Could Andy Burnham replace Keir Starmer as PM?

This is a Global Player original podcast. The thing is, the reality has been in the 10 years that I've done this job. Whenever Westminster has kind of gone into a moment, I've somehow been been drawn into it. And that has just been the reality. You've lived that reality with me. You've seen that happen. And I can't ignore. what's going on down there. Uh but actually to to kind of kinda directly come back to what you said, I've not kind of gone f you know, out there

Rydyn ni'n mynd, ond rydyn ni'n mynd. Rydyn ni'n mynd. Rydyn ni'n mynd. Rydyn ni'n mynd. Rydyn ni'n mynd. Rydyn ni'n mynd. Rydyn ni'n mynd. For me, uh, this is ultimately a matter for the party in Westminster to decide. I'm I am here to support the party in whatever way I can. That is Andy Burnham. Saying all this speculation about him taking over from Keystarmer is nothing to do with him. But at the same time, he is doing absolutely nothing

dispel it. Is the Greater Manchester Mayor making a serious challenge to Keir Starmer's leadership? And if so, what is the plan? Welcome to the newsagents. The news agents. It's John. It's Emily. It's Lewis. And sometimes you learn about leadership intentions from Huddled corners, tiny whispers, little hints that might come from a putative leader's friends, allies, colleagues. But this is very different. This has come in the form of, for a start, a front

page, a cover of a magazine, The News Statesman, a very long interview with Tom McTaig. It's an extremely good interview actually. And he really talks to Burnham about his intentions, his ideas, his policy, his leanings, where Andy Burnham espouses what he calls Manchesterism. This is the man who's been the mayor of Greater Manchester for nearly a decade now, and talks about Manchesterism being a kind of aspirational socialism. We can go into that a bit further.

But as this hit the newsstand He then doubled down, instead of sort of pulling away and saying, Oh, I think I've you know, might have overdone that or I d you know, I think that was I wasn't expecting it to land quite in the way I thought, he's now gone to the telegraph.

not a sort of naturally labour friendly place to talk, but he is clearly bidding to have their attention now to make waves in the telegraph as a person within Labour circles, who is unafraid to challenge Kirstama and frankly to call out a lack of passion, a lack of direction, a lack of proper change that he feels the country needs. Burnham is a figure who has

long attracted attention as a king over the water for for the Labour Party. He's long been treated extremely suspiciously by Keirstama and by number ten. Whenever Keir Starmer there's a feeling that whenever Keirstama is in trouble, Burnham pops up. What he's doing here though, which is dangerous For Starmer.

is that he is not only saying what we already knew, guess what? Andy Burning wants to be Prime Minister. We know that because he stood in twenty fifteen, it was his to win. He botched it and Jeremy Corbyn became leader instead. But he's actually spelling out, giving a Serious critique to the Starmer government and spelling out an alternative prospectus. An alternative prospectus, which is clearly to the left.

of where Keir Starmer is. So he's saying and indeed criticising the way that Starmer has handled himself. in office. So it is as Emily says Pretty full frontal. You know, he's saying that number ten has created a climate of fear in Labour. He's calling for council tax reform to increase rates on big homes in London and the southeast. He says there's a case for a fifty P top Income tax rate, he says that the government should not be, quotes, in hocke to the bond market.

afraid of the people who lend us money and therefore should be more imaginative. This is the sort of thing that number ten, clearly on the eve of the Labour Party conference Will not welcome. He is doing something he's going over and above what he has done before, where he's basically indicated that he might be interested in return to Westminster. He is setting out his stall comprehensively.

Which I think is a complete misnomer. is that he is on manoeuvres. You know, a country has military exercises, NATO has military exercises. This is more akin to february twenty twenty two when Russian troops came. are massing on the border with Ukraine. He's massing his army ready to go over the top, to go into full operational leadership mode. He's saying actively, he says on telegraph that Labour MPs are asking him to stand. Which is very, very explicit.

