Everything wrong with Keir Starmer’s media strategy - and how to fix it

This is a Global Player original podcast. Next week we are being promised a reshuffle and a reset. for the Labour government that it's going to be a new page turned, a new start, a fresh beginning. But there are some mighty problems for them to confront. Will any reset, any reshuffle, any new policy really make the difference in resurrecting Keostama's government's fortune?

If they can't sort out one central question, one question that John and I, in one form or another, feel like we've been discussing all summer. What is wrong with the government's communications and what can they do to finally sort it out? Welcome to the newsagents.

The news agents. It's John. It's Lewis. And we thought we'd have this discussion because we were talking last night and thinking about the summer, the political summer, which is of course nearly over. Parliament's back next week. Prime Minister's back from his holiday.

And it's occurred to us that in a way, John and I, over the last four weeks We've sort of been having, in amidst all of the different events that have taken place, it has been quite a busy summer in different ways, but in amidst all of that, we've kind of been orbiting around, skirting around. One conversation again and again and again, which is how can it be, how is it that we've got this government.

A government with, you know, huge majority in the House of Commons. It's still in just about, you know, f year one, early part of of year two i in office. It should be commanding. Albeit it's got these very difficult circumstances, yeah, sure. But we've rarely had a government with all of that all those things on its side and yet it has felt so embattled, so unwilling or unable to command the conversation. And we think That part of that is about its communication strategy or perhaps lack.

of communication strategy, a strategy which is perhaps a little bit out of time and a bit out of date. And so we thought that we'd have this discussion about why that is

And what might be done to improve it. So if you think back to July if your kind of mind hasn't been addled by Too many Negronies or Aperole spritzes over the summer holidays. To think back that in July we had the government getting into a huge amount of trouble over its welfare reform proposals. We saw the kind of terrible sight of Rachel Reeves in tears at Prime Minister's questions. And there was this talk.

That there was going to be a reset, there was going to be a clearer focus, we were gonna see a more kind of I dunno whether polished is the right word, but a more concentrated effort. To communicate what it is that this government is about. Now they have appointed someone to be a permanent secretary of communications.

At a senior civil servant level, David Dinsmore, who used to be the editor of the Sun Newspaper. And he is coming in to grapple this. Now, you know, in terms of communication skills, you've been at the Sun newspaper, you know a lot about journalism, you know a lot about what makes a story. I mean, whether you can bring all the different parts of the civil service together and kind of make them sing to your tune is another question, but it's been striking. Just how little the

The government has felt to be on the front foot. Now it's August, these are when people go away on their holidays and try and recharge their batteries. But it's an opportunity which Nigel Farage we've seen has been taking advantage of.

And yet the government for the thousands of publicity and press officers that are employed by the civil service, what have they been doing? I um think it's extraordinary and I know for a fact I think we both know from different conversations we've had over the summer. The frustration with the kind of government's communications absence is felt by very senior people at the top of the government and around the government. And like you say, John, it is summer. But summer's also an opportunity.

It's an opportunity for the government which has the bully pulpit of politics. to be able to command the agenda. And I think what we've seen over this course of this summer is an exact embodiment of the way that the government handles its communications, how how it can create a vacuum and allow others to command it instead.

Because what the government has done what's what's the main conversation that we've been having basically all summer? We keep coming back to again again in British domestic terms anyway. Well it's about small boats. and it's about the kind of sense of powerlessness that the government seems to have about small boats. Can you think of a single moment, a single day and when you and I have been working throughout all of Aura

Can you think of a single day or a single moment where the government has been on the front foot on that story? Can you think of a single day where the government has planned to do something where it has done anything? Some pictures Some events. some press statement, some anything, about how it's got on the front foot and how it's tackling that problem. I can't think of one. And the r net result is what happens is you allow

