How did the coup against Keir Starmer go wrong?

This is a Global Player original podcast. How long do you think the Prime Minister has got? Well, I think what happened yesterday was that the Labour Party as a whole looked over the precipice and thought. And step back again. Keir Starmer is still in office, he's still Prime Minister, but is he, as Kemi Baidenock has argued, in office, but not in power?

What actually happened yesterday? What do we understand 24 hours later about an attempted coup that never quite took off? Welcome to the newsagents. The news agents. It's Emily. It's Lewis, and Monday was one of those very weird Westminster days where if Unlike us, you are a normal person who maybe looked at the news first thing in the morning and looked at the news when you left work in the evening, you will have been blissfully unaware that something almost happened.

And the rest of us, journalists and so on, covering it minute by minute. that looked as if it might just have led to Keir Starmer being removed from office, but it didn't. We were doing the show almost in real time yesterday, almost as sort of rolling news, which is a little bit difficult sometimes when you're a podcast. But where we've got to is we saw a series of events where first thing in the morning

Keir Starmer uh lost another key number ten operative, that's Tim Allen, his director of communications. Shortly afterwards The whole of Westminster started to reverberate because we heard that Anna Sawar, the Scottish Labour leader, would call on Keir Starmer to resign. And it was at that moment that it looked as if the dominoes, the line of dominoes, were about to fall. And then we waited. And we waited.

And actually, rather than the dominoes falling, they came out fighting one by one for Keir Starmer. I like fighting dominoes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. My favourite thing. My favourite thing on a Saturday evening. Exactly. It's stuff crossed better than than Greyhound racing. Absolutely. Yeah. Uh well particularly for you, you wouldn't like that. Definitely not. But we were in a situation left, we were just hearing from our editor Tom.

That we might have to be back here doing an emergency episode if Kiss Darma had vanished by seven o'clock last night. Absolutely. And we did not do that because by the time we got to the evening all the cabinet pretty much to a man and woman had come out, admittedly with varying degrees of enthusiasm, saying that Keir Starmer should fight on. He went to the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting that evening, and most people seem to think that he gave a pretty robust at that meeting.

And in the meantime as well, we've seen the slightly weird sight of perhaps his chief rival from within the cabinet for the top job West Streeting, the health secretary. preemptively giving his communications, his WhatsApp messages with a disgraced Peter Mandelson in an attempt, it seems, to try and get ahead of the documents being released and trying to say

that I've got nothing to hide and we're left in a situation where much of the Labour Party is wondering what yesterday was about. Was it about a b and this is one theory, a coup attempt Basically devised between Anasawa and West Streeting who are close allies, and was it a little bit like that famous?

two thousand and nine moment where James Panal, then a Labour Cabinet Secretary, resigned, expected David Miliband, then Foreign Secretary, to go with him, Miliband bottled it, and Brigordon Brown stayed in place. Well let's take you first of all into that. PLP meeting that was held at six o'clock last night. I've been speaking to MPs in the room and you won't be surprised to hear that there were sort of differing responses to what actually went on. But one person said

It was very emotional. It was packed with their words, all the giants. And sometimes we talk about the parliamentary Labour Party without registering that at these meetings you get the peers. as well as the MPs. And in the room, this person talking about the Giants, Neil Kinnock was there, David Blunkett was there, Angie Hunter was there, around 200 people, MPs and peers. And this person described an elderly peer at the very front.

somebody who clearly sort of struggling with their, you know, flexibility and ability to sort of move around easily. But she said this elderly peer was on his feet. every single time there was the chance for them to applaud. In other words This was a show of force. This was a show of support. If you didn't really like Keir Starmer, you would not have attended the meeting, is my sense. So most of the people in the room were there to show their support.

