[0:00]the Labour Party to get on with governing rather than getting constantly tied up in this addiction to chaos crisis. >> I don't think when the public think
[0:10]about Peter Manderson, they'll think that's a problem contained to a different era of the Labour Party, especially because their views of that Labour party, this current one and [music] Karma are so bad, they're not
[0:21]going to give him any benefit of the doubt. >> Do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Far? You will never persuade me to just suck up the depradations of the of
[0:31]a Labor government in order to prevent the to prevent the incursions of the far right because I look at the Labor government and they quite often are mimicking Nigel Farage. I will never take that. >> Do you think this will finish Starmmer
[0:43]off? >> Hello and welcome to the forecast. It's the scandal that just keeps getting worse certainly the biggest crisis for Kier Starmmer. Could it finish him off
[0:53]or is it even bigger than that? Is Labour's position recoverable, or is it now a dead man walking? The PM admits Peter Mandlesson's relationship with the dead pedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey
[1:04]Epstein came up as part of the vetting process for Ambassador to Washington. But he says Mandlesson lied and lied again, saying he betrayed our country and our party. But what concerns were
[1:15]raised during the vetting process and were they overruled? If so, who buy? If Starmmer wasn't warned, why not? The stench of sleas and corruption hangs
[1:26]heavy in the air over Westminster right now. So, can the government escape it? Or is this the final straw for Labourback benches already wondering whether to throw Star overboard? Joining
[1:37]me to discuss this, Starmmer biographer Tom Baldwin, the political commentator Zoe Williams, and the pollster and strategist Scarlett Maguire. Tom, I mean, jaws are on the floor and getting
[1:47]wider by the hour. Can you think of a worse political scandal in our lifetime or beyond? >> I do think it's a scandal. I do think
[1:58]this is shocking. But essentially, if you know the real sin happened under the last Labor government under when Gordon Brown was prime minister when Peter Manderson was
[2:08]business secretary, that's when he was disclosing confidential market sensitive information apparently to Jeffrey Epstein. The question about
[2:18]this government is why they appointed Peter Madison >> and what they were warned about. >> Now, now that is a good question, but it's not a scandal about this government
[2:29]until it can be shown that Khalma knew what we know now. Do the the question about >> does he does he have to know everything that we know now? I mean, we knew from
[2:41]2023 onwards, uh, because the FT ran a story about it that, uh, Mandlesson had maintained a relationship with Epstein after he had been, uh, found to have
[2:52]been involved in sex trafficking. And yet, he carried on. Um, and there would have been a vetting process. We don't know what it said. Maybe we'll get to find out uh, if these papers are
[3:02]published, but whatever concerns it may have raised were clearly overruled. That does make it a scandal for this government. Well, well, it is. There's a there's a question, I think, whether the
[3:14]prime minister should have known what essentially is unknowable because Peter Madison was lying to the prime minister, lying to his oldest friends, possibly
[3:25]even lying to himself about the extent of his relationship with Epstein. Now, there was a vetting process. We now know
[3:34]that it did raise concerns about Mandlesson's continuing relationship with Epstein that was in the public domain. So I would just say lightly well I'd say lightly to journalists on this
[3:46]because there's a lot of hindsight around and a lot of the journalists now are saying it was always obvious blah blah blah >> were the same journalists who are saying what a master stroke a point to Peter
[3:55]Mson writing for pieces not everyone but a lot of them a lot of them were saying it a lot of people were writing pieces about it and I'm not sure whether channel 4 news correct me if I'm wrong
[4:06]did a big podcast or a big section at Tom of Peter man's appointment saying This is scandalous because we know that Peter Manson continued to have relationships with Epstein after his
[4:18]conviction. The FT did. >> I think if you Google what was said at the time, there are articles across the media saying this is high risk. >> Uh this is a man who's had to resign in disgrace twice.
[4:29]>> And this might happen again. [laughter] Hold on hold just me make point. The premise that this was a scandal because it was known that Peter Mandlesson continued to have relationships with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction.