The Faragis of the world, and not just the Farages, even worse than the Faragis, the kind of radical right, far right force of this world, to command both the digital and traditional broadcast press opinion. And I think that's That's bizarre, if nothing else. Well, you know, th I I have to be careful how I tread here. Because yesterday we had

the minister responsible for EU relations, Nick Thomas Simmons, in the studio and we love it that ministers want to come on the podcast. But I suppose I was left with this sort of nagging doubt after we had done the interview and after we had had

A lot of obfuscation and evasion and an ability to crisply engage with some of the issues about yeah, I do agree with that and we've got to change that or no we're not going to change that because X, Y, or Z It just kind of was very vague and the feedback we got from our audience on social media was Geez, this is why politicians are losing the public. You know, it was just wasn't a clear answer to any question. What and I suppose if you can't answer those questions to put a minister up

To for the morning round, to go round the s various broadcasting studios. What do you achieve if you have nothing to say and you're just playing a dead back?

to everything. I just think it turns people off. I think you do need to have some answers. So I the net result of basically the government not exactly leaving the pitch, because as you say they've they still come on every morning on the morning round or whatever and you know they're still there. But the net result of

them having little to say or anything new to say or frankly to just re-announce means that the conversation is not of their making. The way that I could tell this, there was a clip that did the round yesterday that I thought was very interesting, and this was of Rylan.

uh, you know, the well known television presenter. He was on this morning. And w normally this morning is not the place where, you know, matters of high politics are are that often discussed. They do have politicians on from time to time, but it it's, you know, it's not that sort of show. Rylan ended up doing this clip talking about small boats and talking about basically how he feels that it's got out of control a and rehearsing many of the talking points.

that we've seen litigated all summer. Here's just a small bit of that clip. This country is built on immigration. Legal immigration. You know, the a a lot of the nurses, the doctors that have saved my mum's life have come over here from other countries, are living a great life, they're paying into this tax system, they're helping this country thrive. I find it absolutely insane that all these people one a a a risk in their lives coming across the channel like that they are.

But two, when they get here, it does seem and I think this is why a lot of Labour voters as well are now sitting there going, There's something wrong here. It seems welcome. Come on in. Here's this is the narrative we're being fed. Here's the hotel. Here's here's the phones. Here's the iPad. Here's the NHS in reception of your hotel. Here's three meals a day. Here's a games room in the hotel. Have a lovely time and welcome. And then there's people

that have lived here all their lives, that are struggling. Yeah. They're a h th how homeless. Let's not even discuss how homeless. That people living on the streets, veterans, all of this. No, this isn't me getting on my soapbox. Because let me be honest, everyone's gonna have an opinion about this and you're gonna upset someone

some which way. I believe that something major needs to be done about this. The money that it's costing us The the amount of people that are in this country that we have no idea who they are, yeah, what they've done, what they're capable of, and clearly we see a lot of it in the press at the moment, some of what some are doing it's not all, what some are doing to people in this country.

How can if I turn up at Heathrow Airport as a British citizen and I've left my passport in Spain, I've got to stand at that airport and won't be let in and got to get this. But if I arrive on a boat in Calais, I get taken to a four star hotel. No, I thought it was so

Revealing about that A, the fact that they're talking about it, the way that Ryland is talking about it. I'm not saying I disagree with him about everything, I I d I don't. And I think in many ways what he's talking about will resonate with a lot of people, and some of it is certainly reasonable. He's also rehearsing

some of the inaccuracies which have flooded the zone over the course of the summer. You know, I mean the actual truth is, you know, you'll usually get if you're a a an asylum seeker, you know, you'll get fifty pounds for each person in your household. You're not particularly likely to go to four, five star

um hotels, you know, you we all know that in many ways the sort of th the life, the lot that an asylum seeker has is not a happy one. But nonetheless he's rehearsing that. And one of the reasons that is the case is because the government have allowed a space to open where they are not even, it feels to me, trying to direct the flow of conversation. Now, the government might not be able to have total success in doing that.

