[0:03]Hi everybody. I'm Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now is Dr. Martin Farre, a senior lecturer in contemporary British history at Newcastle University. Dr. Far, thank you so much for joining me.
[0:14]>> My pleasure. >> At the end of January, the Department of Justice released over 3 million more documents related to disgraced financeier Jeffrey Epstein. And we all know who Jeffrey Epstein was. He was
[0:25]convicted pedophile who was very well connected to the rich and powerful around the world. But what we're continuing to learn is just how deep those connections really were. And some of the people who were mentioned in the
[0:36]documents have faced questions about the nature of their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Others have faced personal or professional consequences, but most have not. But someone whose job
[0:47]has been threatened since the fallout of the Epstein files is someone who has never even met the convicted sex offender. and that person's prime minister Kier Star Dmer. So to start off the conversation as we sit here right
[0:59]now, can you talk to us about the moment the prime minister finds himself in? >> Well, I mean we're talking about this on Wednesday. Had we been discussing this on uh Tuesday uh we will be thinking
[1:09]about the prime min actually Monday was the key moment when it almost appeared that Jeffrey Epstein could bring down a British government and as you say a government moreover led by somebody who
[1:20]had nothing to do with Epstein didn't know about him wasn't named in the documents so the reverberations the um oscillations from Epstein have gone on for decades and have affected the royal
[1:31]family and the government they don't actually affect the government per se. It's it's really exclusively so far. I mean, more yet to come out. This is one of the the curiosities of this crisis,
[1:42]of this scandal, is that we're we're we're awaiting further disclosures, and we're not quite sure when those disclosures will ever end, if they do. Uh, and it rates really about the behavior of um someone that Kharma
[1:54]appointed last year to the UK ambassadorship to the United States, which is the most important UK diplomatic post. uh that Peter Mandlesson, Lord Mandlesson, uh his
[2:03]activities with with um Epstein in the 10 20 years ago really. Um and so it's not a government issue as such, but because he was appointed by Starmer
[2:14]knowing that he had connections with Epstein, knowing that those uh connections may have been after Epstein's original conviction that it cast out on the prime minister's judgment and the prime minister's
[2:26]transparency as to how much he knew and how much he admitted. And that's really what's cut at the heart of government and which precipitated a crisis which the prime minister only narrowly avoided
[2:37]being unseated by earlier in the week. >> I want to talk about Lord Mandlesson because as you said the relationship between him and Epstein was previously known but I think the depth of it was really what was discovered in this
[2:48]latest document dump and we found that records suggest Epstein gave Mandlesson and his partner tens of thousands of dollars. Emails also indicated that Mandlesson shared market sensitive
[2:59]government information with Epstein while he was business secretary almost 20 years ago. And the police have launched a criminal investigation into Mandolson. Kirst fired him back in
[3:10]September. But when we're thinking about this overall, I mean, I am curious because Mandlesen is highly regarded as one of the architects of the new Labor
[3:21]Party. So, what does this mean for the Labor Party in general? I mean, I'm used to political scandals and controversies both in the contemporary sense, but also historically um as a historian of
[3:31]politics and what the mountain scandal is jaw-dropping uh in its seriousness, in its severity. It is already in my judgment the most serious political crisis that's affected any British
[3:42]government because it brings in aspects which other crises have had but singularly. You've mentioned the financial implications um also in a way the moral dimension of a member of the
[3:53]cabinet not merely a member of the cabinet the deputy prime minister effectively Gordon Brown's first secretary of state uh actively undermining the government of which is part with a foreign power albeit an
[4:05]allied one which in wartime could be classed as treason uh and encouraging this foreign uh banker foreign bankers to actively undermine his colleagues particularly the chancellor of the
[4:15]excheer the finance minister Alistister Downing. That in itself is is utterly extraordinary. And beyond that, we have the the much deeper associations that Manison had with Epstein than that he
[4:25]admitted. And so SA's defense effectively uh in the past and will be the defense going forward. Although a very important caveat is that the and he's been forced into this. The government will be releasing much of the
[4:37]documentation to do with Mandalor's appointment as UK ambassador in DC. uh a select committee a committee in the House of Commons called the Intelligence and Security Committee will be determining what can be released and not
[4:48]uh undermine the public interest or security um reveal security details. So, we're awaiting that uh data dump as it were, which may um be very damaging for the prime minister. But his public