It just gives him a tiniest bit of distance when he says, Oh, it's Labour MPs who are urging this on me. It's not my own personal ambition, of course, it's just that Labour MPs are so dissatisfied with what is happening down there in Westminster. That makes him feel, I've got to do this. And it'll be fascinating to see how this unfolds because it seems slightly unbelievable. That this is happening only a year and a bit into Keir Starmer's premiership, that a move to unseat him.

seems to be taking place right now and it is the common chat around labour circles, you know, not necessarily we've got to get behind Burnham. But the whole question of the leadership seems to be wide open. And that is a failure

of leadership from Starmer? I think there would be no point in Burnham denying that he had ambitions for Westminster f for the premiership because we know he's been there twice before. In other words He's trying to be straight talking about this. He's trying to come across as somebody who isn't, as you say, on manoeuvres, who is setting out his stool.

And just to go back to that stall for a moment, I think it is quite interesting, this line about not being in hocke to the bond markets. I mean that whole James Carville phrase, you know, when I come back I want to be I want to be rein reincarnated as the bond market suggesting that the most powerful thing in institutional life is what the bond markets can do to any politician or their policies.

I think Andy Burnham is trying to set himself up against Rachel Reeves, who, as we know from that moment in the Commons when she cried, she looked like she might be about to be sacked and then was saved by the bond markets. He's saying, I don't like Reevesism. I don't like the way that the Chancellor is going about the economy. He's already called for an end to the cap on two children having child benefits. In other words

He's I think describing a much more muscular kind of labor position. Yeah, you can call it left, you can call it brown eight, maybe. You can just call it something that has a few more teeth to it. He's prepared to challenge Reeves. He's prepared to challenge things that, you know, might have seemed settled, like the cap on child benefits, because it is such an obvious place to correct. Huge amounts of child poverty in this country. He's prepared to take on council tax.

And I think what he's trying to do is say, Where are you on all this? I mean, where is Labour on this? And I think that's where he will chime. with quite a lot of the party right now. Yes, they know Andy Burnham, yes they know what he's done for Manchester, yes, they know that he's actually failed to get the job twice beforehand. But I think the timing is such that right now there are a lot of people in and around Keir Starmer who are like

I don't understand why we're here. I don't understand why you were so dependent on Morgan McSweeney. I don't understand why we had the catastrophe over the US ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson. I don't understand how we got ourselves in the position of The sacking of Angela Rayner.

I don't understand where everything's gone wrong and Burnham saying, Well, maybe we just try and be a bit more the party that we should have been from the start. Well, most most specifically of all, what the Labour Party is yearning for and searching for on the eve of its conference is meaning and clarity. Yeah. It is yearning for definition and a sense of moral mission, which is something that the Labour Party

you know, every single activist from the sort of Blairite right of the Labour Party to the Corbinite left of the Labour Party, on some level yearns for and wants. And what Starmer, we've talked about it many times, has been unwilling or unable to do so far is provide that clarity and meaning and definition. Now he's clearly going to try and do that and answer that question both in the speech he's making tomorrow, but also obviously in in the speech next week.

Andy Burnham is stepping into that void. I think that Burnham is both very dangerous for a non to ten and actually not remotely dangerous at all for different reasons. He's dangerous because he can provide that clarity. Let's be clear, people are talking about him because he has been a very successful mayor in Greater Manchester. He clearly has a lot of political salubility.

and political strength. He won in his mayoral elections every single ward in Greater Manchester. That doesn't happen by accident. Even in the most Tory wards, he has clearly got a tremendous amount.

of political appeal. He also has a following within the Labour Party. His problem, of course, is simply that he's not a member of Parliament. The Labour Party in is in a way in a similar ish position. I don't think it's as bad, but you could argue, we talked about you and I, Emily talked about this with Luke Trill last week. The Labour Party is is in a sort of sort of mindset, a bit like the Conservative Party was in twenty nineteen with Theresa May. It's feeling exasperated with her.