But there have been no counter narratives, there have been no counter arguments made, there have been no attempts really to even fact check some of this stuff. And so as a result, what happens is most people are not connected with or paying attention to the day-to-day politics in the way that we are. But when you have day after day, week after the week, the government sort of stepping back from that, And the agenda being what it is, you end up with

it being discussed on this morning by well known television presenters talking in that way. Look, we pointed out earlier on this week when Nigel Farage made his big speech on immigration and kind of they were going to deport illegal immigrants. that Downing Street's reaction was not to contradict him saying it was an invasion that was taking place. It was like Downing Street didn't want to say anything that might result in a fight with Nigel Farrow.

And if you are just gonna say, I'm not sure what we can say, we'll just talk about the small bits of progress, incremental bits of progress we've made. I'm afraid you're gonna lose the room. The room is not gonna be paying attention. And I suspect that Ryland, for factual inaccuracies though there may have been, the you know, in politics perception is reality.

And what Ryland was saying yesterday will chime with an awful lot of people. I think it was more nuanced as well. I th he wasn't saying he was anti immigrant, I mean he was saying that this country the greatness of this country has been built on immigration and the people in the health service who've saved his mother's life. who have come from abroad. So I don't think he should be He's exactly the sort of person the government needs to be talking to.

He's exactly the sort of I would say probably where a median voter kind of is. So the easy answer to this discussion is to say or the I think facile answer is to say, well, whoever is in charge of press and communications

at the government is doing a bad job because we're talking about government communications being wrong. I was very struck by a senior minister I spoke to. He said the Downing Street operation is like this. He said you've got a lot of people high on power because they're in Downing Street and low on knowledge because they don't know what Keir Starmer himself thinks or wants.

And I think that is a critical point right now for this government. That if you're gonna be sailing in a certain direction, you want the captain on the deck to be saying, right, this is where we are heading. Well, this is absolutely central and key, which is that in order to sell a message you've got to have a

And in order to have communication you've got to have something to communicate. And very often, and this is felt at the very top of government, you know, Keir Starmer is not someone we've talked about it many times, he's not someone who wants to articulate a vision

He wants to show rather than tell, and as I've said many times, you said many times, it is simply not an adequate prospectus in modern politics. You have to be showing and telling all of the time. And to be honest, as dispiritizing as it might be, the telling

is often more important in modern politics than the showing. Because the way the current media environment is, you have got to be everywhere all the time. What I found amazing about Starmer and about the way that they do communications is that It feels to me as if it feels very often like a from another age. It feels to me not only is it from another age, in a sense that they don't understand that so much of modern politics is content rather than communications. We can talk about that more.

But the other thing is, is their entire tone feels so brittle and so old fashioned. We saw it with Nick Thomas Simmons yesterday. It feels like a sort of late 20th century interview style where they're so afraid of saying anything. It is like as I was saying yesterday, they're constantly in the crouch position. Doing the media is just something to be got through, to be endured, and hopefully you can get to the end of it without fucking up, without making a mistake.

That is a completely in my view antiquated way of looking at the media. Trump for all of his problems Exactly, I was gonna talk For all of for all of the him his being a deeply unsatisfactory and many ways immoral, kind of political figure in all these ways. He Shows the way. He makes mistake after mistake or creates fiasco after fiasco in interview after interview. And you know what he does? He just does another one half an hour later.

He does another one an hour later because he knows that he has the bully pulpit. And actually the more media you do, the more interviews you do, the more you allow people to get out there, actually the less each individual interview matters. But the net result of it is that you and your party command the agenda hour after hour, day after day. That is why you see Trump, who is the ultimate incarnation of this sort of politics for good or ill, that is why you see Trump

never missing an opportunity to talk to the media. When he's on Air Force One, what is he doing? He's just hanging out there, cameras are there. Starmer, I'm afraid and I know he won't like this because He doesn't like a lot of modern British politicians. They don't like talking to the media. It makes them nervous. He thinks a lot of us are really facile. I would agree with quite a lot of that.

