[0:00]Chris, it's a slightly later recording of newscast. We're sitting down at quart 7 on Wednesday the 4th of February. >> Yes. And not quite in the sort of Brexit cast sort of half 11 or half midnight or
[0:10]whatever. But there's a you know we we've awaited for a parliamentary process to reach its conclusion, haven't we? >> Although there was an opposition party using a parliamentary procedure called a humble address to compel the government to publish things that it initially
[0:22]hadn't wanted to publish. So actually it does have quite a Brexit cast feel to it. their dear newscaster is Adam's tone of voice taking on a uh a thing that just creates ringbinders in my mind.
[0:32]>> Exactly. Also, so actually Chris, just so I'm clear in my mind about what's happened today, I think we've got two things now. One, there is a process for the government now releasing all its
[0:42]documents that it generated while vetting Peter Mandlesen and deciding whether he should be appointed ambassador in Washington, although it's quite a convoluted process that's been invented here.
[0:52]>> Yes. So in essence exactly that um where the conservatives used a technique that we can get into when we're properly uh up and running. Uh and it means that in
[1:04]time the government is going to publish some documents but not immediately certainly not today as we record on uh Wednesday not least because the police have said hang on we're doing an inquiry so be careful. >> And the subplot or the second point is
[1:15]that Kier Starmer's authority amongst his own colleagues has taken another big knock. It has and I've been actually surprised at how black the mood is now amongst quite a few Labour MPs.
[1:26]>> All to be discussed on this episode of newscast. Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio >> and it is Chris at Westminster >> and we will be talking to Laura Kay later on or well I spoke to her earlier today because she's got a new
[1:37]documentary out on I player about Reform UK and I also wanted to pick her brains about the whole Mandlesson story because she has been reporting on Peter
[1:47]Manderson for a very very long time. Uh right Chris so I think we should maybe just do today chronologically because that's probably the easiest way to understand it. Uh the first big moment
[1:57]was at prime minister's questions midday and basically the mood at that point was well it was one where the government had
[2:06]said it was going to it was willing to publish stuff documents that it had in its possession relating to the whole business of uh the appointment of Lord
[2:16]Mandlesson as the ambassador in Washington. Then you have PMQs and I was told in advance, you know, we could expect the prime minister to be uh pretty punchy and you know he was and
[2:28]and here's the contrast for newscasters who heard the last edition and that joke a year ago that the prime minister cracked at Lord Mandlesson's expense in
[2:38]the British embassy in Washington referring to him by his first name. There was lots of bonomy and joviality and all the rest of it. Fast forward 11 months because that was at the tail end
[2:48]of February last year and the kind of spitting language and tone of Kia Starmer at lunchtime on Wednesday. >> And here is Kier Starmer doing that in
[2:59]response to a question from Kimmy Bonok. >> I am as angry as the public and any member of this house. Mandles betrayed our country, our
[3:09]parliament and my party. Mr. speaker. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship
[3:18]with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been
[3:29]anywhere near government. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the cabinet secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to
[3:39]the police. and there is now a criminal investigation. I've instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandlesson of his title and wider legislation to remove
[3:51]disgraced peers. >> And this morning, I've agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandlesson should be removed from the list of privy
[4:02]counselors on grounds that he's brought the reputation of the privy council into disrepute. >> So, yeah, Chris, a few things there. um just the use of the surname, no full
[4:12]name or lord, um the word betrayal, which again is quite a big word to use in the House of Commons, and the repeated use of the L-word lies.
[4:23]>> Yeah. I mean, this this is a prime minister who doesn't like to use superlatives. He is he is moderate in his use of language as his holding
[4:32]position. He also doesn't like to be emotional, I don't think, in in public. doesn't find that particularly easy. It it is it is clearly easier when you are
[4:43]authentically boiling with anger, which he is, and plenty of senior labor figures are, particularly those who've known Lord Mandlesson for a long time, who kind of get that he is a particular
[4:54]character, that he's a risky pick for for jobs. His CV bears that out, but who have found these latest revelations, both the ones a few months ago that led
[5:03]to his sacking and then these ones now, as just on another level. and even saying another level doesn't really do them do them justice.
[5:13]>> And then Kem Benedino continued kind of probing what the prime minister had known when about Peter Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And then she elicited what some people have described as a bit of a revelation from
[5:24]him. But here's here's how it played out in the comments. >> I am asking the prime minister something very specific not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the prime
[5:34]minister tell us did the official security vetting he received mention Mandlesson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
[5:44]>> So clear prime minister. >> Yes it did. A >> as a as a result various questions were
[5:54]put to him. I intend to disclose to this house all of the the national security prejudice to international relations on one side. I want to make sure that I
[6:05]want to make sure this house sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which the extent to which time and time again Mandlesson
[6:16]completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process including in response to the due diligence.