[4:58]defense has been I was lied to, which everyone believes to an extent because Manson's clearly a dishonest person who did not reveal the depths of his relationships with Epstein. But even a cursory research online would have
[5:10]revealed far too many red flags to appoint someone to such an important position. So, it was a high-risk, highreward appointment from the first place, but no reward could ever have
[5:21]repaid such a risk. >> We've been covering the Epstein files as they've been released, and it has really been roying every American industry from entertainment to tech to politics and
[5:32]really everything in between. But a point that we always keep coming back to is that it was known who Jeffrey Epstein was, right? Not it wasn't a secret at all. He was a convicted sex offender
[5:43]since 2008. He pleaded guilty to a sex crime involving a minor. But after that, Mandlesson wrote Epstein this note in part. Quote, I think the world of view and I feel hopeless and furious about
[5:55]what has happened. So in your opinion, what do you think the worst part of this whole scandal is? The financial implications, the allegations that Matt Sim was leaking government information
[6:06]to Epstein or the moral component to all of this? >> I think it's in the eye of the beholder. Uh depends on who you ask. Each one of the things you mention uh cuts through to uh different readerships, different
[6:17]audiences. Um the fundamental point about dealing with a a child sex offender is the one that cuts through to voters, to the public, most of whom don't follow politics or these things very closely at all. Many of whom may
[6:28]not have known that Madison was the ambassador in the US for example, but they know about this and this cut through dramatically. And it cut through in a way which was very much part of the appeal of of Trump and to make America greater in the United States. very much
[6:39]part of the appeal of Brexit in this country and of reform UK which is the insurgent party on the right which is currently ahead in the polls and would be a government tomorrow were there an election which is to be insurgent to be
[6:50]undermining to be criticizing the swamp the beltway the Westminster village this established complacent hubristic elite which ignore the people and conduct
[7:00]their own affairs uh lying and making money as they go so it's enormously damaging to the establishment in that sense in terms of the sex offending The [snorts] sector part also relates to the prime minister's judgment that he he
[7:12]I mean one of the papers this morning has said that he was presented with the sheath of newspaper articles pointing out the the ongoing nature of Manderson's relationship with Epstein and the very real possibility of more
[7:23]being disclosed in the future and yet he went ahead with the appointment which I must say is very unlike Kstarma who's an extremely cautious not to say timid politician and the one appointment he
[7:33]made which was really quite spectacular has been spectacularly unsuccessful in the form of Mandles And then the point about the financial malfeasants in terms of British government that is really the most damaging of all. There was a
[7:43]scandal in 1912 called the Maronei scandal when the chancer was involved in shady dealings with the Maronei company. Uh and that is the the benchmark of financial scandal in British politics over a century ago. Uh this is much more
[7:55]serious because he's actually receiving money so is his husband from a foreign banker undermining his government at a time of crisis. I mean it Gordon Brown who was prime minister uh had a
[8:06]difficult relationship with Mandles partly because Mandles had insured Tony Blair's as centers leader in 1994 rather than Brown but Brown brought him back brought him back from being a EU
[8:16]commissioner in Brussels for trade because he was desperate for Mandlesson's talents. So the other big issue to all the things we're discussing is that this person resigned twice from office in the 1990s through scandals of
[8:28]various kinds. He kept being brought back because it was felt that his talents were so unique and so beneficial to whoever he happened to be working for. But with those talents came the
[8:39]fact that he he himself styled himself the prince of darkness. He called his memoir of the of the new labor years between 94 and 200720 uh the third man which also said he was
[8:51]third after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown but also alluded to the third man movie and the shadows in the dark of postwar Vienna. He liked playing up to this and being networked and it's these networks
[9:02]and these connections which have brought him down so spectacularly incinerating his relationship forever more but bringing down with him um both or invoking the fury of Gordon Brown who
[9:13]appointed him and feels betrayed and also being perilous for the prime minister. The very curious silence is from Tony Blair who has said not one word publicly since this scandal blew up
[9:23]over 10 days ago. >> Why do you think that is? Why do you think Tony Blair hasn't said a word? >> I think because he actually has a clean pair of hands in this. I mean, Blair's reputation has been through the ringer
