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 about Peter Mandelson 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 1 and Keir Starmer are so bad they're not going to give him any benefit of the doubt. Do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Farage?
You will never persuade me to just suck up the depredations of the of the Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to prevent the incursions of the far right. Because I look at the Labour government and they quite often are mimicking Nigel Farage. I will never take that. Do you think this will finish them off? Hello and welcome to the forecast. It's the scandal that just keeps getting worse. Certainly the biggest crisis for Keir Starmer.
Could it finish him off or is it even bigger than that? Is Labour's position recoverable or is it now a dead man walking? The PM admits Peter Mandelson's relationship with the dead paedophile and sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein came up as part of the vetting process for ambassador to Washington. But he says Mandelson lied and lied again, saying he betrayed our country and our party. But what concerns were raised during the process and were they overruled?
If so, who by? If Starmer wasn't warned, why not? The stench of sleaze and corruption hangs heavy in the air over Westminster right now. So can the government escape it? Or is this the final straw for Labour backbenchers already wondering whether to throw Starmer overboard? Joining me to discuss this, Starmer biographer Tom Baldwin, the political commentator Zoe Williams, and the pollster and strategist Scarlett McGuire. Tom, I mean, jaws are on the floor and getting wider by the
hour. Can you think of a worse political scandal in our lifetime? Or be opened? I do think it's a scandal. I do think this is shocking, but essentially if you know, the real sin happened under the last when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, when Peter Manderson was business secretary, that's when he was disclosing confidential market sensitive information apparently to Jeffrey Epstein. The question about this government is why they appointed Peter Madison and. What they were warned about.
Now, now, now, that's a good question. But it's not a scandal about this government until it can be shown that Keir Starmer knew what we know now does. He does he have to know everything that we know now? I mean, we knew from 2023 onwards, because the FT ran a story about it, that Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Epstein after he had been found to have been involved in sex trafficking. And yet he carried on and there would have been a vetting process.
We don't know what it said. Maybe we'll get to find out if these papers are published. But whatever concerns it may have raised were clearly overruled. That does make it a scandal for this government. There's a question, I think, whether the Prime Minister should have known what essentially is unknowable because Peter Manson was lying to the Prime Minister, lying to his oldest friends, possibly even lying to himself about the extent of his relationship with Epstein.
Now there was a vetting process. We now know that it did raise concerns about Mammalson'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, because there's a lot of hindsightry around and a lot of the journalists now say it was always obvious, blah, blah, blah. We're the same journalists who are saying what a masterstroke point to Peter Mountain writing falling. Not everyone, but a lot of them
were. A lot of them were saying it. A lot of people were writing falling pieces about it and I'm not sure whether Channel 4 News, I mean correct me if I'm wrong, did a big podcast or a big section at Tom of Peter Manson's appointment saying this is scandalous because we know that Peter Manson continued to have relationships with Epstein after
his 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, this is a man who's had to resign in disgrace twice but the premier and this might happen again, but hold on. Hold on a moment. Just me to make his point.
The premise that this was a scandal because it was known that Peter Mandelson continued to have relationships with Jeffrey Epstein after the conviction that was known to the media at the time of Peter Mandelson's appointment. Were the media calling it a scandal then? Yeah, I was. They weren't. They weren't saying it was a scandal. OK, I did. There was some on the exceptions. No, come on, don't that. You were Channel 4 News. That's.
Genuinely the weakest argument I've ever heard you make. Because some people. Because some. People in the media didn't put their money where their mouth was two years ago, therefore nobody's got not a leg to stand on now. And this isn't a scandal that doesn't even make logical sense, Tom. And you know, it's no, no, the the logic is this, that for this to be the biggest scandal of our lifetime. Oh, OK, fine. I mean, if we're going. To be a big scandal of our lifetime, it is that.
The premise of that is we know that Downing St. and Keir Starmer knew about Madison's continuing links with 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 know now.
So the real question, the real question which would determine whether it is a big scandal about this government, is whether Down St. knew more than what was in the public domain then. A, that A, that doesn't make sense for the aforementioned reasons. B, that none of that has to do with Keir Starmer's judgement. Keir Starmer's judgement is what's at issue here. And whether or not certain 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 ahead of electoral calculation, which by the way, I don't think Peter Mandelson 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 you have. And that's a. Question what what you know and maybe we will find out and maybe we won't. What he knew in the what? What?
The concerns were well and what was said about them in order to sweep them asylum. But he'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 Peter Manderson and Epstein, it didn't matter so long as nobody was looking directly at it.
