The way she's being described is as if she is the most mendacious politician this parliament has ever seen. There's a real danger that today is the moment that the wheels have come off this administration. Does he know what his mission is? What he's here for? If this government does fail, it's not going to be replaced by some moderate Conservative government. If this government fails, it will be replaced by a populist far right government. Hello and welcome to the Forecast.
Angela Rayner is out, brought down by her failure to pay enough tax on a new flat and the failure to seek out the expert tax advice that would have pointed it out. The prime minister's ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, said Rayner had acted with integrity but concluded that she had still breached the ministerial code. But out of adversity comes opportunity, as they say, and certainly Keir Starmer hasn't wasted a moment after the departure of his deputy.
His dramatic government reset has seen some of the biggest figures in his cabinet sacked or reshuffled. David Lanny replaces Rayner as Deputy Prime Minister but loses the prestigious foreign secretary, posting to Yvette Cooper. She's replaced at the Home Office by Shabana Mahmood and Lanny gets her job at Justice to close that circle. And there are lots of other moves in the middle management ranks. So is Starmer really the night with the long knives?
And can it get his government back on track and stop Labour hemorraging votes to reform with me here in Westminster? Tom Baldwin, a former director of communications, called Labour and Keir Starmer's biographer. So Craig Oliver was at the heart of David Cameron's Downing St. operation and the Guardian columnist Zoe Williams as well. Now obviously there's a lot to talk about in terms of the future government direction with this reshuffle, but we've got to start with the disaster of
Angela Rayner's loss. It's a huge blow, isn't? It she and Keir Starmer have had their ups and downs over the years, but I think he's genuinely regretful that she's now leaving his government because she's a massive asset. I mean, we talk about politicians being out of touch or not having that sort of feel for what's really going on in the country. Very few people in politics have ever brought her life experience to these seat of power like she
has. I mean, you know, she she left school at 16 pregnant when she talked about grooming and she said that could have been me because she was leaving nightclubs and getting the cars with the wrong men. You know, when she talks about care leavers becoming being deemed intentionally homeless, rules that she changed because that could have been her, that that direct life experience is really unusual in politics. It's what the Labour Party
should be about. And her departure from government now is really, really sad. The truth is that the public didn't rally to her defence. You know, it played into that. They're all the same. They're all out for themselves. A few. Children, she had to go. The thing is about Angela Rayner is it's precisely because she's a work, a working class figure in in politics who doesn't actually tow the to toe the
part. She doesn't particularly toe the party line, but she also doesn't accept a lot of the precepts of the mainstream. And they were out to get her and have been out to get her for a really, really, really long time. The media has been absolutely savage to Angela Rayner way before this happened. You know, two years ago she couldn't go to the opera because that wasn't authentic. But she did screw up. There's no point defending her. The thing is, this was somebody
who. I actually disagree with you. I think there is a .40. 1000 lbs of tax. Yes, and I'm not defending that bit, but the the way it's been covered, you know, the Tory, the Telegraph, sorry, I call it the Tory graph. The Telegraph was saying that she was actually somehow making use of her son's disabilities for a financial gain for herself, which is a despicable slur and not remotely true. She did.
If I'd been her, would I have just felt embraced it and just paid the taxes though, or the second time? Yeah, of course, because even if there were an ambiguity, it wasn't worth the fallout. But she as, as was found by the ethics inquiry, she she was, she acted with integrity, just not smartly enough. And the way she's being described is as if she is the most mendacious, most mercenary politician this Parliament has ever seen.
Now that is preposterous. But, but politically, whether you like her or not, it's a disaster, isn't it, for Keir Starmer? Yeah, I think it is a total disaster and you can't put any gloss on it that doesn't show it anything other. He started the week saying he was going to relaunch his government with phase two, and he's ended it with a massive reshuffle, which he hadn't been planning. That is not good for any Prime Minister or any government to be in that situation.