[6:27]Now, Chris, help me understand this here because I was under the impression that Kier Starmer knew that Peter Mandlesson had had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and that that friendship had
[6:38]continued after Epstein had been released from prison in in in the US in 2009. But why did that that statement from Star there provoke ooze from MPs who thought they'd heard something new
[6:50]there? I think it did provoke ooze because firstly they thought this is a kind of exchange and a acknowledgement from the prime minister that will have a
[7:00]certain certain amount of legs if you like as a clip on social media and um elsewhere. Secondly, it it confirmed on camera uh
[7:10]that the prime minister uh knew of the association and for many that was sufficient grounds without any further evidence to have never considered him uh
[7:20]to be to the appointment of the uh of the job in uh Washington. I think it is also fair to say uh that implicitly it's
[7:30]been assumed for ages that the prime minister knew of what was already in the public domain about the relationship between the friendship between Epstein and Lord uh and Lord Mandlesson. It
[7:42]would have been more revelatory, it seems to me, just to run the counterfactual if presented with that question, the prime minister had said no. They had absolutely no idea at all
[7:52]because then then the the clear follow-up would have been, well, surely that's a complete lack of curiosity given what you could have found if you'd gone on to Google basically. Um, so I think it's important to acknowledge that
[8:04]implicitly we had assumed what the prime minister acknowledged out loud today. Um but at a moment where he is in a very
[8:12]very tight spot around his judgment, you know, his opponents clearly saw that as a um as as if not a revelation than an important thing to to secure on camera
[8:24]on the record. >> Yeah. It was a moment of clarity that then meant in the very long debate that came afterwards, opposition MP after opposition MP and a few Labour MPs could
[8:34]then say, "Well, hang on though. what what is the threshold for a friendship with a convicted pedophile that means you wouldn't get hired at all? Uh and and that that statement or that answer
[8:44]from Star opened the door to that that kind of rhetorical device in the debate. Okay. So then we get into the debate and what was happening here was it was an opposition day debate which is where the conservatives sometimes it's the Lib
[8:55]Dems um or the other parties get control of the parliamentary order paper. They made the subject of the debate this afternoon uh a humble address which is a mechanism that would force the
[9:05]government to publish all the documents uh as part of Lord Mandlesson's vetting and the the conservative motion had a lot of documents including messages between special advisers and government
[9:16]departments that they wanted to see. the government proposed an amendment to that that said, well, we we reserve the right to hold stuff back if there's national security implications or kind of
[9:27]diplomatic implications for the UK's relationship with other countries. But that provoked fireworks, not just from the conservatives, but also loads of Labour MPs as well. They they they then said that stinks of a cover up.
[9:38]>> Yeah, completely that. So th this is what I think has led to this kind of more black mood amongst more Labor MPs as we record uh on Wednesday evening
[9:49]than than I must admit I would have anticipated uh today at the beginning of today. And I think the reason for that is this recurring sense from plenty of
[9:59]Labour MPs of having to defend the indefensible as they see it. But then also with this story in particular because that sense is an accumulation of
[10:10]lots of moments where the government's about turned or or they've had to defend something that then the government's changed it mind on or whatever with the specific on this there was just given the gravity of what we've discovered in
[10:22]the last few days. this sense from Labour MPs are already being hammered by, you know, anyone who they seek to talk to along the lines of why on earth did your government appoint this guy as
[10:31]the ambassador that they did not want to be seen to be being in any sense sort of lethargic or slow to being as candid or
[10:42]open as is possible to be around this whole thing and to put as much distance as they possibly can between Lord
[10:51]Mandlesson and them. So, the Conservative motion asked for a huge amount of of of information. The government's argument was was
[11:02]three-fold. We're happy to reveal stuff on three uh conditions. One is that it doesn't get in the way of national security. Two, that it doesn't imperil international relationships. That means the relationship with the Trump
[11:12]administration given that the traffic, if you like, around all of this is going to be about London and Washington and Donald Trump and all the rest of it, given the job that uh Peter Mandlesson did. And three, and they sought to use
[11:23]this as a reassurance exercise with MPs, but it didn't work. Uh that this would not be a political decision about who um which documents were released and which weren't. It would be overseen by the cabinet secretary, the country's most
[11:35]senior civil servant, and some other legal officials within government. Fast forward a handful of hours, it became pretty clear almost immediately really that the government was that was just
[11:45]not enough. It just wasn't enough. And by that I mean it wasn't enough for Labor MPs because remember Labour's got a majority. So the opposition parties can can make all sorts of noises and and often do so effectively and with passion
[11:57]and with zeal and all the rest of it, but numerically, you know, they're in a minority. It was clear uh within um it was clear within the commons on Labour's