But I'm afraid Starmer needs to be talking to the media more than he does, probably all of the time, because that is the way that the government commands the agenda rather than when was the last time we heard from him? When was the last time we saw him? Yeah. We saw him last week. in America at the White House with that meeting that was taking place with European leaders and Donald Trump. about what happens next with Ukraine.

And you wonder whether um and this is something else we've spoken about on the podcast, whether Kirstama is so overwhelmed by the kind of weight of international issues on the agenda that he just hasn't had time to focus this. But if you look at Trump He floods the zone. There is endless communication. And I and he's carried on exactly where he left off, you know, when I was in there. Which was that he couldn't walk past a camera or a microphone without stopping to chat.

And it made him very accessible. You'd get four or five different stories out of him walking out onto the South Lawn before getting on Marine One to go to Andrews Air Force Base. Where he'd just go up and down the line of us reporters, answering all our questions and creating a kind of news blizzard of stuff that he has just put out there.

And with this government you think, okay, well they'll do the morning round. Just something else. And this is a micro example. Today on BBC News they were talking about How Keir Starmer is having fired the principal private secretary at number ten Downing Street, or is this person is being moved because they didn't do the job properly. Now one, when have I ever heard about

the slagging off of a senior civil servant in that way. The principal private secretary at number ten Downing Street is normally kind of the creme de la creme of what the civil service has to offer. But I've spoken to someone who's pretty well connected to uh how this government is communicating. And this person says to me, Oh well I think it was probably briefed by someone junior. They've got a very high regard for her. Well if you're communicating stuff

that the Prime Minister himself doesn't believe. And we've seen that, you know, over all sorts of ministers where briefings have gone out that Keirstarmer is at odds with X or Y and then we find out no they're not. Well then Keir Starmer ought to be the one saying, hang on, guys This isn't right. I don't want any of this. It's him who's got to set the course on this. Well, yeah, when I when I say that their entire tone is kind of old fashioned.

I mean that in in not just their interview style, but even the way that they do, even their digital content, right? And I I said before, we said it talked about it last week. M yeah, my view is is that modern communications is not really communications, it's it's content. You've got to really

Stop thinking about what journalists are writing and whether I can take them out for lunch and try and influence them. No, just make sure your content is electric and spell binding and gets everybody talking, and then everything flows from that as Robert Genrick.

whether you like him or not, has shown he's commanded the content and that has commanded the communications because then everyone suddenly is like, Ooh, look, he's dominating the conversation. He's everywhere. He's gonna be the next Conservative Party leader, etcetera, etcetera. Tweet that the PM's account put out last week

Said this, Britain's future is being built right now, in classrooms, youth clubs and communities across the country. Through our plan for change, we're giving our young people the opportunities they deserve so they can thrive. It is so anodyne, it's so boring, it's so nebulous, it's so meaningless you know like People just don't engage with politics in that way anymore, right? I was talking to a cabinet minister not long ago and they were saying they've got quite a small department.

They've got hundreds of press officers in their department, two hundred press officers, or people who work for the wider press. I and I couldn't I couldn't believe it. He said, Well, I don't know, I can't believe it either. And you sort of sat there and thinking Well what on earth I cannot remember. The last bit of government communications that I saw. that had any kind of visceral quality, had any kind of virality to it, had any means of sort of spreading around.

And it is not hard to do this stuff. What you really need is to get some great 20-somethings who just understand social media. That is where politics, whether we like it or not, is being prosecuted nowadays. And one of the reasons our politics at the moment, go back to that first question we started. One of the reasons this government feels so rudderless and buffeted around by the right, by the radical right, is because right now

particularly on certain sites, they are owning social media. They are owning the content machine, right? You need an alternative, a center left, progressive, whatever, you need an alternative Viral voice. I mean just in terms of that aggression, like I'm gonna be a bit crude here. People we might not like this. But for example, you know whether your mum might be listening and you're gonna get into a lot of trouble. Mum um mum, I'm sorry. Please turn your ears away.