[4:40]that was known to the media at the time of Peter Manderson's appointment. Were the media calling it a scandal then? Yeah, they weren't. They weren't saying it was a scandal. Okay, there was some honorable exceptions. >> No, come on. That is the weakest
[4:52]channel. >> That's genuinely the weakest argument I've ever heard you make because [laughter] some people in the media didn't put their money where their mouth was two years ago. Therefore, nobody's got a leg
[5:03]to stand on now and this isn't a scandal. That doesn't even make logical sense, Tom. And you know >> no the the logic is this that for this to be the biggest scandal of our lifetime. >> Oh okay fine. Right. I mean
[5:15]>> it's been the biggest scand of our lifetime. >> It is that the premise of that is we know that Downing Street and Karma knew about Manderson's continuing links with
[5:25]Epstein after his conviction. So did the media. So the media did not declare this the biggest scandal of their lifetime at the time. It is only a scandal now. It is only a scandal now because of what we
[5:37]know now. So the real question the real question which will determine whether it is a big scandal about this government is whether down street knew more than what was in the public domain. Then
[5:47]>> a that a that doesn't make sense for the aforementioned reasons. B that none of that has to do with Karma's judgment. Karma's judgment is what's at issue here. And whether or not certain
[5:57]commentators called it out properly at the time whether Chris ran a package about it doesn't make any difference. if he had if he had a kind of moral compass, if he could see the man in front of him, if he could put priorities
[6:09]ahead of electoral calculation, which by the way, I don't think Peter Mandlesson did serve very well, but that's what he thought he served. Then if he doesn't have those qualities, then those aren't qualities that he has.
[6:20]>> Question what what you know, and maybe we will find out uh and maybe we won't >> what he knew in the >> what the concerns were and what was said about them in order to sweep them. But
[6:31]it's also that is the key question. But there is also a kind of more fundamental question which is you know there there is there a calculation was made that whatever the relationship was between
[6:41]Peter Manderson and Epstein it didn't matter so long as nobody was looking directly at it. Now somebody who who had a who for whom that was a real matter of conscience for whom fratonizing with a
[6:51]known pedophile really was a moral issue would have said I just I'm just not wild about this. I'm not wild about sending Mandelson as envoy as ambassador to
[7:02]Trump who is himself a known associate of >> whether or not this is the biggest or the second biggest or third biggest um does it matter? I mean, you know, won't
[7:14]the public now >> just conclude that there is the stench of scandal around Labour who claimed to be better than the last lot and it turns out maybe they weren't? I think you've hit the nail on the head and and you
[7:26]know unfortunately for those in number 10 it actually the [snorts] public make their mind up quicker than quite a lot of some of this information can come out ex about exactly who knew what when and etc. Um I think the problem for the
[7:36]Labour party and for for Karma and the government in particular is that um Peter Manderson is incredibly well known in this country. He's, you know, far better known than Andy Bernham or Robert general brave and any of the other politicians we've seen enter the
[7:48]spotlight over the last few weeks who aren't the sort of principal party leaders. And he is synonymous with Labor because he's been around for so long. He's been associated with so many different Labor governments. And I don't think when the public think about Peter Manderson, they'll think that's a
[8:00]problem contained to a different era of the Labor Party. They will think about it as the same Labor Party that we have now. Especially because their views of that Labour party, this current one and
[8:10]Karma are so bad. they're not going to give him any benefit of the doubt. And then the second part of that is that okay, they know who Peter Mandlesson is. They don't think very well of Labour
[8:20]Party. Sorry, the third one is that um this plays into all of their worst suspicions about people in politics anyway. You know, trust in politicians is an all-time low. It only seems to be
[8:30]sinking further and further the longer that these the longer these surveys track it. Um and this is people's this is exactly what people think are up to. It might be a bit more colorful. It
[8:40]might be um more outrageous, but unfortunately the public have this idea that politicians and pretty much all politicians are just in it for themselves and elite interests and are up to no good. So if they hear this,
[8:52]they hear Labour brand, they hear Peter Manderson, I think they're going to make their own minds up even if they're jumping to conclusions. >> So Tom, how do you think this is savable for Kia Starmer and his administration? I mean, they're they're making an
[9:03]attempt at transparency and saying, "We'll publish the papers, although they don't want to publish all the papers, and it looks like they're going to be forced into it to some degree." Um, you
[9:12]know, can he save Morgan Mweeny for a start, his right-hand man, who seems to be the one who was really pushing Mandlesson's appointment? Look, one of
[9:22]the frustrating things about a lot of political discussions in podcasts like this is we spend an awful lot of time talking about optics and perceptions.