[12:06]benches from actually early on Angela Raina, former deputy prime minister, standing up and saying publicly, look, let's get the intelligence and security committee involved here. Now, let me
[12:17]explain that. That is a cross party group of MPs and peers >> who have additional security clearance to examine things that can't be seen in public but it is parliamentarians
[12:29]politicians rather than officials and it includes people from opposition parties and the government has conceded on that. So the the ISC as it's known is a
[12:38]shorthand here will oversee that process which means that politicians who are savvy around around material that is private for good reasons or so the state
[12:49]concludes is for good reasons is going to oversee this. Um uh the government is frankly really worried that that might mean that politics intervenes and that
[12:59]stuff that could jeopardize the relationship between London and Washington ends up in the public domain as a result of this whole Mandlesson route. >> And also it's just a big job
[13:09]>> just practical level for these MPs to scan all these documents and work out if something is is able to be put in the public domain. >> It's a massive job because the breadth and the breadth and scale of it is is uh
[13:20]significant. And then on top of that, the additional twist that came at about 6:00 on Wednesday evening is a new statement from the Metropolitan Police because the government had intended to
[13:30]publish some of this material today. Uh the Metropolitan Police saying, "Look, we are investigating Lord Mandlesson." And some of this material that could very easily have quickly been published,
[13:42]we think could potentially be prejuditial to any future legal proceedings involving the case that they're looking into. Um, and let's not get ahead of ourselves, but the police are, you know, clearly beginning an
[13:53]inquiry into uh, Lord Mandlesson, and they think that it wouldn't be a good idea for that to be published. Um, and the government accepts that. So, it's
[14:04]running parallel to alongside, if you like, this whole political process is one of the police saying, well, look, we're doing we are looking we're pursuing a criminal inquiry here. Uh,
[14:15]therefore, um, don't start, um, presenting stuff. uh out there in public that could get in the way of that. I'm told, by the way, that the prime minister was intending to be much more
[14:26]specific at prime minister's questions than he was. And it was advice from the police that led to a hasty rewrite of what he did say. One other thing I should mention, Adam, is that I was at a briefing at lunchtime after PMQs about
[14:38]the whole business of, you know, what happens when you appoint someone to be ambassador to Washington. And there's two things that happen. Um, one is that
[14:47]there is a an initial process of due diligence that is effectively a examination of what's already in the public domain around someone's character and suitability for the for the uh role
[14:58]in terms of um in terms of their background. It it g it's a glorified Googling session basically. Secondary to that, after the appointment is is is is
[15:09]out there and has been confirmed, um is this process of developed vetting, which is a process that crawls all over all sorts of aspects of your life. It's
[15:19]pretty u intrusive and but only a very narrow band of officials um see the outcome of that because it is incredibly personally intrusive. It's all about trying to ensure that you can't be
[15:30]blackmailed, for instance. Um and it's pretty much a binary outcome. The outcome of that is either it's fine or it isn't. There are some circumstances where it can be fine if there are
[15:41]certain mitigations. But the details of that don't go to ministers and they don't go to the prime minister because of just how um uh personally invasive um it is. And clearly we know we don't know
[15:53]the specifics but we know that the outcome of that process was that Lord Mandlesson went to Washington. I think the important thing to remember here, and this just was really ringing in my ears as I was listening to this
[16:02]debate this afternoon, every time a Labour MP, including, as you said, people like the former deputy leader Angela Rener, said, "Oh, we should get the intelligence and security committee of the of the House of Commons involved
[16:13]in kind of screening this material." that was implying subtextually that they didn't trust their own prime minister and Downing
[16:24]Street to release the whole story. >> Yeah, it's >> and it's like nobody said that explicitly on the labor benches, but that is the implication of saying let's get the ISC involved.
[16:35]>> It is exactly the implication. It is precisely uh precisely that. And it is also an implication just to take it one notch further from those Labour MPs who
[16:45]articulated a desire for the ISC to be involved is that they put greater trust in a crossparty group of their peers by which I mean MPs and members of the
[16:57]House of Lords including those that therefore by definition who are politically opposed to the government rather than if you like the bowels of the state uh invol including the cabinet
[17:08]secretary and you heard in PMQs. Quite a passionate defense from the prime minister about what he felt was a sort of implicit criticism of the integrity of the uh cabinet secretary as opposed
[17:19]to, you know, when that was being proposed as the as the as the mechanism for uh for doing this. >> And Chris, have you heard yet from Lord Mandlesson on the record officially? >> No.
[17:30]>> Well, that's that then. Um I mean what we understand though about his take on all of this is that he's not acted in any way criminally and he was not motivated at any point by financial gain. That's the gist that we have of what he feels about this.