It wanted the Conservative Party wanted another direction. There was a clear king over the water then. His name was Boris Johnson. He also had an alternative prospectus in the form of an alternative Brexit deal. Hey Presto, he comes in. What was the difference between him and Andy Burnham? Boris Johnson was a member of Parliament.

and they constitute th th the political mechanism to get him into parliament is a torturous and difficult one. So if I were in number ten, yes, I'd find this irritating and they are briefing hard against him today.

Hard, hard, hard one Labour source telling everybody the same thing. I wonder how the people of Greater Manchester would feel about him ditching them, crashing the economy and sending their mortgages through the roof. So they are coming for him, but on another level at the moment with Burden. He and his army because he's not a general on the field. Exactly. And just play it through the politics of this, particularly with reform in the position it is in the pose right now, where it's riding high.

You call a by election. Some Labour MP who's a mate of Burnham says right, I'll stand down, I'll stand out you know, I'll get out the way for you. He becomes the candidate, approved candidate for the Labour Party in said by election. It is going to be a frigging suff Because you're going to see massive tactical voting to stop Andy Burnham because it'll be so funny, so hilarious that the idea that Andy Burnham is trying to line up a safe seat just so that he can become Prime Minister.

It's the sort of thing that voters would think oh. bollocks to that. I'm not having anything to do with it. I'm not voting for Burnham because of it. And Labour are not riding high in the polls at the moment. There is absolutely no guarantee of any seat being safe for Andy Burnham to fight right now. So if Burnham does this. There is a massive gamble, a roll of the dice, because if he fought a by election and lost He would look a right chump.

I also think, to your point, Lewis, he is opening up a space between himself and Starmer. And if Starmer plays this well, he will say, is that really what you want? Look at what he's suggesting. He doesn't believe in the bond markets, he doesn't believe in fiscal rules, he doesn't believe in what we are doing to keep the economy, he would say, stable.

I mean the implication we don't entirely know what Burnham means by, you know, not being hocked to the bond markets, but the reading is that he'd be prepared to borrow a lot more money. Now, I think Keir Starmer can then turn that round and say, Oh really? Do you want the fiscal rules to go out the The window then we've got, you know, ninety-six percent costs on borrowing. Is that really what you want? And so there is a world in which

Burnham becomes quite a useful sort of stooge or control, whereby Starmer says, Tell me that's what you want. You know, is that really what you want? Because I didn't think you liked it when Liz Liz trusted.

didn't like the bomb markers. I didn't I didn't think you liked it when she forgot all the fiscal rules. You know, is that I mean to your point, you know, the the line about, you know, people crashing the economy, that's what they're suggesting. They're trying to line Andy Burnham up as a kind of Liz Truss Wannabe and say he would be as careless as she was with your money.

So there is a world in which Starmer has to play this right to say if you don't do what we're doing, you end up where he's taking it. Well I'm sure there will be an oblique reference in Spa Starmer's speech next week. Obviously won't mention Ba Burnham by name, but he'll say something along the lines of you know, people who promise you false promises that can't be afforded.

are making exactly the same mistake that the Tories did. And everyone will know what it means. Everyone will know what it means that it'll be a a rebuke to Burnham. And but this is what I kind of mean about him being sort of both dangerous and and

and not dangerous at at the same time, which is that look, I think I think there's a bit of a feeling developing that Burnham is overplaying his hand a bit because you get that from Well no, no, but I mean I don't mean in number ten. I mean even among a median Labour MP look media median Labour MP right now, they are kind of Terrified about reform. Yes, I don't think it's impossible that at some point of this Parliament if

if the polling looks is where it is now that clearly the Labour Party might be c willing to consider more drastic options. There is still a feeling though that we're only a year in to a five year parliament. The mechanisms for getting Burnham into into Parliament is not clear. I mean it's worse than just the the the the by election genre than what a kind of um as you say, what a circus it would be. Like actually, in order for him to stand, right

The NEC, the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, would have to allow him to be a candidate in this in this selection, right? Now that means that the Starmer controlled N E C as it currently is, would have to allow Burnham, who has already made it clear that he wants Starmer's job, to stand in that by-election, to come into by I mean Starmer would have to basically turn around.