I actually think that they were started to get onto something on the online safety debate. When it was brought in and you had Farage going on about it and the radical right going, This is a disgrace, we're turning into the Stasi, all of this new nonsense, right?

And then they came out with those tweets and stuff about basically and th those articles basically suggesting that he was on the side of Jimmy Savile and all this. Now, that was a bad idea just because of some of the previous stories that people have tried to link Jimmy Savile with what happened to him and Keir Starmer, so that was a bad idea.

But it was on the right lines in the sense that they could do with being more politically aggressive. So if I were them And again, it's a little bit crude, but I would have been more much more inclined to say something, or put out a GIF, or do something, or send Westream out there to say, you know what, the thing about Nigel Farage is he's more interested in having a wank.

Instead of being able to No, no, but seriously, instead of actually putting your ID and looking after our kids. That's what I would have said. You know, you send someone to say something as that or to masturbate or to look at porn you know

I know it's crude, I don't really like it. As you know, I don't really like this sort of crudeness in politics. But imagine that would have got everybody talking. It would have dominated dominated the online space. And it would have actually had honestly, it would have had

it would have also been adverting to a central truth, which is that their side cares more about sort of quite kind of like rarefied bits of online freedom. We care more about looking after kids and making sure they're not looking at porn. It's crude, but it would get people talking. So this is where you know, I think that the government would say in its defence, and I think they would be wrong, to say we're the government.

We can't communicate like that. We mustn't be the ones who are kind of debasing the coinage in political discourse. Well, look at what has happened in Washington DC. Look at the way the Trump administration is communicating and some of it is absolutely heinous and there are terrible things going on.

But in terms of the communication, they are keeping their supporters on board. They are keeping their base happy. They are doing the things that they said they would do in a way that is punchy and aggressive and it kind of pugilistic almost in the way that they are going about it. And as you say, what you get on the social media account And the tweet you just read out is a classic of its genre.

It's just blah. It's just vanilla blandness that could be a badly written press release from the nineteen seventies. Yeah, no, exactly. And I think that we are again, I mean we might not like these developments in modern politics and how sort of more crass things have become. In the attention economy that we're living in, how much louder and more crass and brash you might have to be to get your political message across.

But that is the political media world that we're living in. And if Starmer doesn't want to be I mean, as I say, I think the way that it could improve things is by

Doing more media, not less, and that is all media by the way. Why are they still bothering I mean we've got an interest in saying this, but this should be see what my frustration is is that actually You're feeding an old fashioned beast that doesn't move any dials. No. And like my frustration is that I actually think that all this new media world, as sort of slightly scary and a bit worrying as it can be sometimes, I think of for all the parties.

It's the biggest opportunity for the Labour Party. Because the Labour Party historically has struggled with a complete lack of of established media buy-in from the newspapers, which translates to the broadcasters in the BBC because they're afraid of the newspapers, right? They have a

A lot of hostility from the traditional right wing press. That is something this government has had in spades. It's not ha even had a honeymoon in the way that even normally a a Labour government has. It's had direct hostility from the press, from the Daily Mail, from the Sun, from the Rothermeers and the Murdoch, from day one, right?

But suddenly those newspapers have never mattered less. Suddenly there's this whole world where you can command You can ban a whole new media ecosystem of podcasts, Of YouTube, of online digital life, where you can talk directly to people and also there are all of these new channels that are popping up that don't have that hostility. So that fragmentation is a tremendous opportunity for you that they are just not a

exploiting because they're still stuck in these old fashioned ways of thinking. Of course. I agree with absolutely everything. But then you're saying in politics you need to be a character, you need to be a personality, you need to be able to kind of project this stuff. In a way that Trump does, in a way that Boris Johnson did, in a way that other leaders who have got that sort of

you know, f flair for self publicity have got. And I just think the trouble is what would be a tweet from Keir Starmer that would feel authentic. I mean I think that you know, Trump's great appeal is the authenticity. The comedy, the brutality, the you know when you read something from Trump on Truth Social

You know it's his voice. You know he's written it because it's got spelling mistakes, there are grammatical errors, there are full stops, it was it's demotic, it's kind of, you know, slightly nuts. But you know it's him. And that is what gives it its power.