[9:33]And that's code for avoiding substance. And you know, one of the reasons why I think people are actually alienated by politics is it's an endless discussion about who's up and who's down, what people think about, you know, this what
[9:45]what this focus group says rather than actually outcomes for them in their real lives. No but substance because he is the core of this government. >> Yeah. So so so as I say there are
[9:55]genuine questions which need to be answered about what Downing Street and what K Dharma knew prior to Peter Mandlesson's appointment. If they knew
[10:06]what was already in the public domain but no more then those same questions should be asked by the BBC who thought that Peter Mson was the right choice to be the eminence gre fronting their election. [laughter] They knew more than what was in the
[10:18]public eye at the time, which you have to assume is the case. >> Why? >> Because they're the security services. >> I have limited understanding of vetting process. But what they will do is they
[10:30]will go through everything that's in the public domain. And then they will sit down with the person they're vetting and say, "Is there anything else we need to know? What about this relationship of
[10:39]Epstein?" What we have been told is that Peter Manson lied at that in that that instance. Now, should you be hungry
[10:50]adviser or a prime minister for believing lies told by someone? Now, there's a question I do accept about Peter Madison's record, right? He
[11:00]resigned twice from the last Labor government before he was reappointed and then apparently leaked this sensitive information, which I think is shocking. >> But yeah, I mean, come on. Come on. You
[11:11]must remember you were talking about Oh, no. You must remember the first scandal when he took that loan. >> I agree. That's what I'm just referring to. >> I I used to live I used to live around the corner from Peter Mson in the '9s in in Notting Hill. There goes
[11:23]neighborhood. >> I had this little squat in um Holland Park. Anyway, you'd walk past him every day. Everybody in the press was saying, "This man is toast. He's not honest. He takes loans. That's not how Labour politicians are supposed We were
[11:34]promised something different. It was 97. We were promised a better kind of person." and the and the prince of darkness was taking was just dodgy and everybody said he's not going to last
[11:46]and he would come out and stretch on his front doorstep and pick up his newspaper and I kept passing him thinking he doesn't look like a man who's taken this seriously and he doesn't look like a man who's not going to last. Now the problem
[11:57]with Peter Mandlesson is his complete impunity absolute you know he always said he's completely tefloncoated he he he never gives up but by gives up he
[12:08]means he's unshameable and everybody knew that. So why are we sitting here having this argument about whether whether K did the right thing or the wrong thing about a vetting meeting it was really obvious what kind of man we
[12:19]were dealing with >> was I mean you know you you you've put a case as to why it shouldn't be um pointed at stalma uh and downing street but given what Scarlet has said about
[12:30]public opinion and it seems blindingly obvious as well how public opinion is going to go on this the question is how how can he escape this what what should he
[12:41]Well, I I I think what he's done this week in terms of he's moved relatively speedy. I mean, you could argue he could done some things faster, but in terms of, you know, Peter Mansson getting Peter Manson out of the Labour party,
[12:52]getting Pet Manson out of the House of Lords, stripping Peter Madison of his period, stripping Peterson of his membership of the privy council. I mean, all these things are being done. It's right that there's now an investigation into
[13:03]what was known in that vetting process. That seems to me the substantial issue here. And we can talk forever about perceptions and optics, but what the
[13:14]government has to do now is get to the bottom of what was known and let the public know what was known. Now, I the point I make about >> But how do you stop the public blaming the government and say and and and
[13:25]jumping to all those conclusions that Scarlet is talking about that they're all in it for themselves and they're all as bad as each other when we're going to have investigation after investigation, possibly police investigation, possible
[13:37]criminal case. I mean, this is going to go on forever now. It's a good it's a good it's a good piece of advice, I think, in general for the media, for government, for anyone in public life to
[13:47]try and establish facts and stick to facts and try and do substance rather than take decisions on the basis of optics. Now, no,