[9:34]since he was prime minister through his associations with some rather disagreeable regimes and the the insidious influence of the Tony Blair Institute on the on the present government. So many of the people in
[9:45]government came through Tony Blair's institute. But it it seems that he has a clean clean pair of hands. He hasn't appeared in the documents so far. Um he did appoint Manderson. Madison resigned twice. uh he seems to be out of it in
[9:56]that sense. But in a deeper way, Blair embodies so much of what the public was voting against with the Brexit um vote in 2016 and what they may well vote against in the bi-election in a
[10:07]Manchester seat later this month where both the Greens on the left and Reform UK on the right are acting as anti-establishment parties. And we have our own midterms. They're not officially
[10:17]midterms as in the US, but we have a series of elections in May across the UK, Scotland and Wales national elections and across England which will be potentially devastating for the government because all the polls suggest
[10:28]they can come third or fourth in many parts of the country and only in 2024 in July they were elected with an enormous majority. So the change has been remarkable. The febrile liquid fluid
[10:38]state of politics is unprecedented and this adds to the mix. This adds to the sense on from the part of the public that we have a continuation of the chaotic government from another party of
[10:49]the Brexit and post-rexit years. >> To your point earlier about Mandlesson, it's not like he exactly had this choir boy image before, right? He faced his own set of scandals for years. He's
[11:00]resigned multiple times in the past decades. Prime Minister Starmer appointed him anyway to this huge position, UK ambassador to the US. So
[11:10]Kier Starmer also this comes at a time when he is facing historically low approval ratings. I was listening to a report and a BBC reporter had had an interview with Starmer at the beginning
[11:21]of the year and she said something to the effect of is your New Year's resolution to be prime minister by this time next year. I mean that's how tenuous his position seemed to be and he
[11:32]was laughing at the time. He's probably not laughing right now. So how much is this blowback do you think from the Epstein fallout on Kirst do you think is justified? Do you think people say you
[11:43]know what this is really because we believe you have poor judgment and how much of this is really because of everything else going on with his approval ratings and how people aren't very happy with the Labor party right now?
[11:53]>> Yes, it's an interesting question. It's all of those things actually. Uh I mean in one sense one can blame Stara for the appointment of Manderson but equally other people thought it was a good appointment. I mean there was a widespread feeling that this a risk appointment but I mean it was basically
[12:05]to have someone in the Trump white house in in the Trump beltway and it was felt that what would work with Trump would be a big character who could pick up the phone to the prime minister immediately as of course the president could. So it was it wouldn't have been appointed
[12:16]under any other president. So one could almost blame Donald Trump for this in terms of the mandles dimension that he he requires a different way of doing things than we are used to. uh hence the
[12:26]appointment but it also reinforces a a broader sense of stalmer as a prime minister and a politician which essentially is uh that he's not a politician at all. Now that of course
[12:36]was part of the appeal of of Donald Trump not being a professional politician speaking differently than politicians. Starmmer had been a chief prosecutor in England and Wales for the left which helps enormously being a prosecutor for the left to neutralize
[12:48]the sense of being soft on crime. Didn't work for Camela Harris but it was hoped it would work for Star. But he was elected in large part because of what he wasn't. The largest party in Britain and America at the moment is the
[12:59]anti-incumbency party. [snorts] And he was elected because he wasn't the government and because the government was discredited. He was a moderate um conformist uh articulate lawyer. No
[13:08]enthusiasm for him but he won power. But then the wheel started to fall off because of his own contradictions which was he wasn't a politician. He has no clear set of political values or
[13:19]attitudes. no clear political persona or sense of direction. He was in many ways a creationist someone we haven't mentioned yet who was the trigger for this week's crisis really which was a
[13:29]man called Morgan Msweeny who was Prime Minister Starma's chief of staff and in many ways was um was S was Mween's creation because Mweeny wanted to drag the Labour party back from where it was
[13:40]10 years ago in the hands of a left-wing cabal and make it an electable mainstream center center-left party and in so doing he wanted a candidate to be the frontman for this party and Starmmer
[13:52]was the obvious candidate And so Starman went through the the process, the project which unlike New Labor as a project, New Labor was partly, this is the Blair project from 94 right through
[14:02]to 2010. It was to transform the view of Labor as Clinton did with the Democrats, the New Democrats, from being tax and spend into being progrowth. So it was electoral in the first instance, but then it had a plan for government once