[17:42]>> Yeah, absolutely that and I think he is now uh aware in addition to you what was our understanding of where
[17:52]he where he where his sort of mind was in response to all of this 24 hours ago. I think he is now obviously aware that the context is one of a police investigation. Um, which in in this in
[18:04]these kind of instances often leads those caught up in them to be even more reticent about what they say publicly. >> Do you know what? Now that we've sat down and sort of taken a breath from
[18:14]today's news, I'm just thinking back to the end of the the so-called winding up speech, which is the last speech um given by the minister um in the debate before the MPs vote. although in this case they actually didn't vote because
[18:25]everyone agreed this is what should happen and it's a guy called Chris Ward who used to be like a quite close aid to to Star kind of behind the scenes and he was just listing the things the government had already done this week
[18:37]and each one is quite a sort of jaw-dropping thing to have happened but of course everyone's just moved on from those things like agreeing with the king that Lord Mandlesson would be removed from the privy council which is that
[18:48]select group of of people who advise the monarch that's quite a big deal and Even just back to yesterday, Tuesday, the government giving permission to the Cabinet Office to give material to the
[19:00]police that could trigger a criminal investigation into somebody who less than a year ago was one of the government's most high-profile figures. >> Like all of those things are huge and they just happened in in the last 36
[19:12]hours and we get we move on from them to all of all the stuff that happened today. >> Yeah. and and one where we and we've seen this continuing today uh where Downing Street incredibly conscious that
[19:23]its back is against the wall around all of this. Let's be clear the prime minister's had you know one of his toughest days today. um uh that they are
[19:33]responding on the record. So in you know in a way where we can quote them directly every time there's a development in all of this such as the desperation to put this vast gap between
[19:43]them um and uh Peter Mandlesson given that they volunteered that there wouldn't be a vast gap because they appointed him to the job in Washington. keeps circling back uh to that and is
[19:54]now becoming a the latest of many sticks, if you like, that the prime minister's critics on his own side are using to beat him with. >> And not to make it sound like there's about to be an imminent leadership
[20:05]challenge against Kier Starmer, but the fact it was Angela Rainer sort of leading the charge from the backbenches to get the government to where they've ended up tonight feels a bit leadership
[20:16]challengy to create a new horrible word. >> Yeah. Yeah. and and and there is a sense of that as we record at half 7 on on Wednesday evening. There is a there is a I I think you know you you're absolutely
[20:26]right to make that point and there is a sense of where does the prime minister go from here with this uh lingering in the air. Now what I can tell you is uh
[20:36]on Thursday so tomorrow he's going to be uh out and about uh giving a speech talking about this this theme he's constantly trying to get back to and he constantly gets buffeted away from cost
[20:47]of living. Um and um no doubt we'll face a gazillion questions about Mandlesson, Lord Mandlesson, Epstein etc. um etc
[20:58]etc. It's a perilous it's perilous is a perilous moment this for the prime minister. No doubt about it. M and we've given Danielle a Ralph, our royal correspondent an evening off from newscasting today, but there's been a few other royal developments as well,
[21:10]not least Andrew Mountbasson Windsor, has finally, I'm going to say, been moved out because I can imagine it maybe wasn't that voluntary from Royal Lodge, his big house in Windsor Great Park.
[21:20]He's temporarily moving to somewhere else on the way to moving to Sandringham. So that's and there's also more combing of the Epstein files being done as well and all sorts of other claims and things emerging from that.
[21:32]Right, Chris? Thank you very much. >> Terra, >> now I'm guessing Chris will not have time tonight to tune in to Laura Kay's new documentary that she's been working on for months and months and months
[21:42]about Reform UK. But I did have time to watch a sneak preview of it, although you can now watch it because it's on Player 2 for everyone. And then this afternoon at about 2:00, I had a chat
[21:53]with Laura uh about the documentary because it's it's worth digging into some of the stuff that she uncovered. And also we started the conversation by just getting her take on the Peter
[22:04]Mandlesson story because of course her and Patty were covering it on Sunday when we'd had some revelations from the Epstein files but not all of the revelations that we've been grappling with this week. So here is the conversation I had with Laura on
[22:14]Wednesday afternoon at 2 p.m. Laura. Hello. >> Hello Adam. >> And people's ears are not deceiving them. It is not Saturday or Sunday. It's Wednesday the 4th of February. Yeah. Um,
[22:26]we will talk about your documentary which I watched a couple of hours ago and very much enjoyed in a second. But first of all, um, the Peter Mandlesson story or Mandlesson as the prime minister referred to him in prime minister's questions today. Uh, we got
[22:37]your take on it where it was on Sunday. Obviously, a lot has happened since then. Where's your head at now? >> On Sunday, this was a story that was incredibly embarrassing and damaging for Peter Manderson's own reputation. It
[22:49]gave more pause for thought and concern around Kier Starman's judgment about giving him the job in the first place. But now we're into a completely
[22:59]different realm. I have to say it's not just that Peter Randles had huge questions to answer about his decisions around his social life and his links with a convicted pedophile, many of
[23:10]which had been gone over before. It's not just that there were questions about payments between him and Jeffrey Epstein, which emerged in the early hours of Sunday. There are now a paper
[23:22]trail of questions of a member of Gordon Brown's cabinet given commercially sensitive uh information to the banking sector during the very moment of an
[23:32]international financial crisis. It's astonishing. And I was talking to somebody uh about this this morning, talking to one of my contacts. This is an absolute scandal of epic proportion.