[13:58]>> saying the word optics as though this is just we're all just being silly and worrying about what things look like. I'm not worrying about what things look like. I'm worrying about somebody who
[14:08]told a known pedophile and sex offender secrets about the British state which were dilitterious to this in time. If they known that then sorry no no [laughter] let me finish my point. Let
[14:19]my finish my point. I'm not talking about optics. I am talking about an immoral man who did not care about the victims of Epstein and did not care about the British national interest. I am talking about a man whose morality
[14:31]has been in question for years. And I'm talking about a party that now is like, "Oh my goodness, I cannot believe Peter lied to my faith." >> Do you think it's possible to separate >> come on
[14:41]>> the sins of Peter Mandlesson from what Tom argues maybe the much lesser sins of this administration? >> There there will be a degree of separation, but I think it's going to be
[14:53]harder for um the government to untangle that than they maybe think at this moment or maybe they do realize that it's going to be that hard. But no, again, I think this is the problem when you have a prime minister whose um sort of approval ratings are in the gutter,
[15:05]which they are, is that people already want to believe the worst about Karma. I find it quite astonishing where I'm focus groups. People read bad intentions into everything he does. And now that's not, you know, so we can talk about optics, but when you're then trying to
[15:16]land messages that matters, you know, even when you're trying to land things that should be popular with voters or things that should at least be uncontroversial, the voters are already suspecting the worst of Karma and coming with that to what what he then tells
[15:27]them. So I think it's going to be very very difficult for him um to really come out of this unscathed. >> It's super interesting that thing about the kind of level of unpopularity and I can't I've read loads of people making
[15:38]quite tangential explanations for it but I nothing's landed. I don't >> I think it's partly the mood of the public. I think if you look you know I don't think that K star's um you know
[15:48]the the steep incline of K star's ratings the the decline rather um is in direct proportion to how badly he has done. I don't think anyone is mentioning that. I think the public are in such an impatient mood and are so distrustful of
[15:59]politicians. But again, this is why the scandal is so dangerous. >> It is bizarre. Party gays and the trust budget and all the rest of it that his popularity is below below them because until this particular scandal erupted,
[16:10]you were thinking, well, he's he's maybe made some mistakes, some political mistakes, but what's he done that was so bad that he was this level of unpopularity? >> Well, I think that's it. And the public the public are, you know, they're hungry for change. They don't think they're
[16:22]getting it. And fundamentally, they think he's dishonest. I was always quite I was quite surprised a few months ago I think maybe even a year ago got one of those word clouds back you know what do you think of karma in a word liar was the biggest word that was quite astonishing to me at the time because
[16:33]we've not really had this examples of um dishonesty as such like we do with Boris Johnson um but that is a perception that he's dishonest that he doesn't mean what he says that he goes back on his word and again this is why something like this is damaging >> but one of the really interesting things
[16:45]about politics at the moment is according to some polls the five most unpopular prime ministers in polling history are in rank order Theresa May Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Richy Suns,
[16:56]Kam each of one, each of them. Yeah. Each of them has broken the previous one's record for unpopularity. Now, >> I think there's something else going on there which goes beyond a a rational
[17:07]assessment of the capabilities and morality of each of those prime ministers. >> Well, I you know, I know why I think Karma does goes back on his word, and that's because that's political, and
[17:18]that's coming from the point of view of the left. I remember the 10 pledges that were extremely leftwing which we were immediately gone back on. But what I don't understand is how that gets onto
[17:29]into the mainstream into the right. I don't understand why reform voters hate him as much as they do. I just don't get it. >> Do do you think this will finish Storm off? It's really really hard to say it
[17:39]is this once once he's finished because you know he was already in freef fall that that that kind of skirmish over whether Burnham could stand in um
[17:48]Girtton and Barton Girtton and Dart um was was you know embarrassing I thought and it showed weakness even though a lot of people thought there was nothing else