But that's still just one I mean yeah, so Lucy Powell, who's obviously running for deputy leader, is kind of Burnham's person. If she uh becomes deputy leader, she gets an automatic place on the NEC. That helps Burnham, but that's still just you know, one seat on the NEC. So so that's difficult. And also they'll be able to say, number ten will be able to say, hang on, Andy Burnham, um, your term as Greater Manchester Mayor doesn't expire until twenty twenty eight.

So you gonna continue as Mayor Great of Manchester? An MP at the same time. And if you're not I think Dan Jarvis did that. Yes, he did, but this is a bigger thing, right? And Dan Jarvis stopped doing it in the end because he said he it was too much work. But I mean there is a precedent for holding the phone. And Boris Johnson did it, yes, for a brief period. But the right his p so but also the point is if he doesn't

then there has to be another by election. And this time for the greater Manchester Meralty. I was talking to a Labour person last night who said, you know, we'd probably lose that right now. So the NEC can sort of turn around to him and say we can't afford

Mandy and we'd love to have you in Parliament, but we can't afford to possibly risk a greater Manchester Meralty by elections. So honestly I actually read this with Burnham to some extent. I think it's a kind of creed decour. I think it's almost like a sign of desperation. He's desperate to get back in to the Westminster game, however much he kind of pretends that he abhores it. He's desperate to be uh to do it. He's been desperate for some time.

And actually he can't see a path to it and that's why he's doing it. Or he just wants a bigger role. He wants something from this that doesn't end in the premiership but ends in him being brought into the here circle. Well Starmanau hates him. So I don't know. And also the kind of

I mean y you know, th y you were talking about the briefing operation. Get sent to Washington. Andy, how do you fancy? The other thing that kind of keeps being thrown at Burner. A special advisor back in the nineties who then becomes an MP, who is then an Uber Blairite, who then when Blair falls becomes a Brownite. The critique that you hear from a lot of those sort of people back then is that he just blew with wherever the wind

was blowing. Well I n yeah I know that. No, but it is the argument that is made about Burnham and is that a fair argument or not? I mean I I don't know. I I think a bit more charitably to Burnham, you could say

That like you know, he's as you say, John, he's been in politics a long time. Like, you know, for twenty five years, whatever. Politics is really different, you know, it's changed so much in that time. Politics on the left has changed in that time. I don't think it's completely unreasonable that he may have

moved a little bit over the over the years, particularly from being a a young man. And like I say, I mean, there are politicians who can make the argument about, you know, politicians being chameleons. I'm not sure Keir Starmer is the strongest candidate to make that argument about someone else. Tom McTagin in The New Statesman describes the bad blood that already existed between Starmer and Burnham because Burnham refused to support Starmer's bid for the leadership and went for

one of the Manchester candidates, Lisa Nandy, or Rebecca Long Bailey. I forget who he went for in the end. Right. So I mean so there was always I think that sense of a personal animate. between the two of them. Oh yeah, they can't stand each other. They can't stand each other. And I guess I mean I guess the other thing about Andy Burnham is do you think and this plays to a bigger question, which is has somebody who's been for the job twice and failed

got closer to realising who they are and what their politics are, and are they now happier in their skin being who they are? Or did the electorate just look at you and kinda go Okay, that ambition's been sitting there for a while and you know, I don't really I mean, th the thing that that always comes to mind for me is David Millerband who kept on sort of Jabbing and then running at Gordon Brown. He wrote that big op-head piece for the Guardian and the Sunday Times the Troy.