[14:13]elected in 97, and it carried through that that program quite effectively. The Star Project was really only about winning power. And to win power they limited their means of action after uh
[14:24]office acquiring office in such a way that they were enthralled to events and star has appeared and this week has crystallized it never in command of what's taking place merely in in
[14:36]enthralled to it domestically particularly so he's been quite effective internationally and indeed many many viewers who who know him as an international states may be surprised to hear of his reputation which is the
[14:48]lowest of any prime minister since polling. began uh a precipitant collapse. Now, a bigger question we could we might return to is the nature of politics today is that any prime
[14:58]minister will very soon be the most unpopular prime minister in history given the impatience of electors and the increasing cynicism uh that they have with their leaders and the way that the
[15:09]press and the media treats those leaders. But as things stand, he's enormously unpopular and he appears reacting to events rather than leading them. So in many ways there's a tragic dimension to it because he is almost the
[15:20]architect of many of the failings that are now being are now evident and losing Msweeny the way he did. Some see this as an opportunity others see this as the beginning of the end because he's lost
[15:30]his brain to put it crudely. >> Let's talk about that a little more. Mweeny he fell on the sword here a bit right he took full responsibility to in
[15:40]directing Kier Armor to appoint Mandelin. Also then shortly after that, uh, Starmer's director of communications also resigned. What does that do to
[15:51]Starmer's government? A, and B, do you think that because those two are out that saved Kier Starmer that helped him see another day, so to speak? >> There's a H, you missed the hattick.
[16:01]There's a hat-tick. He also lost his cabinet secretary. So Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary is the head of the civil service. In the UK, we have a permanent civil service, unlike in the US. So they continue whoever's in government. and Wormald was appointed
[16:12]and he sits literally next to the prime minister in cabinet and he is the most important administrator civil servant in the country and Starmmer made the wrong appointment. All the three people we're mentioning now Mcween's chief of staff
[16:24]Allen as head of communications and worm as cabinet secretary were all the wrong people for those jobs and the common thread is Starmmer appointed them. Why did he appoint them? He appointed Mweeni
[16:34]because he was weak and because in fact Mweeny's predecessor, a woman called Sue Gray, who had been appointed by Starmmer to prepare the the party for government,
[16:43]hadn't done so. And so another scandal, another resignation, another embarrassment. And McWeen is brought in [snorts] with zero experience of government. A great advly a genius in
[16:54]political communications, in political tactics, in electoral organization, but zero experience of government. And then he brings back Tim Allen who is a Blair from the Blair years uh communications
[17:05]director. It was thought a bit of the Blair Stardust could be sprinkled on the government. [clears throat] Not unlike bringing Peter Manderson back. Actually Mandles was was helping and advising Star in opposition before the election.
[17:16]Mandles had overseen three victories for Blair. Um and then Chris Wormalt uh who's who [clears throat] was brought in. There was a r there were a range of candidates for cabinet secretary. He or
[17:27]she is the a hugely important person because they drive the government's agenda. Parties win power. They become the government. The civil service implements the government's policies. That's the point of it. And Wormald was
[17:39]thought to be a safe choice. Stroke an unimaginative choice. Stroke a a really underwhelming person to be in that office. And once again, and Madison is
[17:49]really the exception to this rule. And that's why it's so ironic and so tragic in a sense historically as it will be seen for Star that Star's usual appointment is someone like Wormold who would never have frightened the horses
[18:01]or indeed have inspired any great uh momentum or activity. So he's gone as well. So he's three of these now as you as you imply with your question these could be seen as a new beginning as a
[18:12]reset but you [snorts] know historically when governments start to reset you know what's only going one way uh the reinvention that takes place. One thing that saved Stala this week is the experience of the previous um period of
[18:24]government of the Conservative Party between 2010 and uh 2024 and in particular since Brexit in 2016 where they went through prime ministers. They threw out prime ministers in the hope
[18:34]that a new prime minister would be a new front for the for the public. But the public don't see that. The public see an unelected prime minister in the first place. In our system, we elect parliaments rather than prime ministers.
[18:46]So there's no constitutional issue with a party changing its leader in office having a new prime minister. But the way the public is increasingly they will be demanding I didn't vote for whoever replaced there should be an election.