[17:58]they could have done. So if it finishes stalma, you could say definitely that was because of Peter Manderson, but you could equally say the damn that he was mortally wounded beforehand >> with apologies to the people of Gorton
[18:09]and Denton. Tom, [laughter] um h how do you stop Labourback benches saying this is it, we've now got to move. >> I think you have to get some sense of
[18:21]proportion on what has actually happened in terms of the scandalous nature of whatever's decisions were. And I think that proportion is lacking in the media coverage at the moment. I think it's
[18:32]lacking on Labour back benches. Now I do think and what I was trying to say to Zoe earlier is that there is a good case that given what we knew about Peter Manderson,
[18:42]it was always going to be a ropey appointment and you know they thought the risks were outweighed by the benefits. But you know, if you look at the interview did with the times yesterday,
[18:54]there are five areas where he's completely at odds with Karma's foreign policy, on China, on Greenland, on a rules-based international on Europe,
[19:04]indeed on Trump. And Peter M started doing this even before he was sacked. He did a speech at Ditchley Park where he basically praised Donald Trump's bombing of Iran. That's not Karma's policy. So
[19:15]for the ambassador to the United States pursuing his own foreign policy in his usual arrogant, high-handed, vain way seems to me that I think by now I think
[19:26]his ambassador would be untenable even without Epstein. So in that sense it was a bad appointment. I agree with you as a bad appointment. What I don't agree is that we should be saying this is the
[19:37]worst ever scandal around Kyama to afflict any prime minister ever when we actually don't know the facts. I don't think anyone saying what Kama has done is the worst scandal you know of our
[19:47]lifetime. I think people are saying the what Mandlesson has done is the biggest scandal and >> in the last Labour government >> but also you know that anyone can remember and the point is it's almost
[19:58]impossible to stop that infecting karma even if karma's sins are relatively small >> but also I don't think it's right to stop it infecting Karma and I just explain why I say that when those of us
[20:10]who said when Mandlesson was appointed this is a this appointment stinks were told grow up because we need a good relationship ship with with um Trump and the implication was only Mandlesson
[20:21]knows how to only Mandlesson is sicopantic enough to give Trump the um treatment that he requires. Right? Which I believe is true. I'm sure nobody else is as sickantic as Peter Mandlesson. And
[20:32]I'm sure nobody else cozies up to somebody who whose values are so completely disgusting in such a convincing way. I can't think of anybody else in Labor who could. But can I just
[20:42]say like if anybody in this circumstance had some absolute values like I don't want a psychopantic relationship with somebody who's kind of like skirting
[20:54]quite close to fascism already. I don't want that relationship with the US even though historically that's the relationship we've had. If anybody had any absolute values here then this wouldn't have happened.
[21:05]>> I don't think you can absolute values there. Well, yeah. I know. But but Tom, maybe maybe you know at some point at some point you say I don't want a sickopantic relationship.
[21:16]I don't have a sickopantic relationship with Russia because you disapprove of its leader. >> So So I agree putting a narcissist obsessed by
[21:26]wealth and power into current DC, Washington DC was a bad idea. It was like putting a sort of, you know, you know, a child a child addicted to chocolate into a sweet shop, right? So,
[21:37]so, so it was a bad idea. I agree. >> Yeah. But that was, but but what you're doing is you're then jumping from there to some fundamental moral judgment that are you're saying
[21:48]you don't want to have a relationship with United States. But if I if we want democracy to be sustained in Europe, we have to have American security guarantis
[21:59]represent my point like that. I did not say no relationship with America, but I just said not a relationship which is so sickopantic that only one man in the country can do it. >> I think it's a slight side issue as to
[22:09]what our relationship should be. I mean the government set a direction and it's not a side belieing [snorts] you Tom it's a it's a bit like you're saying it's so unfair. No
[22:21]>> maybe it is. >> I haven't said that used that phrase once. >> No I know you haven't but but that's that's the impression I'm getting. All I'm saying is we should stick to facts and substance. >> The the facts are that what Karma did wasn't that >> and there's more facts to be disclosed.