Because you you're hearing directly. What would be the authentic message you would hear from Keir Starmer and think, Oh wow bloody well said mate. Well uh yeah, I mean I think that's fair. I think there are things though. I mean he's actually as politicians go, he's actually a politician. He's one of the most ego-less

politicians actually though I've I've Well is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well I think it could be a good thing or bad thing, but it does allow you to be quite self deprecating and it could allow you to be a little bit more lean into that side of yourself. than other politicians can be. Two I think even if but also it doesn't always have to be Starmer who's doing

He's got this rechauffer coming up, right? Said it's not gonna be the major figures but some of them You know, my main thing if I were Starmer right now at Rising Stummer would be like, Yeah, of course kind of you know, ministerial competence matters and we want people in the departments, but

We've got to think far more about who are the best communicators that we've got and who we're sending out all the time. We need better communication. And we're not not just on the traditional rounds or whatever, but on

the digital side, on the content side, what can we be doing? Who are the people out there who can if it's not the Prime Minister, who are the people out there who are spreading that message? And that's the third thing is it goes back to what you said, John, is like, and what is the message? Now my understanding is is that this summer this autumn they're gonna like major on fairness and this sort of themes of of fairness.

Again this worries me because I just think that th again this is a very nebulous concept, fairness and I've heard many speeches from Starmer where he's tried to kinda flesh it out, whatever and I know you know, his instincts are good ones on lots of these things. I i if you're trying to fashion a message around Starmer, it should be something that actually leans into one of his strengths. So for example, what about security?

For all of Starmer's biggest asset probably against some of these characters. is his stability and the fact he is Mr. Security, both international and at home. Why not lean into that? In a scared world, something that actually means, a word that means something to someone and then thread it across government communication.

One of the problems of the Starmer project from the beginning is they have burned through ideas and burned through emphases that they're putting on. I mean, you know, even in the time Since he's become Prime Minister he's burned through them. They need to find one and stick to it. Because as we've seen, all if you don't do that, people don't hear it. Well look, a year ago and you were right to say uh kind of early on in the podcast that we're only just about into the second year.

It was the mission. It was going to be a mission driven government. What the fuck is that? I I don't know what a mission driven government is. I follow politics closely. Could I name the missions now? No, I couldn't. Can anyone else in Britain name what the missions are and what they actually mean in real terms? Haven't heard from since no haven't been heard of since. And so this idea that we are going to be a mission driven government

Came, it went, no one f remembers anything about it, and on to the next thing. Now look, the fact that Keir Starmer has now got a permanent secretary in charge of communications, maybe that will make a difference. It shows And I I know that, you know, people went in and spoke to Keir Starmer about this and what the government needs to do to communicate properly. And I know one of the people who went in there to speak to him about all this stuff.

No, it's great, but y you've again, it's just focusing on what that message is and at the moment, as we sit here at the end of August, with a new political term about to start, I'm still not clear at all what it is.

So for the past few days, we've been aware that there was going to be some kind of White House summit, thinking about what Gaza could look like the day after. The day when the fighting stops and the rebuilding begins and there is a new dawn or whatever it is for the strip of land to the south of Israel. Where there's been so much fighting and so much suffering. And then I go, Wow, really?

When I heard the news that Tony Blair was part of the discussions, our former Prime Minister. Now Tony Blair, when he stopped being Prime Minister, was head of the Quartet Group and spent an awful lot of time in Israel, trying to work out a way towards peace. And the Quartet group was the EU, UN, US and Russia. And he spent years trying to work out what would be a durable peace.

Since when we have had Donald Trump come along in his second term and we know that advert that he put out saying, you know Gaza Strip could become this playground for the rich, you know, and he put out that video that someone else had made, but it was kind of pretty insulting. It was, you know, dollars raining down from heaven.