I do agree with the points that that Tom and Zoe are making, like she's a great character and authentic person and that she's made a real impact. She's one of the few cabinet ministers in the last year who's really, really come, I think, with positivity. And I think that that is a huge loss to Keir Starmer. The other side of that is if the boot had been on the other foot, she would have been kicking hard
and she's done that in the past. And there is an element of what source for the goose is source for the gander here. Just just on that, I think we have to be careful not do what we call false equivalents here, right? Yeah, She's been reckless, maybe careless in how she bought a new flat, her only property in Brighton.
There's no equivalence there between Downing St. being the most prosecuted workplace in the country during COVID, hundreds of millions of pounds of public money being handed out to Tory mates and Tory cronies. Boris Johnson lying so often. But that's all history. It doesn't matter. But. People shouldn't draw moral credits. It's not all the same. That's really dangerous when people say politics are all the same. Even the the even the report today says she acted with integrity.
She's made a mistake and she's paid the price for it. What? Do you think that if there been a Tory politician that was in exactly the same circumstance as Angela Ranger that she wouldn't have been kicking them? I, I think she probably would have been kicking, but I think, you know, when she was kicking people like Nadine Zahari, that was about millions and millions of pounds, not 40,000 lbs. I mean, you do have to. Decide it's sort of it's.
To add something to that, which is that you're, you get a huge insulation from being extremely wealthy. So I know nothing at all about Boris Johnson's divorce. I know nothing at all about Matt, Matt Hancock's divorce because they've got money. So I don't know where they pay for expensive lawyers. You know, they pay for the expensive lawyers. I don't know where the equity went in their houses. I just don't know.
Whereas when you're kind of Angela Rayner, she, all the money she's got is money that she's worked, worked for is quite transparent. You are a disadvantage I think. I mean, you know, the, the, the other aspect though of what he's lost is a woman who could reach parts of the Labour Party that
he can't. But it's more than that Kier, I mean, if Kier thinks if, if it's like Kier being, everybody's talking as though Kier has been super ruthless and very smart and he's really just like surging through.
But actually this weakens Kier, not just with the with the Labour members who really liked Angela, not just with the with the left of the parliamentary party who were feeling rebellious and fractious anyway, but also with his own detractors aren't in the centre right of the Labour Party. They were always, they were never going to move on him because the alternative was always going to be Angela Rayner
because she was deputy. Once the deputy isn't that much of A threat, he's in a much more precarious position. It, it look it, he definitely looks a definite loss for Keir Starmer. But he did say he was going to behave like this. I mean, he said to, he said, he said to me, he said to me before the election that no one's going to believe that I want to restore trust in in politics until I act. And when a minister is in clear breach of the ministerial code, they will be out.
I don't care who they are, I don't care whether it's Rachel Reed, whoever, they will be out. And that's to be fair to him, that's what he's done. We often point out when promises don't fulfil their promises. This is a promise met as we're pointing that out too. Though they could have been more ruthless, couldn't they? I mean, they could have said on Monday, this is going to be a disaster, you need to go now. He waited till the end of the week.
He's. Done the old fashioned thing of establishing the facts, asking an independent. You've just read the government website, no? No, asking the independent, and it's important that you have an independent adviser. The reason why Boris Johnson didn't have one, this government's got one. Well, asking the independent ethics advisor to make it, to do a report, waiting for that, and then acting. That's how governments should operate.
But Tim Allen, you know, began his big new job as the executive director of communications this week in the Monday reshuffle. Shouldn't have been the man in charge of the message. Shouldn't he have been saying you've just got to go, you know?
I've been in situations before where at the beginning of the week I've said to the Prime Minister, I'm pretty certain by the end of the week, this person's going to have to go and you are going to spend this entire week investing political capital in them and that's going to be problematic for you. The case of Maria Miller I think was a good case of that. The the entire week was spent defending her and then she had to go. And I would just say one thing
to Tom here. I think that he's doing a brilliant job of trying to put a gloss on this, but he's clutching his Taws here. You know, yes, OK, there's some integrity in terms of maybe how Keir Thomas behave, but it is a disaster and one of and the Deputy Prime Minister, the deputy leader of the Labour Party and the housing minister has gone in one foul swoop. That is seriously problematic. You now have a different Foreign secretary to the one we had yesterday. Right.