[23:43]And even those people who had questioned the wisdom of bringing Peter Mandlesson back into government, not just to become American ambassador, but people who questioned the wisdom of Gordon Brown bringing him back to do that job, would
[23:54]have had absolutely no idea that this was all going on. So, I mean, I think it's just taken on an incredibly toxic life of its own and it's very, very difficult for the government to manage
[24:05]it without question. And also just doing a little bit of kind of retrospective stuff. I was a very very baby journalist at Westminster when Peter Manderson came back in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. You were much more
[24:16]experienced than me then. But he was so >> a lot less experienced than I am now. >> Yeah. He was so central to that bit of that government, wasn't he? >> Oh, he was. I mean, he was regarded as the sort of deputy prime minister,
[24:27]>> you know, for context for those who are lucky enough to be a lot younger than I am. You know, at that moment, Gordon Brown, having in the end managed to get the keys to number 10 and moved next door when Tony Blair was eventually
[24:38]forced out, um he almost from the moment he moved in was somebody who struggled with some aspects of being prime minister. And Peter Mandlesson was brought back therefore as a sort of Mr.
[24:49]Fixit. you know, the guy with the cunning, the guy with the guile, the guy who could come back in and give Gordon Brown's government a story, who could come and give Gordon Brown's government
[24:59]some more uh political expertise and perhaps a bit of political polish. I mean, what does that sound like? A government that looked to Peter Mandlesson to give them a bit more political guile and a bit of more
[25:10]political expertise, you know, and he was seen as a sort of Mr. Fix It at that point. It's well worth knowing that there were questions absolutely about him being brought back into government
[25:21]at this point and there were always people who looked at him in white hole and sort of thought you've just got to be careful because this often ends in tears. That's not to doubt the fact that
[25:32]in many regards he had incredible political expertise and experience but he was therefore you know a big big player um in Gordon Brown's government.
[25:42]Um he of course is absolutely horrified. Other people who were in government then are absolutely horrified. And you know it's one thing to imagine that Peter
[25:54]Madison had lots of contacts and he might have you know whispered this here and whispered it there with the benefit of getting information back in if you see what I mean from contacts. That sort
[26:04]of two-way street of how political communication can work. But the idea that he was passing classified market sensitive information outside the government at a moment of genuine
[26:15]genuine crisis, I have to say I just think it's absolutely astonishing. I really really do. And you know over the years I've covered a lot of things, a
[26:25]lot of episodes of politicians misdeeds, a lot of episodes of politicians mistakes, a lot of things that you kind of think, "Oh my goodness, I can't believe they did that." that whether it was, you know, Chris Hume being alleged
[26:37]to have got his wife to take his speeding points or Boris Johnson discussing tax changes with Dyson, the Hoover entrepreneur. You know, there've been a lot of things that have popped up
[26:48]where politicians mistakes and misdeeds have caught up with them or emerged into the public glare and caused a lot of outrage. But I think in all the years that I've been doing these kinds of jobs
[26:57]and around the place, this for me, this is definitely one of the most shocking, if not the most shocking episodes. And I don't say that lightly. >> No, no, of course not. And I was just going to say that that a lot of those
[27:09]other stories, they they follow a bit of a story arc where there's a kind of inevitability to them about what's going to happen. This does not feel like that. This feels like it could go in multiple directions that it's very hard to
[27:21]predict. >> Oh, completely. you know, there's a police investigation. Who knows that what will what that will turn up. Um, there could be yet more coming out of these files. There could be all sorts of
[27:31]legal legal suits to follow still in the states. So, I think it's incredibly uh hard and it would be incredibly daft to predict. All I'll say is we did me and Patty did say at the weekend is who
[27:41]knows what happens next. But look, there is a scenario where this takes a few more pieces out of the already very wobbly Jenga tower to, you know, the
[27:51]metaphor that you know and newscasters know that I love to use. You know, Kier Sarma's leadership is not in a solid place right now. That was not the case
[28:02]uh last week before this all blew up. That was not the case the week before. It was not the case the week before or the week before. And the focus is again very much on his chief of staff, Morgan
[28:13]Mcweeny, and whether or not his backing and his desire to see Peter Mandlesson in that job will ultimately cost him his
[28:22]own. And people have asked before and if that comes to pass, they will ask again. Is there a project Kier Starmer without Morgan Mcweeny behind it? Um so the