[22:33]So let's wait for those facts. My my question to you is really that isn't it obvious that the scale of the Mandlesson scandal is so big that it taints the Labour brand that is almost
[22:45]inescapable for Kstama and Labour backbenches will say we need to do something dramatic to get out of this hole because we can't just hope that
[22:56]people will listen to people like Tom Baldwin and say get a sense of perspective. I I think there are valid criticisms of K Dharma in appointing Peter Manderson. I don't think myself
[23:08]it's a valid criticism to say he should have known what was essentially unknowable because Peter Manson was lying. Right. So so so I'm I'm happy to
[23:17]have a discussion about what is a valid argument that Peter Manson was always going to be a risk. It was always going to go wrong. Everything he's ever done in public life has gone wrong and
[23:27]therefore it was a bad appointment. I just think it's nuts to say he should have known everything that he now knows when essentially it was unknown. That's not the point. >> Nobody's saying that. >> Isn't Isn't the point then you revert to
[23:39]optics and it's not about it's about the political realities that you've already got an incredibly unpopular prime minister. You've already got a party that was thinking of getting rid of him.
[23:49]campaigns well underway uh in in more than one corner and now this which just hangs over the Labour Party brand. You know, how are you going to stop
[24:00]backbenches or how do you think they should stop back benches saying we just need to act now to stop the rot and change the story and give people somebody new to focus on? I think I
[24:10]think the argument that I'd be making is we're what 18 months into a five-year parliament. Labour has a working majority of 160.
[24:22]What really matters to people is actually not the vetting process in Downing Street for this ambassador or that person.
[24:34]It's not which adviser is up and which adviser is down. is not who leaked what to whom. It's not what the lobby think is the important political story of the
[24:44]day. It's actually what's happening in schools, what's happening in hospitals, what's happening in econom and what's happening in the world. And this is a really dangerous fragile moment for the
[24:53]world. It is really I'm I'm scared. And the idea that you know the Labour Party goes back staring at its naval by think about a leadership contest because Andy
[25:04]Bernard wants to be an MP or something like that. You know, like you nuts, right? They should get on with governing. They should get on with the really hard yards of actually trying to bring change to real people's lives in a
[25:15]real way rather than getting constantly tied up in this inside Westminster addiction to chaos crisis. This idea
[25:27]that we have to change prime minister every year or two years because the lobby says so. It's it's it's it's it's one of the reasons why people hate politics and feel alienated by politics because it's just about politicians, not about their lives.
[25:39]>> Is there any evidence that changing the leader would make any difference >> to popularity? >> No, there's not. >> And and any of the characters who are left now, which is basically what Angela
[25:49]Raina where streeting >> and whoever else wants to throw their hat in the ring, you know that that they would be given a chance any more than Kristana has been. >> No, I mean I think two apparently contradictory things about this at the
[26:00]same time. Firstly, I think that Karma's brand is irreoverable with the public for some of the reasons we've just been discussed. And I think the public have firmly made up their mind on Karma. And I think the problem Karma has there is
[26:11]just how disliked he is by voters on the left as well as voters on the right. So he lost the sort of Labor to reform voters a while ago that, you know, conservative voters don't like him. None of that is really a surprise to people,
[26:21]but it's the the the extent to which your voters that have deserted the Labour party to the left dislike him and even the ones that are sticking on board with Labor, their sort of lukewarm feeling towards him. I I think it's a
[26:32]really really big problem for the prime minister. And I do struggle to see how if your Labor, especially if the big, you know, if the big tactic is to rally a vote to stop Farage, to stop reform, which probably is as things look at the moment, the best tactic that Labour
[26:44]could come up with, um that it's really difficult to rally behind someone, you know, rally people behind someone who's so unpopular. Um it's just you're off to a really hard start. And um but that being said, there's no evidence anyone
[26:55]would do any better. Tom's already mentioned that uh what how the last few prime ministers have fared and the fact that each one of them have seen um similar falls in ratings. I do think it is difficult to see how anyone survives
[27:06]contact with the electorate, especially in this very difficult position that Labor are in and all the different people they have to try and keep happy and the state the country in. It's a really really difficult job. Um, >> so so does that mean it's unreoverable?