Now, somebody you had a for whom that was a real matter of conscience, for whom fraternising with a known paedophile 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 as ambassador to Trump, who is himself a known associate of Epstein. Whether or not this is the biggest or the second biggest or the third biggest, does it
matter? I mean, you know, won't the public now just conclude that there is the stench of scandal around Labour, who claims to be better than the last loss, and it turns out maybe they weren't. I think you've hit the nail on the head and and you know, unfortunately for those in #10 actually the public make their mind up quicker than quite a lot of some of this information can come out about exactly who knew
what, when and etcetera. I think the problem for the Labour Party and for for Keir Starmer and the government in particular is that Peter Mandelson is incredibly well known in this country. He's, you know, far better known than Andy Burnham or Robert celebrate from any of the other politicians we've seen and to the spotlight over the last few weeks who aren't the sort of principal party leaders.
And he is synonymous with Labour because he's been around for so long, he's been associated with so many different Labour governments. And I don't think when the public think about Peter Mandelson, they'll think that's a problem contained to a different era of the Labour Party. They will think about it as the same Labour Party that we have now, especially because their views of that Labour Party, this current 1 and Keir Starmer are so bad, they're not going to give him any benefit of the
doubt. And then the second part of that is that OK, they know who Peter Mandelson is. They don't think very well of Labour Party. Sorry. The third one is that this plays into all of their were suspicions about people in politics anyway, you know, trust in politicians is an all time low. It only seems to be sinking further and further the longer that these the longer these surveys track it. And this is people's this is exactly what people think are up to.
It might be a bit more colourful, it might be 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 they're up to no good. So if they hear this, 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 how do you think this is savable for Keir Starmer and his
administration? I mean, they're, they're they're making an 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, You know, can he save Morgan McSweeney for a start, his right hand man who seems to be the one who was really pushing Mandelson's appointment.
Look. One of 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, and that's code for avoiding substance. And, you know, one of the reasons why I think people are actually aonated by politics is it's an endless discussion about who's up and who's down, what people think about, you know, this, what this focus group says rather than actually outcomes for them in their real lives. But.
McSweeney. Is not a substance. Because he is the core. Of this government, yeah. So, so so, as I say, there are genuine questions which need to be answered about what Downing St. and what Keir Starmer knew prior to Peter Mandelson's appointment if they knew what was already in the public domain. But no more than those same questions should be answered by the BBC, who thought that Peter Mouse was the right choice to be the eminence Greece fronting their election coverage.
In 2024 knew more than what was in the public eye at the time, which you have to assume is the case. Why? Because they're the security services. I've limited understanding of vetting process, but what they will do is they will go through everything'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
Epstein? What we have been told is that Peter Madison lied at that in that instance. Now, should you be hung whether you're a Down St. advisor or Prime Minister for believing lies told by someone? Now there's a question I do accept. How about Peter Manson's record, right? He resigned twice from the last Labour 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 must remember, you want. To talk about. But you must remember the first scandal when he took that loan. Yeah, I agree. That's what I'm just referring. To I used to live I used to live around the corner from Peter Manson in the 90s in in Notting. Hill. There goes neighborhood. I had this little squat in Holland Park. Anyway, you've walked past 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 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. 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 Peter Mandelson is, is complete impunity, absolute. You know, he always said he's completely Teflon coated. He, he, he never gives up. But by gives up, he means he's unshameable. And everybody knew that. So why are we sitting here having this argument about whether where the kid did the right thing or the wrong thing about a vetting meeting? Well, my question is, to me it was really obvious what kind of man we were dealing.
With, I mean, you know, you've, you've put a case as to why it shouldn't be pointed at Starmer and Downing Street. But given what's Scarlett has said about 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 do? Well, I think what he's done this week in terms of he's moved relatively speed down. He can argue he could done
somethings faster. But in terms of, you know, Peter Manson getting Peter Manson out of Labour Party, getting Peter Manson out of the House of Lords, stripping Peter Manson of his peerage through people Anderson of his membership of the Privy Council. I mean, all these things are being done. It's right that there is now an investigation into 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 government has to do now is get to the bottom of what was known and let the public know what was known. Now I I I the point I'm making about, but how? Do you stop the public blaming the government and say and, and, and jumping to all those conclusions that Scarlett 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 criminal case. I mean, this is going to go on forever now. It's a, 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 try and establish facts and stick to facts and try and do substance rather than take decisions on the basis of optics. Now no, no, no, no before I'm.