Well, let's talk about that, that reshuffle and what's happened, because he could have gone for a very, very minimal reshuffle. He could have just moved Pat McFadden to housing and promoted Darren Jones and that would have been it. You know, no, no need for a big reshuffle. Instead he's gone for a massive reshuffle. All you know, all the key people have lost their jobs, except arguably 2 of the big problems, Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband. Why is he gone for this
Miliband? Isn't the problem. Well, I mean, if you're trying to, if you're trying to fight reform, those are the two issues, aren't they? Reform vote is actually like net zero. I really, I mean, you have to be careful with that I. Also need to take we'll. Come back to that. But why is he gone for a big reshuffle rather than a little one? As a result of this I. Mean look, look, it is they're, they're, I think they were planning a big reshuffle. I think they brought it forward.
I think it does have the advantage of, you know, showing the seizing initiative, reinvigorating a government which has been bashed around a lot. I think there are other things going on. I mean, I, I think for a long time they've regarded Yvette Cooper as an obstacle to taking a tougher line on immigrants and small boats crossings. Now, whether that's, you know, whether Shabana is going to be the first time, she's a bit of a
favorite down the street. But I think a lot of the reshuffle revolves around that change there. Zoe, what were you going? To say, well, I really need to take issue with this idea that you that people, the cabinet ministers who are unpopular with reform voters are somehow a problem for the Labour Party. The problem for the Labour Party is that they don't have more cabinet ministers who reform voters don't like because there is such a thing as a as a as a
political divide. So what problems do you think they are solving? So what? They think what they think they're solving is, I mean, basically they they think they're solving if they put a vet on foreign on foreign, then they don't have the problem with her in the Home Office. What? Was the problem well? The problem was that everything about her past as a politician was pro asylum seekers, pro humanity, pro decency. And then she was. Not that's a problem in the modern.
Election. But she was suddenly having to come out and make these ridiculous cases like, oh, I have St. George's flags all over my house, house. I've even got a Yorkshire flag. I mean, she was trying to out reform, reform and it was making her and the party ridiculous. I think she will actually, ironically be less exposed to that as foreign secretary than
she was as home secretary. I think it's a big theme that's in danger of coming through this week for Kier Starmer, and it started with yet again reshuffling the backroom staff. This isn't quite working. They're not doing the job I want them to do now. I'm reshuffling my top team because they're not quite working, they're not doing the thing. The problem is for the Labour Party at the moment and this administration is what does it
stand for and who is it for? And nobody that I can meet who takes a keen interest in politics can sum that up crisply and cleanly, let alone the Prime Minister.
And as long as he goes round and round second people left, right and centre and saying that until he gets to the point of saying this is what this government is for, this is who it's for, and is able to say that clearly and be able to demonstrate day after day after day that that is what is happening, he's going to continue with problems like this. And there's a real danger that today is the moment that the wheels have come off this administration and it won't be
able to write itself. It's got a big budget coming up. That's a problem. It's going to have to elect the deputy leader of the Labour Party where it's going to be a running commentary on policy of the government. It's it's it's really bad. And at the heart of it is, what are you stand for and what are you trying to achieve? Yeah, I, I. Couldn't agree more about the
what you, what do you stand for? It's, it's really preposterous because they, they spent so long trying to purge the left of the party and they're so they, they were so triumphant about it. You know, we've purged all the left wing members. We've like sidelined all the left MPs. They kind of managed to, but they, you know, the, the, the rebellion on welfare, it sort of passed because summer happened.
But really the the real problem with that was nothing to do with the problem was if you've got no left of the party then somebody in the centre needs to tell us what it's for because I haven't seen them know that. And do you see this reshuffle as a purge of the left? Well, no, I mean, you know, the left got purged ages ago. Angie isn't being Angie. You know Angie's left because Angie's left.
But that, you know, it wasn't, it wasn't purging the left for her to go, whether she went like this or any other way. Look. Political parties aren't necessarily coalitions. And I think there has been a sense by among a lot of Labour supporters, a lot of Labour MPs, that this government has been a little bit in Hock to a media narrative that this is all about reform and that they've spent too much of the summer basically saying, you know, Nigel Farage is right, please don't vote for him.