[27:18]>> No, I I don't necessarily think it's unreoverable and we've got a long way to go. I mean, think about, you know, it's been under two years. We've got more than three years to go. Imagine what else might happen. You know, it's been it's been an absolutely jam-packed 18 months. But I do think this is why
[27:29]things like the Gorton and Denton bi-election could actually be uh even more hazardous for Karma than than this current scandal. >> But to Tom's point about the things that actually matter to people's lives
[27:40]>> from your focus groups, if Labor improves the National Health Service, if they make incremental changes to education, public services, people feel a little bit better off,
[27:51]>> you know, when it comes to their energy bills. Is is that kind of change enough to yeah >> change the political weather? >> I think the key word there was incremental. So I think Labour very cleverly campaigned for change in 2024.
[28:03]I think that was absolutely the right thing to do. However, they were not specific about what the change was and how they were going to get there and the public wanted widescale quick moving change which probably impossible to pay for but they were but exact well quite
[28:14]and there's lots of contradictions in public opinion. What the public did not vote for was actually very slow and steady incremental change no matter what they told pollsters. [laughter] Yeah. And I think this is the problem is and again I said 3 years is a long time but
[28:26]it's actually not that long to try and convince the public of these. You know the public are looking for huge sweeping changes to their lives to get better and they're in that sort of mood where it's going to be quite hard to sell them
[28:36]incremental change. >> I think the key word Scott used there that that public want these contradictory things. They want impossible change. And I think one of
[28:48]the reasons why Kia seems to work better on the international stage is he can he's out there pursuing our national interest. I think pursuing actually recognizable British values and his
[28:59]values in a very dangerous situation trying to make it a bit better. I think you could apply that to domestic politics as well. Rather than saying you've got the silver bullet, rather than saying you've got some new magic formula which is going to change
[29:11]people's lives fundamentally in a massive way immediately. You can say look it is really difficult. You've got failing public services. You've got failing public finance. You got failing public trust. That's what they inherited. And in that frame, they're
[29:21]going to try and make better decisions than the Tories, fairer decisions than the Tories. They're going to try and make things a bit better. And they're definitely not going to make things much, much worse. And in the end,
[29:30]politics is a choice between you may not like everything about Karma Labor, but do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Farad with his Putin supporting
[29:42]mates? That's the point, isn't it, Zoe? That every every time you jump up and down on Karma's >> on's grave, >> aren't you actually just helping put Nigel Farage?