It's very interesting that he sort of went towards it and then didn't quite dare went towards it and didn't quite dare. James Pennell resigned from the cabinet to free up the space for David Milliband to to launch the kind of leadership bid and he chickened out.

I mean the other thing is is that like wha whatever Burnham says about the bond markets and and you could you could make an argument that you could risk it a bit and sort of go for a more aggressive borrowing strategy if you did it in the right way and it wouldn't necessarily be a repeat of trust'cause trust did things in a certain way. You know, you Yeah, you can make that argument. But it's also true to say that like

A Burnham government would face so many of the same structural tensions. Yeah, you could replace Starmer with Burnham and I think Burnham one thing Burnham would clearly I think be better at is a communications element of the job. You could argue he'd be better at providing that definition but a lot of structural tension.

W hugely respected over the Hillsborough compensation scheme and what ha what he's actually brought to victims of Hillsborough. I remember him as Health Secretary talking about the need to find a solution to social care. I mean I can't believe I'm saying this, but it was Twenty years ago, you know. So this idea that he was actually much more prepared, always prepared

to work cross party to find those things and he's made a success of Manchester. So I think he's genuine. Of course it is, I know. It's sort of you know it's like going from kind of local to national is a is a different thing. I'm and I'm not saying for a moment that Manchester is some, you know, m backwater. He's done extraordinary things with that and he's transformed it. It's brilliant. But it doesn't always translate to the kind of crumbling

Edifices and complications of Westminster, right? I think it's just a bit early. That's the thing, isn't it? Okay. Is this gonna happen or not? I don't think I no. I I just don't see any mechanism for him to get into Parliament. If you were in Parliament we'd be having a totally different conversation. Emily Maitless, I'm coming to you now. I don't think you can change leader more than once.

for Labour in five years. And I'd be very surprised if it happened this quickly in this way. I think the ambition is there. I just don't see the mechanisms by which it happens. I think structurally it's too difficult. So we could all be wrong by next year. Exactly. There we are. We'll be back in just a moment.

with Patrick Marba, the director of the producers, but a stunning back catalogue of the day today and all sorts of other Alan Partridge, etcetera, etcetera. And his new theatrical production has just opened in London to absolute brave reviews. If you want to catch up on more on the Andy Burnham story, you can find it on our free Global Player app on LBC. The news agents. Across the road from this studio, barely 50 paces away.

A production of The Producers has just opened the kind of famous Mel Brooks film from this nineteen sixties that has come back to life in a new production. Directed by Patrick Marbour. Who Patrick Marber you know who Patrick Marbour is. He's directed and written bloody everything that you've ever thought was funny and he's in the studio now. And it's a great, great pleasure.

to have you here with us. Thank you for coming in. Thank you so much. There's so much back catalogue we could talk about. I want to start though with the producers. And there were so many swastikas on that stage in one show. It was incredible.

And you couldn't help thinking of all those That's quite an intro I think you have to explain a bit more what it's about before saying there were so many smosters. Well it's a parody on Hitler and the idea of the producers if you haven't seen it is that there are a theatrical producer, Max Biolstock, who wants to make a production.

Because he's raised so much money for it that it fails on the first night and he pockets the money that's left over. Except it is so camp and so kitsch it becomes a glorious, stunning success. Camp, kitsch, it's got everything and lots of swastikas. There we are. Have I explained the swastikas satisfactorily? I I think so. Um yes, the unscrupulous producer Max Bialistock and his

co producer Leo Bloom, who's an accountant, they've come up with this scheme that a producer can make more money with a flop than a hit. So really the first half of the show is It's like the Magnificent Seven, they recruit the worst possible p people to put on a show and then in the second half it's what happens and you see you see a bit of the show and but th yes, they they are producing a show called Springtime for Hitler and