[18:57]Nigel Farage with reform will be poking this very effectively. The new media we have the online media the the politically charged media which wasn't around in Blair's day would also be saying he's illegitimate she's
[19:08]illegitimate there should be an election. That was one reason why Labour MPs reached the precipice and peered over and then backed off in a way the Conservatives hadn't uh in the Brexit years, the Brexit wars. That saves Star
[19:20]I think. And also the fact uh when we talk about prime ministers coming or going, luck, chance, contingency, timing is hugely important. I can give you any number of examples of where it did or
[19:31]didn't happen because of the timing. And so for Star, the three most likely replacements for him were all incapacitated or compromised in some way. They were Andy Bernham, the mayor
[19:41]of Manchester, whom Starmmer had prevented from standing in this bi-election in Manchester later this month. The only Labour candidate who could have won, but it would have meant Bernham in parliament and therefore able
[19:51]to replace the prime minister. And Staro, for obvious political reasons, didn't want that and precluded his candidacy. So Bernham is isn't a candidate. Angela Raina who was his former deputy who is a charismatic woman
[20:03]who speaks to working-class voters. She is compromised by her own financial uh infidelities with a tax issue which is being resolved and so she is not really able to stand at the moment. And Wes Streeting finally who's the most obvious
[20:15]and the keenest to replace the prime minister who himself has been compromised this week by his associations with Peter Mandles. So although an unlucky prime minister in many ways, luck has assisted him in
[20:25]surviving this week. >> And as you said earlier in this conversation, if we were having this on Monday, it would be vastly different. Karm has faced multiple many calls to
[20:36]resign, most notably from the leader of the Scottish Labor Party. He said that this distraction needs to end and the leadership in Downing Street has to change. But dozens of Labor MPs are
[20:47]backing Star. Do you think the tide has changed fully or just temporarily? Because you posed this question at the beginning of the week. How much longer can cure Starmer survive? What's the
[20:58]answer there? Is it a while or does the head of lettuce need to come out all trust? >> Yes, it could. It could be either. I mean, he he's not he's not at trust levels of of incompetence uh of
[21:09]undermining of of authority uh or faith rather, but he's not far off it. Um a number of things could happen. I can I can conceivably see him leading Labour into the election in 2029 which we [clears throat] expect to be in 2029. I
[21:21]can see him prime minister after the election actually if Labor is returned as the largest single party. It really import it's very important to stress that we are in an entirely uncharted territory in British politics. We have a system of elections which essentially
[21:32]allows for for two for two parties and the parties alternate and that's been the case since the first world war. We've never really had other parties which are on a level with the Conservative and the Labor Party and
[21:43]before the war the Liberal Party. We now have in England five parties all on similar figures in the teens. And in Scotland and Wales, six parties on similar figures in the teens. That means
[21:54]with our first pass the post plannality system, one vote sufficient to become an MP for that constituency. Anything could happen. Hundreds of seats rather than a few are now marginalss and any
[22:06]conceivable parliament could be predicted uh unwisely predicted because it's so uncertain for the 2029 general election. It's the case that Nigel Farage and Reform UK, however, are so
[22:18]polarizing for left uh center-left liberal progressive voters that there may be an effect that they marshall themselves. They vote tactically. They vote against any chance of a reform
[22:29]candidate in their area. And that may assist a kind of loose progressive alliance. We could say a progressive front as we had here between the wars preventing fascism or opposing fascism.
[22:40]not the reform UK is fascist, but there's a movement to try and prevent a party that has widespread disapproval from people on the left. So, that's a way in which he could still be prime minister, not for very long, I suspect,
[22:50]but still after the next election. That being said, it could still be the case that the documents coming out from um the Manderson appointment, more things from the Epstein, from the DOJ, from the
[23:00]Epstein files, um the bi-election later this month, the May elections, any of these could be a trigger, but only if there's a candidate to replace him. You mentioned Anna Sawa, the Scottish Labour leader. That was a very interesting
[23:11]inter very interesting intervention for for very narrow sort of contemporary reasons, but also more structural reasons. Sawa and Star were both very close. Uh and and it needs to be
[23:22]understood that Scotland was a Labour thief for most of the 20th century. You could weigh the vote 50 MPs as a minimum always elected in Scotland. And then by the 2014 Scottish referendum, which was
[23:33]fairly narrowly won by the union, by the people opposing Scottish independence. But in the following general election in 2015, a wipeout of Labor SMP MPPs across the country and S&P has been in power in
[23:44]Scotland and this is a party committed to Scotland being independent, i.e. the break up of the UK in the Scottish Parliament for nearly 30 years and there was a chance in 2024 when Star was
[23:55]elected of Labour also winning the Hollywood elections which is the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and Anna Saw being first minister of Scotland. The performance of the Labor government in Westminster has been so
[24:06]bad, however, that the polls in Scotland have transformed themselves and the S&P are uh currently ahead and lucky to win another term. That's why Sawir broke with London. It made perfect sense
[24:18]politically because it's all he can do. His last gambit before the May elections is to try and break with London and to put Scotland first as he sees it. My country Scotland.