Well, I think it's very important now that Kier uses his conference speech, that Rachel uses her budget to reassert a sense of Labour values which are different to those of reform. If you're going to be, as Keir Starmer said to me, a progressive Labour Party fighting the populist right of reform, you have to speak some Labour language now. Andrew was brilliant at that. I hope she continues to do that
from the backbenches. But it's really important that that clear message, that clear narrative about who we are is expressed now. Don't mean that. Do you know what to do? So Craig, Craig say, oh, yeah, when they reshuffle, you know, the the press team in downstream, that's got to be about. I mean, not everything is not what he has for breakfast has got to be the message. But I do think they've got to take this opportunity now. Yeah. No, no. But you can't make every single
thing a critical moment. Keep sacking your people and saying they are to black. Also can I just say take as well you? You. You both. They will get there. They need to find a message. You know, this week may not be the best moment to express that message because there's too much going on. But there are big moments coming up. Conference budget. But does he know that? The question is, does he know what his mission is, what he's here for? Because. And do you know what it is?
Because you spent more time with them than anyone else. But you're exactly you're really betraying yourselves, all of you as insiders so deep seated that you think conference, which is going to be the inflection point when everybody understands. I mean, that's like too insidery. That is not what knowing where you're going is, and everybody know you know nobody to. Say it though, isn't it? Yeah, but Tom. But nobody. Takes it. Nobody takes. It I mean, there's a serious question.
Do you know what his great mission is? I've always been confident that Keir Starmer has a set of recognisable left of centre and also British values of decency, fair play, the rule of law. These are these are things which I think Keir Starmer really stands for. I don't think he needs this vision, which is one of these political insider words. I mean, you know, when I get into a car, I don't say I've got a vision about where I'm going.
I use SAT NAV right. So, so I think the, the, the, I think, I think he can express those values. I think the danger is that people are always looking, there's big sort of media, political industry saying what's the new comma big idea? What's the three word slogan that's going to take on for? Well, I don't think, I don't think he needs to do that. I don't think he needs some single big vision. I think it does need to show demonstrate that he stands for Labour value.
But he's the one, The thing is, let me check. And he is the one who said Farage is the big opposition. It's not one of the media narrative. The, you know, the the the. He. He, he says immediately out of now, but he said it very early on. He said reform of the opposition, not the Conservatives. We all know what Farage stands for now. Whether you think he can deliver it or not is a, is a, is a different thing. But but we know what you know he
means. If you create a vacuum in politics, it will be filled by other people. You have seen throughout the summer Nigel Farage running rings around the government and the Conservative Party setting the agenda and it, I'm, I'm sorry to say this Tom Keir Salmer's biography cannot tell us what the government is about and what it's for. And that is a real problem. It's not about techniques and like trying to win over the media and all that kind of stuff.
It is in the way that Atlee said I want to set up the welfare state and the NHS. We know what he wanted to do. What is the equivalent project for Keir Starmer? Give me a. SEC. Because The thing is there all that kind of he stands for decency, he stands for British values. There is literally no politician, including Nigel Farage, who wouldn't say that. So it's not a question of like he needs a vision, as in he needs a big new thing.
And it's not a it's not a question of he needs something that, you know, everybody can, everybody can write down in a paragraph. It's it's the reason people know what Nigel Farage stands for is that he doesn't equivocate. So at some point he has to have he has to stop equivocating and and have some have an enemy. For example, you know, there is the the Kier doesn't Kier never has an enemy. He's never against business. He's never against, he's never
against wealth. He's never against anything. He's never against anybody except a little bit less than whoever Farage is against. And that you know, he is a problem. He doesn't seem like he has a passion for a different, well, look, look. I, I don't think it is necessarily the case that the public know exactly what Farad stands for.
And I think one of the things that Labour really need to do over the next few months is take on reform from being a sort of feeling like Brexit was a feeling. It was an abstract concept rather than a specific proposal.