[28:33]political damage for Downey Street could be absolutely enormous. That said, there are other eventualities who here, you know, we just we just do not know. But can you imagine a world in
[28:45]which texts or WhatsApps between Peter Manderson and Morgan Mweeny come into the public domain? Who knows what would be in them? I'm not saying I know what would be in them, but the question of the prime minister's judgment and
[28:56]particularly the judgment of his chief of staff who already has a target on his back um for many Labour MPs, those are once more back in the frame even though
[29:07]they are about the mistakes, the terrible mistakes made by somebody else um who they believe betrayed them, let them down, as you've already talked with
[29:17]Chris about in terms of what happened in Parliament. Um to hear a prime minister stand at the dispatch box and say he lied and lied and lied
[29:26]>> um was quite something but you know there there is not enough distance in the world that Kier summer could put between him and Peter Manderson right now. >> Um and we should remind newscasters that
[29:36]Peter Mandlesson has not responded to requests for comment on these specific allegations. But the BBC understands his position is that he has not acted in any way criminally and that he's not motivated by financial gain. At least
[29:48]that's our understanding of how he >> That is our understanding. But it's also worth saying, you know, we spoke to him a couple of weeks ago um to hear what he thought about what Donald Trump was up to, but also to ask him tricky questions
[30:00]for the first time about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. You know, we spoke to him because it was the first time we'd been able to put those questions to him since he'd been sacked. And he sat there and he said he didn't
[30:11]know anything about Jeffrey Epstein, the sexual side of his life. messages published now show them laughing and joking about some elements of that which if you've seen them some people will
[30:21]find to have been incredibly distasteful. Um we know now about his very extensive discussion of business matters and
[30:31]finance and again he said oh I told Downing Street everything and essentially was you know nothing else to know. Those are things that he's previously saying on the record with
[30:40]which recent re revelations make look uh stretchy >> to say the least. >> Right now let's come on to your
[30:50]documentary about reform which is on BBC 2 and available on i Player. I highly recommend it. Five stars out of five. Um thanks. Now >> you're a tough critic. >> Yeah. Well, I mean I was always going to
[31:02]give it five, wasn't I? But it's a genuine five. Um, what is interesting though is it doesn't start off like whiz bang mega scoop drama drama drama. It starts off with you having a conversation basically with the viewer
[31:13]explaining why you wanted to do this and also the grief that you get as a journalist from people who think you're giving Nigel Farah too much publicity. Thought that was a very intriguing way but also very authentic and honest way
[31:24]of starting it. >> Oh, that's interesting. I mean I think look we do live in an era right where sometimes people find it uh objectionable to hear things uh that they don't like to hear or find it
[31:35]objectionable to hear from people who they don't like. Um and yeah that's interesting you picked that out. I mean I think particularly with Nigel Farage if people haven't watched it yet it is maybe it's worth saying and we felt it
[31:47]was worth putting in the film with a politician uh of his nature it is true absolutely that people say ah you shouldn't speak to him you shouldn't put him on TV you're giving him a platform
[31:59]well if the public is telling us that his party reform is their preferred option for government and they've been telling us that for many many many many
[32:07]many months it is surely our duty as journal journalists to ask questions of that party and also to understand frankly what is going on because whether
[32:18]you love them or loathe them and I know that there are people who feel very strongly both ways. Reform has already pulled off something absolutely extraordinary which is they were on the fringes. They were pretty
[32:29]tiny and they have been absolutely whacking our traditional political parties around the chops in the polls for nearly a year now or it is actually it's roughly a year since the first poll
[32:40]put them ahead. >> Um so even if you don't like them or indeed if you think that they are amazing and they get a rough ride from the media, the idea that we should just, you know, put our fingers in our ears
[32:51]and not try to understand what's going on, um I I I think then we're not doing our jobs. Anyway, newscasters, let us know what you think. I'm sure you will because people do have strong views on this. >> And the subtitle of the program is ready
[33:02]to rule. And actually, we're seeing >> question mark question mark. Yes. Uh very, very important audio edition there. Um how do we do punctuation on podcast? That's an interesting we should set up a working group to address that.