[24:28]That's the big structural reason why it happened. The narrower reason is that we think and we're reading all reports about this today that there was an attempt to coordinate this with Star's cabinet that Saw would say he was
[24:40]standing down and then cabinet ministers would follow and that would be fatal for the prime minister. What I think happened was we were briefed I remember vividly almost minuteby minute this was going on. We were briefed that he would
[24:51]be speaking and giving a speech and in that speech he'd be saying he's breaking with London Labor calling for the prime minister to resign. uh 2 hours before the speech. Those two hours were crucial
[25:01]in Starmmer's team in Downing Street, getting on the phones, getting all the cabinet ministers to line up and their posts on X went out almost with military precision every 30 seconds and the
[25:12]crisis was averted because I think Saras showed his hand a bit too soon and now arguably he's a compromised candidate because what he tried to do had no effect and the S&P can say this shows
[25:23]the impetence of Scottish Labor visav the National Party. So deeper reason reasons and and and more specific reasons as to why it didn't work. Um but why this is not a problem that's going to go away for the Labour Party in
[25:34]Scotland. Starmer has come out swinging defending himself to Labor MPs. He said he's never abandoning his country. Essentially there's not a fight he
[25:44]hasn't won. It seems like as you're saying he's in a safer spot today than he was just a few days ago. But when you're thinking about the Epstein fallout overall and how it's impacted
[25:55]Starmer and his entire government, how they're almost finding themselves to be a bit of collateral damage, is there any point in history, I know you said this is unprecedented once again, any point in history you can look to and say, you
[26:06]know, this is familiar there and then look to what happened then to indicate what could happen next. >> Oh, I can give you many many examples. Um, but that's that's what wasn't a
[26:17]threat like but I am all day. Um, well, I mean, the trouble is they're all they're all different. Um, I did an interview earlier today and and the interviewer asked about in political science terms, why does this happen? And
[26:28]of course, I'm not political scientists and I would say it's not about science at all. It's about the vaguess of the human condition. It's about circumstance, luck, contingency, timing, all these things go into the melee and the mix character as well. Um, the
[26:40]decision of one person, as I've mentioned, the the weakening, the hobbling of three people at the same time. uh had had this crisis had had had um let me think this through in my head.
[26:51]Had um the crisis happened a week or so um later and Burnham been given the chance to contest the seat and Bernham been in parliament now or at the end of
[27:02]this month then I think there'd be no question that there'd be a move to replace Star with Andy Burnham. No question at all. But it came the opportunity came up too too soon. Um Stalmer's political hero in far as he
[27:14]has one is a man called Howard Wilson who was prime minister of this country between 64 and 70 and 74 to76 and Wilson was elected very narrowly and then won a
[27:25]landslide in ' 66 and was the dominant figure in politics but he had to he had to devalue the pound in ' 67 against his will and devaluation destroyed his premiership and his reputation and his authority never recovered lost the next
[27:37]election and between 67 and 1970 when he loses the election there are many attempts to unseat him and they all failed for for different reasons and this is what's happening with Stalmer because certain candidates weren't right
[27:48]or they blinked or they were compromised or distracted or he made a speech um he made a very famous speech where he tried to address the the um shenanigans by
[27:59]saying I know what's going on I am going on and so a well-pitched sound bite Margaret Thatcher in 1981 um you may turn if you want to the lady's not for
[28:09]turning a well- pitched sound bite. Not I mean more than a sound bite, but an apherism, a statement, a branding of what you're about to the public at a certain moment, can restore faith in um
[28:20]a leader's MPs. And MPs are really what it boils down to. A prime minister is only prime minister because he he or she can command the confidence of the house. And the confidence of the House of Commons come from having a majority. And
[28:32]so MPs are the key. What's changed since Wilson's day and Thatcher's day is that where Thatcher resigned in 1990, November 1990, forced up by her MPs, her
[28:43]MPs voted for her replacement. When Wilson resigned in 76 by his own valition, his MPs voted for his replacement. So the MPs in the chamber voted for the new prime minister. What
[28:53]we now have as a mark of the change in politics and the desire for accountability and the desire for uh democracy is that uh were star to stand
[29:03]down or be challenged he his success will be determined by party members. Liz Truss became prime minister, Boris Johnson became prime minister because of
[29:13]party members. Uh Liz Truss was elected by by a few thousand people who happened to be conservative party members and she was prime minister. So I I'm making a case here for what used to be the case.
