to be a conversation about Labor and the Lib Dems. Maybe what about Labor and the Greens or Labor the Lib
[32:38]Dems and the Greens >> because of multi-arty Britain? Well, I think because we should introduce a new concept because of block Britain. >> Okay. >> Which I think is different to multi-party Britain because multi-arty
[32:49]somehow >> I'll probably get told off by John Curtis. Never a good place to be. Um it's a sort of psychological difference I think with a multi-party thing because then you somehow in your head or in my
[33:01]head anyway they're sort of all rivals. It's kind of like the Grand National. >> I just wonder and did we talk about this last night or did last week or did I ram this? >> Oh, sorry. Well, I'm trying again to ram it down your throat. If what we're
[33:12]looking at really is this two big blocks, that's kind of different, isn't it, to the horse race of multi-arty Britain. >> They're not mutually exclusive. You You can have mutual You can have multi-arty
[33:24]and blocks and and then >> just block Britain's my new phrase. It sounds like a reality show on Channel 5, doesn't it? >> Henry, do you see um a coalition on the center left and a coalition on the
[33:33]right? Is that the sort of block world? >> I think it's entirely plausible. Yeah, absolutely. Um uh for all the reasons we were discussing last week about how uh
[33:44]how uh how yeah how how how different how how I think the conversation in the runup to the next general election is going to be about who do you want to stop or who do you want to block with a
[33:54]K uh and you know which block do you want to join with a C to do that? >> Double Block Britain. Henry at home on double block Britain. >> It's funny because there was >> definitely a TV series >> cuz I know you are collector of
[34:04]grammatical moments in podcasts. There was another moment when we were clutching pearls and clutching poles. >> Oh, >> that happened earlier and I wanted to store it up to say I was listening to Henry. I feel we're very nearly at the
[34:16]end, but I wonder can we just look ahead? There's quite an important leader selection going on this week. Henry, what else? How should I mark the days of
[34:25]the week looking forward? Well, among uh all the usual sort of things that are going on in parliament this week, uh Reform UK, who of course we've just been talking about, are choosing uh formerly
[34:37]their leader in Scotland. And that's significant of course because we've talked a lot and we're going to talk a lot more about uh what's going on around the country in the run-up to those big
[34:46]elections in May. and the former Tory Pier Lord Malcolm Offford has defected to Reform UK and he's going to give up his man gown in order to stand as an
[34:57]member of the Scottish Parliament for reform. Um there've been quite a lot of suggestions that therefore it's likely he's going to be chosen as the leader. Um but we will see. But it is interesting reform now see themselves as
[35:09]a potentially very dominant political force in Scotland. You would not have said a couple of years ago that Nigel Farage was somebody who was going to do well in what we traditionally see as the
[35:18]Scottish political scene. That now has is something that has changed. >> Yeah, I know. And if I wanted to really annoy you in the closing seconds, >> tell me about Scottish politics. >> It wouldn't be to tell you. It would be
[35:29]to say that it's affecting the Tartan Wall. >> Oh, you can be sure that this is No, but I'm doing it deliberately to annoy you. I'm not introducing the Tartan wall at all as a thing. I'm saying it would
[35:40]annoy you if I were to. Now, >> it would annoy me a lot. >> Henry, um, lucky you didn't, >> Henry at home. It's goodbye from from us here, Henry. And goodbye. >> Goodbye.
[35:50]>> Goodbye.