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 told a known paedophile and sex offender it's secrets about the British state which were deleterious to this. They had known that at the time. If they know that, then sorry, sorry, sorry. No, no, no. No, let me finish my point. Let my finish my point. I'm not talking about optics.
I am talking about an immoral man who didn't did not care about the victims of Epstein and did not care about the British national interest. I'm talking about a man whose morality 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, Scarlett, to separate, come on, the sins of Peter Mandelson 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 harder for the government to untangle that than they maybe think at this moment. Or maybe they do realise that it's going to be that hard. But no, again, I think this is the problem when you have a Prime Minister who's sort of approval ratings are in the gutter, which they are, is that people already want to believe the worst about Keir Starmer.
I find it quite astonishing around 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 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 Keir Starmer and coming with that to
what what he then tells them. So I think it's going to be very, very difficult for him to really come out of this unscathed. It's. Interesting that thing about the kind of level of unpopularity and I can't. I've read loads of people making 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 Keir Starmer's, you know, the, the steep incline of Kier Starmer's ratings, the the decline rather 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 politicians. But again, This is why this scandal is so dangerous. It is bizarre.
Because party gates and the trust budget and all the rest of it, that his popularity is below, below them. Because until this particular scandal erupted, you were thinking, well, he's he's maybe made some mistakes and political mistakes, but what's he done that was so bad that he has this level of unpopularity? And that's it. And the public, the public, you know, they're hungry for change. They don't think they're 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 Keir Starmer in a word, liar was the biggest word that was quite astonishing to me at the time because we've not really had this examples of dishonesty as such like we do with Boris Johnson. 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. What about the one of the One of the really interesting things about politics at the moment is, according to some polls, the five most popular prime ministers in polling history are in rank order. Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Trust, Rishi Sunak. Cheers, Tom. 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 rational assessment of the capabilities and morality of each of those prime ministers. Well, you know, I know why I think Keir Starmer does goes back on his word. And that's because that's political and that's coming from the point of view of the left. I remember the 10 pledges that were extremely left wing, which we we're immediately gone back on. But what I don't understand is how that gets on to into the
mainstream, into the right. I don't understand why reform voters hate them as much as they do. I just don't get it. Do do you think this will finish Starmer off? It's really, really hard to say it is this once once he's finished, because, you know, he was already in freefall that that kind of skirmish over whether Burnham could stand in Gatton and Barton, Gatton and Dartton was was, you know, embarrassing, I thought.
And it showed weakness even though a lot of people thought there was nothing else they could have done. So if it finishes Starmer, 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 Gordon and Denton Tom, how do you stop Labour backbenchers saying this is it, we've now got
to move? I think you have to get some sense proportion on what has actually happened in terms of the scandalous nature of whatever Keir Starmer's decisions were. And I think that proportion is lacking in the media coverage at the moment. I think it's lacking it on Labour backbenchers. 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 Mandelson, it was always going to be a ropy appointment.
And yeah, they fought the risks. They were outweighed by the benefits. But you know, if you look at the interview with The Times yesterday, there are five areas where he's completely at odds with Keir Starmer's foreign policy. On China, on Greenland, on a rules based international, on Europe, indeed on Trump. And Peter Masten 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 Keir Starmer's
policy. So 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 his ambassadors would be untenable even without Epstein. So in that sense it was a bad appointment. I agree with you, it was a bad appointment. What I don't agree is that we should be saying this is the worst ever scandal around Keir Starmer to afflict any Prime Minister ever, when we actually don't know the fact.
That anyone's saying, Keira, what Keir Starmer has done is the worst scandal, you know, of our lifetime. I think people are saying that what Mandelson has done, yeah, is the biggest scandal and. In the last Labour government. But also I mean. You know that anyone can remember, and the point is, it's almost impossible to stop that infecting Keir Starmer, even if Keir Starmer's sins are relatively small. But also, I don't think it's right to stop it infecting Keir Starmer.
And I just explain why I say that when those of us who said when Mandelson was appointed, this is a this appointment stinks. We're told grow up because because we need a good relationship with with Trump. And the implication was only Mandelson knows how to. Only Mandelson is sycophantic enough to give Trump the treatment that he requires, right, Which I believe is true. I'm sure nobody else is as sycophantic as Peter Mandelson.