[33:14]Um yeah, ready to rule. Yeah. >> And there's an area where they are ruling, which is Kent County Council having won control of that in the the English local elections last year. What do you make of just how that how that's
[33:26]going? It's not been entirely plain sailing for them. >> No, it hasn't. So, one of the things that we do in the film is we spend our cameras spent quite a lot of time with Kent County Counselors. Kent is the
[33:37]biggest reform council and for context, this is their first taste of power. You know, reform are running 12 councils in England and they're in charge of billions and billions and billions of
[33:46]pounds and they've really grappled with it. And we see the counselors at meetings. We see the counselors under some pressure. We see them boast about
[33:57]some of the things that they have been able to do. Find some of the savings. They say they've saved tens and tens and tens of millions of pounds. What they however and you see them really kind of
[34:07]grapple with it with this. You see them sort of be surprised by what they found. So, if we spin back to the local election campaigns in May 2024 and reform candidates around the country
[34:18]and reform politicians campaigning to be in the council said, "Well, we're going to get in there. We're going to cut waste. We're going to cut tax." Some of them, not all of them, said, "And we're going to do things differently. We're
[34:29]going to set up this department of local government efficiency like Elon Musk has in the US, and we're going to go in and find all these crazy things and slash away and transform the place." Um it's
[34:41]proven to be a lot harder than that. And the situation that has ended up in is that sure in Kent for example they have managed to save some money but they're still going to have to put council tax
[34:51]up by less than the tries did in the previous year but you kind of see just the reality dawning that actually their expectation that local government might
[35:03]be full of to use the words of one counselor craziness >> that's not actually been what their experience is. So the sort of overall message and I suppose the the parable if you like of that is that reform like any
[35:14]opposition party uh you can make promises in opposition and you can make promises from the sidelines once you're actually in the chair having
[35:26]to make the decisions. It can be very very tough indeed. And there's a rhetoric and there's a reality. There's also reality that politically they found it hardgoing. There have been quite a
[35:37]lot of splits and fallouts and people being dispatched from the government um from the governing authority. They had to deal with leaks. Um they kicked out a
[35:49]few colleagues and you see that reform proportionately across the country has lost more of its counselors than the others than compared to the other
[35:57]parties since the May election. And it was interesting when I asked to uh because we've spoken to Nigel Farage a few times over the last year and our final interview with him for this documentary was just a couple of weeks
[36:08]ago and I asked him what the worst part of the job had been and it's really quite revealing what he says and I wonder if his opponents might seize on this. Should we have a listen? Do >> you know the worst thing about this job?
[36:20]The worst thing about this job is you wake up in the morning and you know a local counselor from somewhere in the country has done something or said something and guess what? You're the one
[36:31]that's responsible. And I'm I'm more than happy to answer for myself and what I get and what I get wrong. But that's that that's the trouble with politics. The trouble with political leadership is you actually become responsible for
[36:42]everything. >> Now that is classic not straight from the leadership playbook that everyone else uses. That's classic Nigel Farage, isn't on the one hand kind of bracingly
[36:52]honest and authentic and you know oh yeah that's just that's just a bloke having a grumble about his job but equally we are still in a world where people expect certain things from a leader
[37:02]>> yes and with power comes responsibility I mean like the phrase that is like literally the point of being a politician is that so when you make decisions you are responsible for things now as you say it is it's a sort of
[37:14]classic farism it's like oh well these counselors get into trouble and poor poor me I have to answer for them and Well, that's a real pain. Um, but it it it I think it's very revealing and I of
[37:26]how he is both different to many other politicians who I think would just never say that. They would never say, "Well, the worst thing about my job is that basically other people in my party and that means that I have to take a load of
[37:37]stick for it." Um, and I and I just thought that was a very, as you said, I thought it was a pretty candid thing of him to say. Um, but for his rivals and
[37:48]opponents, I think that might sort of sum up the problem that basically he likes the fun bits and the rallies and the campaigns and the being on being in the jungle and the the telly and the
[37:58]stirring up trouble, but the tough bits where you actually have to be responsible are maybe not so much his cup of tea. So, I thought that was really really quite really quite revealing.
[38:10]>> Yeah. I mean my takeaway from the documentary and there's many takeaways uh but my main one was having observed Nigel Farage now for for more than 10 years as a journalist in various guises
[38:20]and in various places I don't think I've ever seen him look like he's enjoying the job less than in this program. >> That's interesting. I mean I think look there is >> I mean that's subjective obviously
[38:31]that's just my perception but I just feel he doesn't seem as as jolly and as like he's loving it as he has done in the past. I think there's a couple of things to say on that. I think they're
[38:42]part of the to use your word the arc part of the arc of following them you know b more more more or less this film we sort of started kind of around summer you know sort of early summer time and then as I said our final interview with
[38:53]him was just a couple of weeks ago during that time we have definitely seen the level of scrutiny on reform intensify no doubt about that because they've been ahead in the polls for such
[39:04]a long time they are starting to get much more scrutiny so that is what comes with success in politics is that people look much harder at your record and they also look much harder at what you stand for and they also do things like dig
[39:15]around in your past and we'll come on to that probably in just a second >> and I do think that there has been uh from time to time an uneasiness in