They've read a lot of plays and they've they've decided this is the worst one and it can't possibly succeed. I suppose I mentioned so many swastikas because we do seem to be in a season Right, now in England I say England advisedly. where there are an awful lot of flags around. I mean not swastikas obviously, but uh the kind of portrayal Macho portrayal often is not

of the St George's flag. And I just wondered kind of whether you know, i th this is a parody on Hitler and a and a satire on Hitler and I just wonder whether it was also applicable on in a wider sense. Well let's see it's

It's a satire but very low level satire. It's not it's not um uh sharp satire, I would say. It's it's much more farcical than that. The tone of the show is as you would expect from Mel Brooks, it's preposterous and it's silly and it's playful and it's rude and it's it's more comparable with something like Book of Mormon as a piece of work than Jonathan Swift. It's it's it's um it's mocking lots of different things. Yes, the Nazis get mocked.

To my knowledge, when Mel Brooks wrote the film and made it and released it in nineteen sixty seven it was possibly the first piece of comedy done about Nazism. I think up till then maybe there'd been some funny cartoons. But no one had yeah, I think if you were growing up in the forties and fifties, you would be watching very serious programmes um and very serious commentary on what had happened.

But I think Mel Brooks was the first person to go, Yes, and we can laugh at it. When that first came out it was twenty years after the end of the Second World War and the the sort of force of emotion. Must have been extraordinary to be punctuated by something that just said, We are allowed to laugh at this. Yes, I think it would have been very shocking. Very shocking. To see the sequence where they performed springtime for Hitler in nineteen sixty seven.

And it wasn't well reviewed, the original film. The person who uh apocryphally Is that a word? Uh s saved the project was Peter Sellers who took out an ad in Variety and said everyone must go and see Mel Brooks' film. Um and that kind of put it on the map that someone so famously and a Jewish comic as well, supporting another Jewish comic. It became a cult film after that. Because what you do is at the centre of the musical is a very fac ridiculous, funny Hitler. And you give people permission

To laugh instead of feeling rage. What happens in the in the show is that the the person who's cast to play Hitler, who is in fact German breaks his leg on opening night and the director of the show, who's very, very camp, uh character called Roger Debris, who's brilliantly played by Trevor Ashley. The second he came in an audition I thought, That's our that's our Roger.

because he brought something to the the idea of having a rotund Hitler was not something that I was necessarily looking for, but when he came in and sang springtime, I just thought this is

This is fantastic. Hitler has been portrayed in many different ways. But not fat and gay. And Patrick, I wanna kinda take that idea because the parallels for now are very clear and very obvious, aren't they? That we've got a kind of dictator like figure in America who is both farcical and deeply scary. Yes. And that seems to me the conundrum that we've got in Trump. That on the one hand

We're all laughing at him when he speaks at the UN and he moans about the escalators and the teleprompter and the mics and you know, and the fact that he has to actually walk up a flight of stairs. It's hilarious. And then in the same breath he goes after his political enemies and he rounds up people and he deports them and that's not hilarious. Well it's hilarious to us liberals, but I think the important thing to remember in all conversation about Trump is he took half the people with him.

uh and they still support him, even though ratings are low. That something has happened in America and in in the culture that is is so profoundly different. to anything that has gone before. He's a president like no other president has ever been. I mean I remember in the olden days when we used to think Bush was an idiot, um, and would laugh at Bush and he because he couldn't pronounce words very well or he there were malapropisms and we thought he was an idiot, but now

Uh W seems like a a grand statesman from a forgotten era. Yeah. Well I mean Dub W jokes about it. He says, you know, someone said you hate must hate Donald Trump. He said, I love Donald Trump, he makes me look like Thomas Jefferson. Willie's right. And there is an element of that. In the programme for the producers, there is an interview with Mel Brooks.

And that is reproduced from years ago where Melbrook says that when you've got a dictator who has got huge amounts of power or acts like a dictator, the one thing you can do is puncture their Pomposity with laughter, a mockery. Yes. And I I just and you kind of you know, so I saw it this week and you this week we've also seen Jimmy Kimmel come back on television.