And they came because they'd been worried about the events of the day, they came because of Anasawa's intervention, they came because they wanted to show it wasn't just the cabinet supporting, but it was the rest of the parliamentary party. And Kirstarmer apparently he used many of the lines that he'd used on that speech in Hastings last week.

where he began by talking about the victims, he reiterated his apology personally to the victims and he said he took full responsibility. He wasn't blaming Morgan McSweeney, who's now gone. And then he turned the corner. and he said this was a fight for the future of our country, for democracy, and he made it about reform. And the people I've been speaking to said that that was the point at which the room was kind of on side. In other words

He made it sound existential. Like if you start to get rid of me, you are starting to open the door to reform and then I don't know how we get back to a place of of sort of solid democracy. David Blunkett apparently also stood up and said, Never forget I mean this is sort of not a quote but this is the sense of what he said, never forget how hard we have to fight to get into government.

and even he somebody who'd had issues with Kirstar Marova policy, the child allowance or something. Well yeah, he called the government dire at the point. I mean I think that was the point that somebody who had been An internal critic of the government, Anne of Starmer, was still saying don't lose sight of the mission, don't throw it away.

There are about forty-four questions. Most of them were, I think, fairly supportive, but not all of them. And this person said it was unheard of to allow for forty questions. In other words, Keir Starmer was there to answer all the worries they had. Somebody else who was less supportive of what went on in the PLP said to me, I would have really liked a nod. To the end of the sort of blokey backslapping that had got us to where we were as a party. She said

Instead I got a football analogy and a battle cry. You know, it still sounded a little bit too male, you know, let's fight on, and it wasn't the tone that they were looking for. But I think at the end of that hour or so, the sense you got was that

the majority of the MPs and as I say, about two hundred in the room, realised that As Ed Miliban just said, they went as close to the precipice as it was comfortable to get. without suddenly going, Oh my god, we're gonna be out of power ourselves if we don't get a grip on this. Now, how long that will last obviously is the big question.

And I have to say to your point earlier, I know that West Streeting has adamantly denied being part of that coup and he blames number ten. And to be fair, West Streeting is quite often the fall guy for number ten when something is going wrong. Yeah, but he's also plotting all the time. And this is the thing. I mean I I think we said yesterday, Emily, that it was very likely that if Starmer could get to that PLP meeting,

course of events you've just described would likely play out.'Cause that's how those meetings often work. You know, they're they're very rarely they're often built up, they're rarely blood banned. As you say, most of the people who actually don't like the don't turn up. And you know, my understanding is as well that there was a um let's say a sort of series of auditions for ministerial jobs from supportive backbenchers, you know, offering their their support. That is often how it goes.

I think the the Labour Party this morning is sort of tussling with and trying to analyse exactly what happened yesterday. And as we're saying, there's kind of two schools of of thought in it. One basically put about by the anti West Street in camp and one put about by those who are more favourable to him.

One is is that it was a coup attempt and that it was something that was hatched up as we're saying between Anasawa, the sort of contingent of Scottish Labour MPs who were very friendly with West Streeting. West Streeting's got a lot of support on the uh Labour benches.

and that for whatever reason it it didn't quite happen. The other one is simply that Sawa, look, as we were sort of saying yesterday again, he's got his own reasons to do what he did. You know, he is the leader of what is in effect an independent branch of the Labour Party in Scotland. They're facing

difficult elections that they had hoped might go far better for them. They're trying desperately to roll the dice, having slid down the poll since Labour came to office, to try and get back in the game in Holyrood, to try and dislodge the SNP who have been in office In Holyrood since 2007, and that therefore this was m as much about Scottish politics and Scottish Labour politics.

as it is about national politics. Now That still leaves Scottish Labour and the Labour Party in some turmoil because bear in mind, you know, as I was saying yesterday, we're in a situation where the Labour Party's going into those elections And imagine just how difficult the relationship is now going to be between the Central Party and Scottish Labour. Do Labour cabinet ministers go up and fight?

For Anna Sawa and for Scottish Labour, despite the fact that Anna Sawa has said that the Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, should no longer be in office. Likewise ditto with with Keir Starmer. And I think My sense is I mean look, s some people are saying to me that they think that the main takeaway of this morning and yesterday is how badly Wes Streeting's intervention has gone down with certain parts certainly of the government And certain parts of the PLP.

For two reasons. W when you say intervention West treating is intervention. This is West Treating. So so first of all, obviously there is bad blood for those who think that this was a coup. Now This is, as you say, being furiously denied by by Wes Streeting. Hard to get to the bottom of exactly what happened so soon afterwards. But I'm talking more about what Streeting did in releasing the texts between himself and Mandelson.