Hotels, people sitting by swimming pools, him and Netanyahu next to each other on a beach lounger. It was all kind of slightly ridiculous. And Tony Blair is there advising or is part of the discussion and you kinda think Well what is he advising was the What is he discussing? The Tony Blair Institute is being rather coy about it, saying it wants to be

W he wants a good life for Gaza and the Gazans. So he's not talking about expelling all Palestinians from the territory apparently. But we don't know much more and we don't know whether he's there With the Foreign Office's blessing or not? No, I mean he had a good relationship with Jared Kushner.

during their sort of first Trump administration. And he went to Jared and Uvanka's wedding. There you go. One Blair Ally has told the Financial Times for him it's about getting back to a two state solution. I mean what's intriguing about this, I mean obviously Blair remains extremely well connected in the Middle East. He has obviously been involved, as you say John, with the peace process, if it still exists.

for a very long time. And it's interesting I mean, one cannot imagine that Blair is there um without number ten's blessing and consent, right? I mean, because You know, Peter Mandelson is in Washington as our ambassador, Jonathan Powell, who used to be Blair's chief of staff, is now Kia Starmer's

national security advisor. So you know, there's high level Blairite influence at the heart of this government. I mean the band is back together. That band is very much back together. So it would uh that's me qu and and you know, and Blair and Starmer talk I think a lot and get on.

So, you know, I think impossible to imagine that Blair would imperil that relationship if suddenly Starmore was surprised to discover that he was in uh the White House. But fascinating that, you know, all these years on The Blair is still

A player in these matters at the heart of the White House. Back there again. He was a player in Trump's first term and I didn't realise the full extent of it. I was out in Washington and the day we got news that the A Abraham Accords had been signed and we were saying, you know, we got a statement from the White House there's gonna be a big announcement on the Middle East and I thought, Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever

And then thought, bloody hell, it is a big announcement, you know, that the UAE and Bahrain were going to start diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. And you thought, This is big potatoes. And arguably, what was the spark for October the seventh? of Hamas that the Saudi Arabians were also about to recognise Israel and that

the plight of the Palestinians would be utterly marginalized between the powerful, rich, wealthy Emirati states doing a deal with Israel that cuts out Palestinian concerns. And you wonder whether some similar forces are at play here.

Where you've probably got the Saudis on board, the Qataris on board, the Egyptians on board, Tony Blair on board, maybe the Israelis on board.

And you wonder what kind of future that will leave for the Palestinians if there is some kind of deal that is agreed to. I suppose what Blair calculates and what the Europeans continue to calculate is that the only person who has a hope of Reigning Netanyahu in and pulling the plug on this operation which is more and more abhorrent, um, the forcible displacement of so many Pagazans.

The establishment of a camp from which these people will not, Gardens will not be able to leave on the ruins of Rafa City. All of this is Trump himself. Trump at the moment, who is obsessed with the idea of bringing peace to different parts of the world, curiously uninterested, at least on the surface, in bringing peace to the one place he probably has most ability to affect that peace, which is Gaza and Israel.

And so any influence I suppose that can be brought to bear on that is a good thing. I suppose the only thing is is that, you know, this source close to Blair saying for him it's getting back to a two state solution. You can just about imagine a world where Trump manages to convince Netanyahu to stop the full invasion of Gaza which is going on at the moment. It is much harder to imagine a world where anyone, even Trump, can convince Netanyahu, even if Trump wanted to.

to get to anything that could credibly be anywhere close to a two state solution. I mean when I hear people talk about the two state solution now, I mean it's almost like hearing talk someone talking about the League of Nations or something. It's starting to feel like a sort of artifact

of a kind of geopolitical world long past, a sort of twentieth century concept. And I don't know, it feels to me pretty deluded when you consider how extreme the forces in Netanyahu government are. Exactly. I think they're getting close to that. That the only way there is going to be a durable peace is a two state solution. But how you achieve it right now seems to me utterly impossible.