And you think that's exactly the same thing that Jimmy Kimmel's monologue was, you couldn't bloody take a joke. Yeah. Sadly though, um, I think Mockery doesn't really bring down a dictator. It just makes us all feel a bit better. But I don't really think that satire has ever changed anything. It provides comfort, which is of itself useful and a change, but Trump's not going to be brought down by mockery. He'll be brought down either by his own excesses or

things coming out about him or you'll be voted out but it's but it's not satire that's gonna do the job. Does that depress you? Do you think that your

whatever you do, you're not actually changing the world then? Or do you just say I I've left everyone feeling a bit happier at the end of the night? Well, I went into show business to put on shows. You know, I've I c I come at it from a very simple perspective that I couldn't think of anything else I wanted to do in the world other than write and direct and act.

And so I remember it very well when we were doing on the hour and the day to day and we were satirizing the way news was delivered. You were Peter O'Han. I was Peter O'Hanrahahan. Go on, do a bit more. And I was very proud to be in those shows. But I always felt that Armando and Chris had a a sort of angry agenda. This is Chris Morris and Armando Unici. Did you see what S Sky News did last night? Did you see what was on the beam?

Mm I always just thought we were doing a funny show. I mean I knew we were satirizing, but I was just happy to be Where did you sit in that sort of where did Steve Coogan sit in that? Because he's pretty angry about things in this. Yes, he's he Steve's always been quite left wing and he comes from a uh a moral and Catholic perspective in this way he looks at the world and his father was a b a very um good socialist and I think Steve

Steve shares that anger. I share the anger, I'm just not interested in it artistically. I just like putting on a show. And if if it's a funny show, great. I didn't go into it thinking that my way of changing the world would be the deployment of satire. Do you think that anger gets in the way of humour? I mean do you think that not at all. I remember Press and I idolized uh in the early days of

what was then known as alternative comedy was Alexei Sale. He was absolutely furious and hilarious. And I can still see him doing his stand up routines and all this stuff. But I gravitated more to the world of Rick Mail and Aid Edmondson. and their silliness. made me laugh more. Um I've always been more amused by I guess the the ridiculous and the I'm just not a satirical guy I guess. I think this is such an interesting sort of subject because

You're probably right that satire doesn't change the world and it's not going to bring any president down who is secure in his position. But yet it does feel this week that Jimmy Kimmel, who's a T V comedian has become uh you know, kind of the the sharp point. Yeah. For the fight back about free speech and because he made a joke and then gets cancelled and taken off air and then put back on air, he is the focal point for people looking and thinking

He's the one who's, you know, holding the flag highest. We've got a rally behind it. Yeah, and that and and it's all great and comedy should be. provocative and punching at things and pointing things out. It has absolute purpose, I think, in any society to to mock the hypocrisies of of those who lead us. So I think it has power and function, but I don't really think it changes anything. I think it just moves opinion a tiny bit.

But incremental gains are important in the world and so I think it it has value, but it's not something I personally set out to do. And I'm thinking of my seventeen or eighteen year old self who's a a Marxist. Who would be appalled by this sort of

complacent liberals sitting here saying this because I wanted to change the world. I still do want to change the world. I just don't think comedy is the best form to do that. I had an absurd thought when I was watching your show last week, Patrick, which was

That on the one hand you think you're playing to this probably you think you're playing to a super liberal audience who wants to go there to to feel better about, you know, the state of the world right now. But there is a world in which Elon Musk Buys up all the tickets and gives them to Tommy Robinson and all his mates.