[29:52]>> I was actually trying to put myself on mute in real life just then, just cuz I was so desperate to jump in. Um, look, the the this argument doesn't work. I we had this argument in September when
[30:04]Angela Raina had a huge scandal and you were saying take your medicine. If wouldn't you rather get behind Karma than have Nigel Farage in charge? Now you you will never persuade me to take
[30:15]to to just suck up uh the depradations of the of a Labor government in order to prevent the to prevent the incursions of the far right because I look at the Labor government and they quite often
[30:26]are mimicking Nigel Farage. They quite often are mimicking Cammy Badnock. A lot of the language Shabbana Mimmude comes out with makes me feel sick to my stomach. Now I personally, and it's just me, I don't speak as a columnist. I'm
[30:37]talking as a voter. I will never take that. I will never swallow it. And when Nigel Farage gets in and you blame me, I'll be standing here blaming you. But even if I would take it, the electorate
[30:49]is done with it. Nobody's saying, "Okay, let's take incremental change. I've never seen a bit of rea relegate regulation that I don't want to add to
[30:58]star. Um, let's take that over because the far right is more of a threat." People are done with that kind of logic and they're going to go Zach Palansky. They just are. Well, I would just say that Zoe does sound like an awful lot of
[31:09]the voters that get on the left of the spectrum in my focus group. Awful person. >> No, not at all. But that been that have been saying this for months. And I think this is why Gordon Denton is actually such a threat to some. Maybe not even in the immediate term, but in the long
[31:20]term. It's a bit of a pre um it's a curtain raiser and what we might expect from the 2029 election in that we know there's a potential for a progressive tactical vote out there. We saw that in the carey by election in Wales that successfully stopped reform that was
[31:32]rallying behind Clyde Camru. Crucially, that involved really squashing the Labor vote right down. The problem for Labor is what if the Greens successfully make the case in Gon and Denton, which is not somewhere they have a huge footprint,
[31:43]not somewhere they have um, you know, business in actually doing incredibly well. What if the Greens substantially make the case there that they are the best ones to take on reform? That is a whole new problem for Labor. I sort of agree that that I agree with both of you
[31:54]on this that that for Labor to rebuild a coalition of left and center left voters, it needs to tell a center-left
[32:05]story. And I think there's lots of great things this government's been doing, but quite often it's been sort of sheep dressed as wolf. has been trying to present [laughter] quite standard social
[32:15]democratic things as a sort of scary kind of almost right-wing insurgent thing to do as as if as if they're not interested in the people who always voted Labor. They're interested in the people on the other side of the wall of
[32:26]voting reform. And you know, Labour have lost three times as many votes to progressive parties than it has to reform. I've never understood a political strategy which means they just chase after the the latter rather than
[32:35]former. It it makes no sense to me. And so I I think there's an absence of a story about the prime minister. There's an absent story about the government, about the country and the world, which
[32:46]would help join all the bullet points, join the dots of the policies that they're doing. They need to tell a story about where we're trying to go, what
[32:56]we're trying to do, which will allow people to make that choice between them and the really scary prospect of the kind of populist farright government we've never seen before in this country.
[33:07]That's that's that's that's that's the political strategy that they need to do. There is there has been far too much time doing, you know, immigration announcements to make themselves look a bit like reform or trying to contest that same territory. I don't think it's
[33:19]doing them any good. I think it's doing them harm. >> And do you think they can ultimately separate Mandles from the Labour brand? >> Um but there is endless people who have
[33:29]been thrown out of a political party and thrown out of politics because of scandals. I don't think that destroys the Labour Party or necessarily taints everyone in the Labor Party with the
[33:41]same sins that Peter Mansson committed. >> But he's not a normal politician. >> He's not a normal politician in many many ways. Yeah. He'd been sacked multiple times. He kept popping back up.
[33:52]I was surprised he popped back again this time. I know as a matter of fact had some reservations about appointing him and those reservations were
[34:01]overcome. Um, but it, you know, >> I just say again, you there Zoe condemned it at the time. Well done. Yeah. >> But, but there are lots of people now.
[34:13]Sound like you're being sarcastic. >> I'm not being I'm really I'm not being sarcastic. I'm I am saying generally well done because a lot of the people now who are saying it was obvious all along, it was always a scandal, didn't
[34:24]regard it as such at the time. >> Can I just say so something though, Tom? You sound like you do politics by AI. You're like, "Well, nobody can possibly have known that thing because that person lied." And until that person
[34:35]stops lying, the truth can never be known. Well, it's it's the kind of thing a computer would say. >> No, it's a logical sequence. >> It's it it is logical, but a lot of people do know what they're dealing with and knew what they were dealing with for
[34:47]ages with Peter Mandlesson. You know, you don't actually So, he can lie to your face and you can be able to sniff it out. >> Tom Baldwin, Scarlett McGuire, Zoe Williams, thank you all very much indeed. That's it for this episode of
[34:58]the forecast. Until next time. Bye-bye.