I think the referendum would have been one if you'd actually had a specific proposal because there's never a majority for specific form of Brexit. And I think as reform now have to have a program for government and I think as it emerges of who they are, it will be actually easier to define who Labour are and what Labour is about. And I think you're going to see a lot more about fairness. You'll see going to see a lot
more about opportunity. There's some ideas around contributions which I'm not, I'm less convinced by at the moment. But, but I think there are themes emerging. But they do have to. I think they haven't done enough to join all the dots of those bullet points, of those different missions, those staging posts, those milestones, those, you know, there's too many bullet points and you need
to join the dots. The missing membrane has been a very clear expression of Labour and rather traditional British values, which I think Keir Starmer can represent. I just don't think it's been done well enough before. I mean, what what happened to mission driven government and all of that? You know, I mean it's. Gone. What was the? 3 words. What was the three words word thing? Was it the beginning of this week or the end of last? Week I I don't like three word
slogans. I think three word slogans. I think three word slogans, whoever take that control, get Brexit done, smash the boats are part of the problem that we've got in this politics. Ridiculous conversation. We are going round and round in circles trying to work out what the hell this government's trying to do. It is madness, and isn't it terrible?
Isn't it a damning indictment of what's actually happened today that has resulted in three people who follow politics incredibly closely, who can't begin to say what this government's doing or what it's about? What you. Did say that I. Don't think it's true, but you have well, give me one example. You you want a three word slogan and I'm what? I'm I don't know. I want a policy no but. Listen, I don't want a policy or a three.
There's lots of policy. There is an appetite in this country for a party that opposes racist language, for a party that is not cruel to migrants, for a party that stands up to water companies, for a party that redistributes wealth. There is an appetite in this country for that those politics and Labour isn't iterating them now. Labour doesn't want to be that party anymore, but if they don't want to be that party anymore, trying to be half that party, it clearly isn't working. For them.
So, so, so let's just drill a little bit into the deck chairs, you know, and what and what, what each of these appointments might mean. You won't. Be able to. Move them. I mean, the truth is that for most of the public, you know, they don't really know who a lot of these cabinet figures are. They're not they're not sort of giant personalities.
But what is he doing beyond? I mean, I get you're, you're saying fine, Yvette Cooper was a bit of a block to reforming the Home Office in your view, but what, what what else has he achieved, though? I mean, what, why move Peter Kyle? Why move Liz Kendall? Why, you know, why give all of these people new jobs? That's. Why Pat McFadden has been moved to welfare, big spending department, but actually that proposals was sunk below the waterline, you know, or they're
going back for another. Bite, aren't they? And he doesn't mind. He's he's such a Street Fighter. Pat McFadden. If they are, then that would be interesting. Take welfare, right? That's what we mean by doing stuff through Labour values. Now Keir Starmer has experience of disability. His mother was very disabled, his brother was disabled.
He knows about this. So he could do a big speech, talk about his personal experience of this and then say we are going to change this, we are going to try and slow down the increase in the cost of disability benefits. But it's going to be informed by Labour principles. We don't put children into poverty, we take children out of poverty. We make sure their resources go to the people who really need them. And young people who can work should be encouraged back to
work. Those are Labour principles. Those are principles everyone can sign up to. And if you did welfare reform through that, I think you can take the country and the PLP with you. That's what I mean. But. What was this Kendall getting wrong that Pat McFadden will get right, you know? Well, I mean, I, I think Pat McFadden, you know, he'll knock heads together. Liz Kendall used to get quite, quite grumpy. But no. But she didn't in the end, head
off the rebellion. And they probably think Pat McFadden could. I mean, I don't think it's going to work, but I think that's the thinking. Why don't you think it's going to work? Well, because those, now that it's been galvanised, those MPs, it was a large number of Labour MPs went voted against that or kind of threatened to. And now they're, they're not going to sit. I mean, I don't know whether it's, I don't know whether it's actually going to pan out this
way. But after the bond markets at the end of last week, a lot of people were saying they're going to have to go back for another go at welfare reform. And I don't think those MPs are going to go, oh, now I've heard about the bond markets. I'm not going to rebel again. I think it's going to, I think it's going to be just as bad, if not worse than last. Time there's a much better way to approach these reforms than the one they did.