And the whole theatre is just full of people who really love seeing swastikas on stage because they're really getting behind the sort of movement of the extreme hard right. And and what would the cast do? What would the actors do?

if that sort of came to be, if if there was if you like a sort of almost a hijacking of the intention. I think you can't you can't guarantee what what an audience for the producers are actually like because it's a show that appeals across the board, not just to Labour supporters, liberals, lefties, it's it's a mainstream show for a mainstream audience and you don't know what the politics are of anyone who comes in, but we did play a matinee when we were in previews.

on the day that uh Stephen Yaxley Lennon's march occurred. So they were in Trafalgar Square making a lot of noise and we were at the Garrick Theatre fifty yards away. Did you get his name up? Making making a lot of noise. I don't know what I'm saying about it. It's not profound. If it it was just a thing and it was odd because You wouldn't have to do that.

you know, in the eighties and nineties if you were doing the producers, there wasn't a lot of it around. But the flag, as you said, a has come back. I mean,'cause the message of the producers in in the end is in the is in the final number, uh, which is called Prisoners of Love. And it's a sweet romantic number and it it sort of the show is saying, We're all prisoners of love in the end. That's what drives us. That's

that's the biggest motivation for humankind is to love each other and we're compelled to we can't not love each other. And I think that's why the show works night after night because its heart is soft and giving. It's not brutal satire. It's kind of loving and embracing and and shocking at times. I mean it it's amazing watching Mainly the younger people in the audience watching them watch the springtime for Hitler number. They can't believe it. They're amazed that you can do this on a stage.

And uh because it it's so uh not what they've grown up with to expect a show to be. Um and it it's joyous to see that that liberation of these souls who can who are allowed to laugh at things they didn't know they were allowed to laugh at or had been forbidden to laugh at. 'Cause the show is is quite um old fashioned in its sexual politics, in all of its politics.

But it's not um I don't think it's It's not censorious. No, it's not and everyone gets a swipe. Whether whether they're Jews, Nazis gays, whoever. She basically appealed to everyone who hates politically correct theaters. I think i it's just refreshing to see a show that isn't um pious. Um or Puritan. Certainly not Puritan. But but that uh has its heart in the right place. It's also kind of sexy the show'cause it's it's got beautiful chorus girls and chorus boys and it

It's about love and I think the relationship between Ulla and Leo is kind of sexy when they dance together, um, and they're that face number. I think it the choreographer Lauren Lotaro has done a beautiful job. It's like you're watching something from the fifties and it has proper romance. Patrick, a great pleasure. Thank you so much for coming in.

My absolute pleasure. Thank I sorry I didn't do enough uh Peter O'Han Rahn for you, but uh We'll find the clever. I'll come I'll come back one day. We can come back. You're welcome any time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Journalists. Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari. James O'Brien on LBC. Good afternoon, I'm Sheila. Hello, this is Leading Britain's conversation.

The news agents. And I don't mind making the speech without a teleprompter, because the teleprompter is not working. I feel very happy to be up here with you nevertheless. And that way you speak more from the heart. I can only say that whoever's operating this teleprompter is in big trouble. So apparently it wasn't a joke. President Trump has now demanded an immediate investigation into whether UN staff actually sabotaged him at that United Nations General Assembly speech.

that he gave on Tuesday. He wrote on Two Social, A real disgrace took place at the United Nations. The telepromping to start, the escalator stopping, and sound problems in the hall. It transpires that after he finished speaking and he went to ask Melania how he did, she said she couldn't hear a word. So he now thinks that he has been sabotaged and he is looking to have people arrested. Why does he want to arrest everyone for everything these days? He went on on

To say on Truth Social, all security tapes at the escalator should be saved. Especially the emergency stop button. Don't laugh. I'm reading this as seriously as I can. The Secret Service is involved. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I still find that so sweet. Thank you. We should we should sign off like that every day on this show. Oh thank you for your attention to this matter for this matter. Tomorrow. The trouble is somebody is gonna get fired for this.

And he's probably gonna end up pulling America out of the UN because of the escalator. I mean that's how things He'll demand Antonio Guterres' resignation. Yeah, for the red button. For the yeah, red button. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye bye. Bye. Bye bye. This is a Global Player Original Podcast.