[39:26]reform about having to do that and a kind of scratchiness and a sort of a bit of a suspicion and they know they're going to get this scrutiny. I mean, one of the things that, you know, was sort of said to me over the course of it is, look, we know we're going to get it. You
[39:38]know, this is people are going to come after us because the establishment are so spooked by our success. We know that this is going to happen, but they're not easy with it. And I think you're right,
[39:48]Najaf Farage himself, his demeanor, we've seen that be different on occasion rather than the sort of his whole stick of being the sort of cheeky chappie on
[39:59]the sidelines who was a very influential politician, no question, but was doing so as the from a position of being a
[40:08]critic and an opponent rather than somebody who sees himself as he says he does now, which is genuinely a candidate for prime minister. Now, there will be people to add to that. It's important to
[40:19]say people will say, "Well, actually, you've seen streaks of that over the years. He's got a reputation for falling out with people. You've seen flashes of
[40:27]him not be easy and not be that sort of uh pantomime kind of oh friendly bloke in the pub on occasion. So it's not that we've had never he'd always been like
[40:38]that but I think your observation I would agree with that you've seen a kind of a shift in the intensity in which they are looked at and he's not quite as
[40:49]easy with that as you might imagine if you'd you know only ever seen him on I'm a celebrity get me out of here or if you'd seen him pop up only every now and
[40:59]then over the years nowhere more so of course where it comes to the multiple claim games from people witnessing what they say was racist or anti-Semitic behavior when he was a teenager back at school
[41:10]>> which was at Dulage College in South London. And here's the exchange you had with him on that. >> If teenage boys together in an all boys school, haven't said things to each
[41:20]other, haven't been brutal in some ways in the late 1970s. I'd be very very surprised. I think there were two people who said they were hurt. All right. And if they genuinely were, then that's a pissy and I'm sorry. But but but but
[41:32]never ever did I intend to hurt anybody. Never have. >> So newscasters will remember at the end of last year, several of Nigel Faraj's former pupils came forward alleging that
[41:43]he had said really truly dreadful things at school. They were then backed up by others who came forward and signed an open letter, more than 20 of them,
[41:54]saying that they had witnessed such behavior too. Nigafra's response to it sort of varied a bit over time. From time to time he sort of said, "Well, I didn't say that." Talking about a
[42:05]specific claim, one alleging that he had said Hitler was right to a Jewish fellow pupil. Um then he sort of relied on a
[42:14]well there's terrible banter when maybe sort of some things happened but I never did anything really wrong and it was all kind of boys and people say terrible things. Then with some claims as they
[42:26]carried on coming through, he sort of went to a denial and then he sort of said, "Oh, it's all fancy and it's all made up." So point one is it's not easy for a politician to defend themselves when they keep slightly changing their
[42:37]story. So we had to ask him about that. Of course, >> you'll hear though there he gives what I would call a, you know, it's a qualified politician's apology. It's a it's an I'm
[42:48]sorry if we've heard that so many times over the years. Um so he doesn't explicitly deny that he ever did anything wrong. He's not saying that.
[42:59]But what he is not acknowledging is any fault. And in another part of that exchange, I asked him, you know, like as a as a human being, having had those weeks of these allegations coming
[43:10]forward and people saying, "Look, I was hurt. I was upset. terrible things were done to me at the hands of this man. I said to him, you know, had you ever thought actually, oh, maybe I maybe I
[43:21]did upset people. I actually worried about it. He said, no, straight off the bat, no, never worried about it. Um, but I spoke after we did our interview. I
[43:31]spoke to one of the one of his accusers, um, a man called Peter Edri, who I'm sure people will remember, spoke to Joe Pike at the end of last year. Nigel
[43:40]Farage denied the specific claims made by Peter, but in a statement, he told us, "Farage's non-apology at least differs from previous lamentable
[43:51]attempts to excuse his racist insults as banter or to smear those of us who've spoken up as liars or fantasists. However, urgent questions remain about
[44:01]for this man who seeks high office. Why has he continually denied the repugnant behavior so many of his schoolmates recall rather than acknowledging and apologizing sincerely? And to what
[44:11]extent has his agenda today been shaped by the views he expressed so viciferously at Dulich? So uh it's an interesting thing and and I think that
[44:22]whole episode is it's not resolved right >> but as ever when it comes to Niger far you know there are people for whom something happens and it confirms their
[44:33]views of him um on either side but it's a reminder of how divisive reform are sometimes seen as being and that can be very very
[44:45]galvanizing for their opponents frankly. >> Um, and we know another thing that happened during the course of us making this film >> is we saw the other parties really start
[44:55]to crank up their attacks on reform. So, it was during the time that we've been making this film that Labour started calling Najafu's policies racist. Remember the prime minister did that
[45:07]with sort of great fanfare at the at the party conference. So as reform success has continued rather than like explode or melt away, you've seen their
[45:17]opponents start to really sharpen their attacks on them and the allegations about Faraj's school days have given them more ammunition. I don't think those senior people at reform believe it
[45:28]will make very much difference to their political prospects, but for sure it's not what they would have wanted to spend several weeks talking about at the back end of last year. And now, Laura, I'm going to plug your documentary in a
[45:40]fully approved punctuation pronunciation way. >> Oh, this is a fun game. Okay, >> here we go. Reform, ready to rule? >> Just making it really clear. It's a
[45:51]question mark at the end. >> Okay. Can you say a sentence with an exclamation mark on the end in an audio friendly version? >> And that's the end of newscast. >> Oh, that's the end of newscast. No, that
[46:02]would be a question mark. >> Is that the end of newscast? And that's the end of newscast. >> Or it's the end of newscast.