They made it presented as a cut. I think people are playing in to a sort of Daily Mail, Sun Times, Telegraph thing about everyone on welfare as a sponsor and a cheat, which is not true. And, and I, I think there's a better way to do this, but you start by saying we're going to be a better Labour government, not a bad version of a reform government. Yeah, but wasn't the biggest reshuffle you can imagine an opportunity to really look at Rachel Reeves? I mean, Oh my. Gosh, that's so harsh.
Well, I mean, you know, there have been lots of people saying Rachel Reeves is going to have to go at some point in time, but if you and. If you as a government lose your chancellor, historically that really is admitting that the game is up. It is very rare in history for a chancellor to go and that not signaled the end. It might take a while to happen, but I think he would be extremely nervous. And what signal would it send as
well? We very was just talking about what was going on in the Gilson bond markets and increased interest rates, that kind of thing. That message is that somebody who's talking about actually being in fiscally responsibility is going who replaces them. Do you then frighten the horses of the left wing of the Labour Party by putting somebody who really is into? So she think the fact that they're not, you know, the she, she was absolutely. The first thing they said was
she's not losing her job. I think that. That tells you that the fiscal rules aren't going to change, no? They, they, they painted themselves into a corner on the economy. And Reeves and Starmer are tied at the hip and they, they, they hang together or hang apart. It's they that would have been utterly disastrous to have lost the Chancellor today or to have
moved the Chancellor today. I mean, it would have looked extremely chaotic, wouldn't it, to lose your Deputy Prime Minister and lose your chancellor in the same day. It would it would it would look like self sabotage. Well, is it? Is it worse than moving your home secretary and foreign secretary?
I think so. Yeah, I think the reaction in the markets when people thought that Rachel Reeves might be going earlier in the summer does give an indication of how important she is to this government. And the access between her and Kira, I think is intact. I think it'd be very strange to spend the summer planning to start trying to express what this government's about with the budget. That's one of the opportunities to to express it, to then remove the chancellor just beforehand.
Is there? Have we got a date for the budget? Yeah, I remember this when he said, yeah, OK, because it's, it's already, it's already going to be hideous that you know, it's going to be. It's whatever happens, it's not going to, it's not going to feel like there's loads of money and this is going to be nearly Christmas. The other job Angela Rayner had was deputy leader of the Labour Party. That's not something Keir Starmer can just sort out, is
it? There has to be an election and that's going to prompt a debate about whether Keir Starmer's got the Labour Party in the right direction. Do you think they can sort of fix it so there's so that there's not really a proper contest or do you think this is going to be a big out there debate about the future of the Labour Party? Are you? Sure of actually changing the rules of the election of that
post. I don't think there's any way to fix it. Well, I mean, you know, whoever stands has got to get nominated by quite a large number of MPs, which might rule out what might be called a sort of hard left candidate. We'll see loads of hard left. I'm not. I'm not sure there's quite enough of that. Sorry, no. As a candidate, who would be the candidate? Who would be the candidate? I mean, it could conceivably be Louise Haig. That's probably the most. She's the most. No.
OK, They've got no soft left. Kind of medium. Medium. She's like tofu. She's like medium left, But. But. Try and do it by acclamation if they possibly can. The thought. Of the Labour Party doesn't do that. Well, no, you. I mean, if only one person stands, you can actually engineer a situation with that. Gordon Brown, of course.
Cinder. You can engineer a situation where one person stands, but the reality of having conflicting voices with a running commentary on policy and what influence you'll have on that is potentially disastrous. Do. You think, do you think a single candidate is possible? And who would it be? I I. I look, I don't think there's a huge appetite in APLP for a long and divisive election about, you know, the direction of this government.