And I'm sure nobody else cozies up to somebody whose whose values are so completely disgusting in such a convincing way. I can't think of anybody else in Labour who could. But can I just say, like, if anybody in this circumstance had some absolute values, like I don't want a sycophantic relationship with somebody who's kind of like skirting 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. I don't think you can have. Absolute values there. But yeah, I know. But but Tom. Maybe. Maybe. You know, at some point, at some point, you say I don't want a sycophantic relationship. You don't have a sycophantic relationship with Russia because you disapprove of its leader. So, so sorry. Sorry. I agree. Putting a narcissist obsessed by wealth and power into current DC, Washington, DC was a bad idea.
It was like putting a sort of, you know, a, you know, a child, a child addicted to chocolate into a sweet shop, Right. So, so, so it was a bad idea. I agree. Yeah, but that wasn't our idea. That's not clear. But but but what you're doing is you're then jumping from there to some fundamental to a moral judgement that are you are you saying you don't want to have a relationship with United States. But sorry if I. Have a relationship.
I we, we want people don't need democracy to be sustained in Europe. We have to have American security guarantees. That's why we need to. Work, I'm not having you misrepresent my point like that. I did not say no relationship with America, but I just said not a relationship which is so sycophantic that only one man in the country can do it. I think it's a slight side issue as to what our relationship should be. I mean, the government set a direction and. Side. What it was gonna be I.
Mean believe in anything. The question on, I mean, listening to you, Tom, it's a, it's a bit like you're saying it's so unfair. No, and maybe it is. I haven't said that use that phrase once. No, I know you haven't but but that's that's the impression I'm guessing. All I'm saying is. You're saying fact of substance. The the facts are that what Keir Starmer did wasn't that and. There's more facts to be disclosed, so let's wait for those facts.
My, my question to you is really that isn't it obvious that the scale of the Mandelson scandal is so big that it takes the Labour brand that is almost inescapable for Keir Starmer and Labour backbenchers will say we need to do something dramatic to get out of this hole because we can't just hope that people will listen to people like Tom Baldwin and say get a sense of perspective. I think there are valid criticisms of Keir Starmer in appointing Peter Mandelson.
I don't think myself it's a valid criticism to say he should have known what was essentially unknowable because Peter Mandelson, right? So, so, so I'm happy to have a discussion about what is a valid argument that Peter Mandelson 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 therefore is a bad appointment. I just think it's nuts to say he should have known everything that he now knows when
essentially it was nobody. 'S saying that isn't. Isn't isn't the point. Then then you revert to optics and we. Don't know, it's not about. Optics. 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, campaigns well underway 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 backbenchers or how do you think they should stop backbenchers 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 think the argument that I'd be making is we're what, 18 months into five year Parliament, Labour has a working majority of 160. What really matters to people is actually not the vetting process in Downing St. for this
ambassador or that person. It's not Rich Advisor is up and Rich advisor is down. It's not who leaked what to whom. It's not what the lobby think is the important political story of the day. It's actually what's happening in schools, what's happening in hospitals, what's happening and what's happening in the world. And this is a really dangerous, fragile moment for the world.
It is really, I'm scared. And the idea that, you know, the Labour Party goes back staring at its naval bug, think about leadership contest because Andy Burnham wants to be an MP or something like that. You know, like, you know, it's 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 real way, rather than getting constantly tied up in this inside Westminster addiction to chaos
crisis. This idea 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. Is there any evidence that changing the leader would make any difference? The neighbors popularity? No there's not. And and any of the characters who are left now, which is basically what Angela Rayner
wears. Streeting and whoever else wants to throw their hat in the ring, you know that they would be given a chance any more than Keir Starmer has been. No, I mean, I think 2 apparently contradictory things about this at the same time. Firstly, I think that Keir Starmer's brand is irrecoverable 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 Keir Starmer. I think the problem Keir Starmer has there is just how disliked he is by voters on the left as well as voters on the right. So he lost the sort of Labour to reform voters a while ago that, you know, Conservative voters don't like him. None of that is really a surprise to people, 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 Labour, they're sort of lukewarm feeling towards him. I, I think it's a really, really big problem for the Prime Minister. And I do struggle to see how if your Labour, especially if the big, you know, if the big tactic is to rally a vote to stop Farage, stop reform, which probably is as things look at the moment, the best tactic that Labour could come up with.
That it's really difficult to rally behind someone, you know, rally people behind someone who's so unpopular. It's just you're off to a really hard start. And but that being said, there's no evidence anyone would do any better. Tom's already mentioned the how the last few prime ministers have fared and the fact that each one of them have seen similar falls in ratings.