[29:24]Whereas MPs knew a candidate. MPs would never have elected Liz Truss as leader of the party and prime minister in a million years or Boris Johnson, but the members did. Members are different from MPs. They're they tend to be much more
[29:35]committed. They tend to be to the Conservative MP members to the right, Labour to the left of most voters. MPs need to be elected. They know what voters think and say. So Starmmer's
[29:45]aware that were he to stand down, Labour members would be voting for his replacement and they're likely to be a more left-wing person than voters would would accept. So we got this new fissure
[29:56]in our politics which comes from members voting on things. Um and in that instance, for example, Ed Milliband, who's energy secretary charged with promoting net zero, who was himself
[30:06]Labour leader in 2015 and lost that election, um is by far the most popular politician in the cabinet with Labour Party members. Where he to stand, if Starmmer fell or retired, he will be
[30:18]prime minister, which most observers would regard as highly damaging for the UK economy, for the bond markets, and for Labour's prospects in the next election. So, it's extremely complicated, multifaceted, uh
[30:29]multi-dimensional, and a good reason for um sticking with the prime minister rather than risking the uncertainty of change. To that point, then my last
[30:39]question for you. I'm going to hearken back to that to that comment that BBC journalist said to Prime Minister at the beginning of the year essentially
[30:49]saying, "Hey, your resolution should be, are you going to be in this seat in a year from now in 2027, I know you don't have a crystal ball. I know you're not a psychic here. A million things could
[31:00]happen. You can't see into the future. However, you are an expert in history, contemporary British history to be precise. So, you're the perfect person to ask this. Do you think Kirst will be
[31:10]prime minister in a year from now? Do you think he weathers this storm? >> My my my hunch is he will, but not for any reasons which um rebound favorably on Star for almost entirely negative
[31:21]reasons. I think he will be and many of which we've covered that he's more likely to be in office than not. Also the case, I mean the government's been very poorly, it's been quite a hless government and it's been constrained by its own timidity and as we've mentioned
[31:32]electorally it can be explained historically why it's been so timid. can be explained um labor labor parties in office, labor governments, financial crisis and so on. But there is the
[31:43]chance, the possibility with the right chief of staff, the right head of comms, the right cabinet secretary, with a slowly improving economy, which is the
[31:51]case, with the experience of voters of the investment in public infrastructure, which has happened in the health service, in transport, it is possible
[32:02]that the government will uh recover in the polls. It's worth saying that Harold Wilson despite [snorts] the deval devaluation in ' 67 Wilson was doing very well in 1970 just had the election a week a week late and he lost the
[32:13]election but he was actually doing very well. So it can all drip by drip almost by osmosis people can see that there's some stability but it requires that stability in the first place and so it
[32:24]requires time to have the right people in office and to um see his his rivals as well both within the party and outside the party falter. Uh, Reform UK
[32:34]is the great challenge. Reform UK is I think Labour Labor politicians, Labor members fear most is a reform UK government, which will be far far worse than any conservative government in
[32:46]their eyes. A category change in how Britain is governed. It's that serious. And that I think will have an enormously disciplining effect on them. Equally, this isn't very helpful for me to contradict myself. Equally, they think
[32:57]the stakes are so high we can't continue if we're so far behind in the polls. So I think he'll continue in the short term. It depends how the government is viewed in the medium term as to whether
[33:08]he survives. But if I were a betting person, which I'm not, my expectation would be that he will be fronting the Labor campaign in 2029. >> Dr. Far, I really appreciate your
[33:17]expertise here, the conversation, your perspective. Thank you so much for lending the time today and I hope as we see developments in this, as well as UK politics in general, you can come back
[33:28]on and break them down. Thank you for the time. My great pleasure.