I think that, you know, I think a contest is not necessarily a bad thing divided in within the, you know, Labours are broad church, but as Neil Kinnock, like, say, churches have walls. And, you know, and, and, and, you know, as long as it's within that framework, I think that's not necessarily a bad thing because, you know, there does need to be a reconnection with
the party. There needs to be a reconnection with Labour voters as well, a lot of whom haven't been hearing, you know, enough about why this is a progressive government. I think, and I think Kate is aware of that. So I think, yeah, this could actually be a positive thing in a way to have a depth leadership contest. You know, it can go wrong. I'm not guaranteeing, but I think in the right way, fought in the right way, it could be a positive.
But is there another Angela Rayner who is a soft left candidate but who is loyal to Kier, Stan Lisa? Nandy could, yeah. There's lots of different. Things. It's not going to be Lisa. It would be, I can see it being Louise. I can, you know, a harder left candidate would be Clive Lewis.
But the the truth of it is, whatever happens, this is not going to be great for Labour because if it's just ringside seat on Internet sign quite bitter fighting, which yields a candidate that nobody much, nobody much likes and just leaves everybody feeling very bruised.
It's it's a precarious moment for the party in membership terms with your party starting and Zach Polanski winning the Greens. It's a precarious moment in terms of the PLP with so many of them kind of disgruntled and not really knowing what the what the point, what their kind of mission is. It's very precarious for Labour. And I think, even though I'm looking forward to it because I think there are conversations that need to be had, I think it's going to be ugly and and destructive.
Do you think it's possible that Andy Burnham comes back into the fold somehow? Or Yeah, I mean, or, or or is that for another day? I. Mean there are there's possibilities for by elections I don't think he. Would have to be an MP would he would. Have to be an MP, but I don't, I don't have to. Be deputy. Leader of the yes, he does. He has to be from the PLP. But I don't, I, I, I think it's very unlikely that the deputy leader, new deputy leader is going to be anything other than
a woman. I think it would look very odd to have 222 men. I mean, what what? What is remarkable is now all the great offices of state other than Prime Minister, the first time in British history occupied by women. I just don't. I'm secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor. It's just not. Remarkable anymore women are capable of being just as useless as men, and it's just not amazing to see that, to see loads of.
Them Craig send the wrong. Message to people, I think, I think we're seeing the danger of like the Labour Party navel gazing and looking into itself and saying, having all these discussions and arguments, I make one big point as we're coming towards the end, I genuinely want to see this
government succeed. And the reason I want that is I want a broad government that's largely in and around the centre of politics is to see, because I think the the British people are looking at politics at the moment and saying you're all failing. And if there's another failed government, that is going to be a real and serious problem in this country because it plays into the hands of Nigel Farage.
And so I genuinely hope they get their act together, but I'm not hearing any sign of it at the moment. Look, for once I'm going to agree with Craig, partly because he wants the government to succeed. But the point is this, if this government does fail, it's not going to be replaced by some moderate Conservative government or even a moderate Conservative government in line to the Liberal Democrats, Keir Starmer said.
I think it's true, if this government fails, it will be replaced by a populist far right government which will do immense, immense damage to everything we hold dear about this country. And so if you're patriotic, I think you should do want this government to succeed. If it even if it doesn't fail, I think it's going to be defeated by a populist far right government at the ballot box. I thought you've already. I haven't given up. I'm I'm just I'm I'm, I'm, I'm my Money's on another horse.
What you think You think a far left party can win I. Think we need to have? Or do you think just splinters the left front? A party that's saying things that people believe in. Even at the price of, even at the price of reform winning. You can't you. The thing is, I've been listening to you guys since 1997 when you say take your medicine, give up what you what you want. We're the only people who are going to win.
And I'm done listening to it. All I all I know is that when the right coalition gets together, they tend to win. When the left coalition gets together, we tend to win. And it's really important, it's really important to try and find ways of building and bringing that coalition together, which goes back to my point, which you do have to start speaking
progressive values. You can't just be looking like you're chasing after a form when we're losing 3 times as many votes to progressive parties than we are to reform. We had better leave it there. Tom Paul, twins Zoe Williams and Craig Oliver, thank you very much indeed for joining us. That's the forecast from Westminster. Bye. Bye.