I do think it is difficult to see how anyone survives contact with the electorate, especially in this very difficult position that Labour are in and all the different people they have to try and keep happy and the state, the country in it. It's a really, really difficult job. So. So does that mean it's unrecoverable? No, I, I don't, I sort of think it's unrecoverable and we've got a long way to go. I mean, think about, you know, it's been under 2 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 things like the Gordon and Denton by election could actually be even more hazardous for Keir Starmer than than this current scandal.
But to Tom's point about the things that actually matter to people's lives, from your focus groups, if Labour improves the National Health Service, if they make incremental changes to education and public services, people feel a little bit better off, 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 keyword there was incremental. So I think Labour very cleverly campaigned for change in 2024.
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 wide scale, quick moving change. Change was probably impossible. Which they. Don't want to pay? For but they were but exactly, well, quite. 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. And I think this is the problem is, and again, I said three years is a long time, but 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 incremental change. Sol. I think the keyword Scott used though that that public want these contradictory things.
They want impossible change and one of the reasons why Kier seemed 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 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 people's lives fundamentally in massive way. Immediately you say, look, it is really difficult. You've got failing public services, you've got failing public finance, you've got failing public trust.
That's what they inherited. And in that frame they're 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, politics is a choice between you may not like everything about Keir Starmer and Labour, but do you want him in charge or do you want Nigel Farage with his Putin supporting mates?
That's in charge, isn't it, Zoe? That that come on every every time you jump up and down on Keir Starmer's. On Keir Starmer's grave. Aren't you actually just helping put Nigel Farage? I was actually. Trying to put myself on mute in real life just then, just because I was so desperate to jump in. Look, the the this argument doesn't work.
We had this argument in September when Angela Rayner had a huge scandal and you were saying take your medicine if it wouldn't you rather get behind Keir Starmer than have Nigel Farage in charge? Now you, you will never persuade me to take to, to just suck up the depredations of the of a Labour government in order to prevent the foot, to prevent the incursions of the far right. Because I look at the Labour government and they quite often are mimicking Nigel Farage.
They quite often are mimicking can be bad. Not a lot of the language Shabana Mahmoud 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 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 is done with it. Nobody's saying, OK, let's take
incremental change. I've never seen a bit of relegate and regulation that I don't want to add to Starmer. 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 Prolansky. They just don't. I would just say that Zoe does sound like an awful lot of the voters that get on the left of the spectrum in my focus group, I thought. You've been saying an awful
person. No, not at all, but that have been that have been saying this for months and I think This is why Gordon and Denton is actually such a threat to stomach maybe not even in the immediate term, but in the long term. It's a bit of a pre. 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 carefully by election in Wales that successfully stopped reform that was rallying behind Clyde come really crucially that involved really squashing the Labour vote right down. The problem for Labour is what if the Greens successfully make the case in Gordon and Denton, which is not somewhere they have a huge footprint, not some where they have, you know, business and 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 Labour. I sort of agree that that I agree but with both of you on this, that that for Labour to rebuild a coalition of left and centre left voters, it needs to tell a centre left 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 quite standard Social Democratic things as a sort of scary kind of almost right wing insurgent thing to do. As if, as if they're not interested in the people who always voted Labour, they're interested in the people on the other side of all of voting
reform. And you know, Labour have lost three times as many votes to progressive parties and it has to reform. I've never understood a political strategy which means they just chase after the latter rather than former. 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 absence about the government, about the country and the world, which 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 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 far right government we've never seen before in this
country. That's that's that's, that's, that's, that's the political strategy that they 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 try to contest that same territory. I don't think it's doing them any good. I think it's doing them harm. And do you? Think they can ultimately separate Mandelson from the Labour brand?
Look, there is endless people have 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 necessary taints everyone of the Labour Party with the same sins that Peter Mandelson committed. But. He's not a normal politician. He's not a normal politician in many, many ways. Yeah, he's been sacked multiple times. He kept popping back up. I surprised he popped back again this time.
I know. As a matter of fact, Keir Starmer had some result salvations about appointing him and those reservations were overcome. But it you know, I'd just say again, Zoe condemned at the time, well done. But but there are lots of people now 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 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 stops lying, the truth can never be known. Well, it's the, it's the kind of thing a computer would say. I mean, it's a logical sequence. It is logical, but a lot of people do know what they're dealing with and knew what they were dealing with for ages.
Of Peter Mendelssohn, 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 the The Forecast. Until next time, bye bye.