If Netanyahu agreed with Tony Blair and Donald Trump next week, yeah, we'll have a two state solution, his government falls immediately. You know, Bengever and Smotrich are out. They don't want a two state solution. They want a one state solution. They want the West Bank. They want Gaza. They want it to be part of Greater Israel. So that is just not gonna happen. I also think on a wider level, the trauma for Israelis of October the seventh. And they think it's

Oh, can we really have a two state solution? Can we really believe that there will be can we accept security guarantees? I think it's harder than ever. And you know, frankly, would Palestinians after what they've been through in the last two years want to be a state which is absolutely neutered, living by an Israel that they think has ruined their lives. I think it's fair to say that trust is Low in short supply.

I think it's also reflective, right, of of kind of the Blair's MO of doing politics, right? He's always had a tremendous belief, often justified, although there are limits to it. in his own power of political persuasion, right, that he is sort of has a unique ability to unlock things using his personal relationships, his personal charisma, his personal charm, his contact.

that other politicians can't. And sometimes obviously that has been very effective, obviously perhaps most notably of all during the Good Friday process. But then other times very much not. I mean the truth is you talk about the Quartet John, you know, when he was appointed to that Blair and then maybe he was always the wrong person to do this given his uh particular history in the Middle East.

But nonetheless, you know, he has been at this for a long time. And not just him, other politicians of immense personal charm. Bill Clinton, for example, who probably got closer than anybody else did in two thousand. with in actually getting a deal. This is a a process which ultimately is so structural, which is so historic, which is so dominated by people long dead and events long past. and ideas and religion and so on that it makes it almost impervious.

to the personal abilities I think of any one particular politician to affect change. Yeah, absolutely. I think that there is You know, Blair can be quite messianic, you know, I am a man of destiny and I am the one who can deliver this and this is as you say, over Northern Ireland he pulled it off. And they were incredibly clever.

yn y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd y ffordd With that comes a determination, which you've got to admire.

I d I remember hearing I think it was from Liam Fox when he was Defence Secretary that he was in some Middle East country, staying with the British ambassador in that country. And there in the visitors book above his name was just a signature which said Blair Comma Jerusalem. And it was like Blair of Jerusalem, you know, like Lawrence of Arabia. He saw himself as this figure.

That was the voice of the Middle East. And he you know, uh Fox said to me, I just thought it was remarkable that Blair had signed the book in that way. That is mad. That is mad. Oh well, um best of luck with your endeavours back in the Middle East, aren't you? Look, you know, you w God speed to anyone who can pry kind of you know bring some peace. I just I just love our um our editor uh has written this up.

Part two and the title for this section is What's Blair Up to in the White House, which I kinda feel like we're in some repeat at almost any point for the last 30 years. There we are. Good luck Tony. We'll be back just after this.

Well John, you know when I went to Las Vegas in San Francisco and I promised you something about AI Yeah'cause I thought it was just a holiday. Lads stay out. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's coming. So we're gonna have uh tomorrow on the show we're gonna have the first of two episodes we're doing about AI and how it's gonna transform economy, but actually more germinally our politics because that's the thing that we think has not been

thought about enough and which needs to be thought about more. So the first of two episodes, one will be, which we're gonna get tomorrow, an interview with a very senior figure at Anthropic. Anthropic, one of the big AI organizations. And actually the organization which is speaking out most

about the dangers, economic dangers and political dangers as well. Lots of opportunities but it's an absolutely fascinating conversation and the week after we'll bring you a full report about how it's transforming the United States. It's gonna transform the UK as well and everywhere else for that matter. sort of chat GPT or something like that to kind of write one of your outros where John Sopel is, you know, having his toes manicured in

You know, wherever. Well it just mainly says I've actually just done it and it actually says John Sopal is most known for telling his own listeners to fuck off on a regular basis. So um I can get it to thread that in if you'd like. No. No, no, I'll get it to forget that. Bye bye. 拜拜