And the reason that that has gone down badly is for a few reasons. One, they see it, parts of the government see it, as Part of the open plotting that they think Streeting is doing, that this is about clearing the decks in anticipation of a leadership bid because The idea that basically that, you know, a relationship with Mandelson is such a toxic thing that he's trying to get out ahead of it. The police have come out this morning and as has the Cabinet Office, the government

urging other cabinet ministers not to publish their text messages and WhatsApps with Mandelson because obviously there's a live evidence right because there's a live investigation going on to it. And also linked to the first point. There is a feeling that not only is it a powerful

Mandelson himself and trying to cleanse that relationship. But Kelsey Paris, the sort of texts that have been released and published, just so happened to show that West Streeting was actually quite critical of Israel and quite critical actually talking actively about the idea with Mandelson. Of war crimes being committed. And this person said to me, The idea that you publish what are attacks on economics, because Streeting also said the government in these texts.

has no growth strategy. That you publish attacks on economics and foreign policy is so disloyal. And I think it feels to me that One way or the other I'm not sure streeting has got long for the government in the sense that I'm not sure that cabinet is big enough for both Starmer and Streeting on the trajectory currently that Streeting is going in. I think it's really interesting just to analyse those minutes.

between uh Anasawa speech and obviously all the kind of support that came out of the cabinet because in those gaps is when things happen or they don't happen. Now you raised the spectrum of the two thousand nine James Pennell putsch, right? Which was when Gordon Brown's minister explained.

expected David Miliband to follow him. He was the culture secretary, I think. He was the culture secretary at the time and David Miliband was foreign secretary. So it would have been obviously a big scalp and people were looking at David Miliband there as a possible Brown successor. And it didn't happen. Now one thing I'd say about the intervention of Anas Sawa is And I think the way you phrased it was absolutely right, a branch of government. It is not unprecedented.

for the same party to have a go at Westminster. We saw it with Douglas Ross, who was the leader of the Scottish Tories, who had a go at Boris Johnson. And sometimes it's just a very sort of clear way of differentiating who you are and what your mandate is for a country that votes very differently, i.e. Scotland to Westminster. And We have seen that. I think it would have been understandable for Anasoa just to go

shit, you know, we've been losing out to the SNP. We now might actually lose out to reform in second place in these May elections. I've got to do something and this is my sort of distance. But it's also possible that without any Affirmative sort of action from Wes Streeting, he still expected that others Would follow suit. Both theories can be true. Both theories can be true. And from what we know, Anasawa and Wes Streeting didn't actually talk, they didn't communicate on Monday.

But there are other names that have been mentioned, the Labour Welsh leader, even Sadiq Khan in London. Anasawa thought he was triggering something that would allow all the unhappiness that people had been voicing quietly to come out. And in that half an hour It didn't.

Now there are lots of questions over Keir Starmer and whether he actually put out a three line whip to cabinet saying you better get there, whether it was Lamy, who was the first out the traps and John Healy, who's pretty well respected as the defence secretary at sort of holding the part together where they said

Everyone's gotta go go in there and if you're not then we will look for your name. I think you're right. I think I think whether West Streeting had a part in any plot or not, and I'm inclined to think that Actually I do I don't believe it was a a mashed up plot between Sawa and Westreating, but I think it makes his position now Complicated. Very difficult. Very difficult. And I think the releasing, as you say, of the emails, not just for what it shows.

But for the fact he went out on a limb, he clearly didn't do it with Starmer's approval, and we still don't know if he's released all of them. No. Right? I mean it's entirely possible that he's released the ones that sort of served their purpose and deleted the rest. Yes, indeed. And I think also what happened yesterday is that reflecting as part of that conversation we had in real time is that The Labour Party feels deeply, deeply conflicted with the about this affair and this episode.

There is a lot of agreement that Keir Starmer in lots of ways certainly domestically has proven a somewhat poor Prime Minister and a certainly a poor political leader, that he hasn't been able to set out exactly what he's for, what he wants, what his values are, what his mission is, and he certainly hasn't been able to communicate it very well. He's, you know, gone through

slogans, he's gone through priorities, he's gone through ideas, you know, he's burnt through them one after the other. There's been very little consistency. There have been so many unforced errors of which the Mandelson affair is considered the climax, the culmination. There is, you know, very, very little disagreement about that. But there is a far greater sense of disagreement and genuine I think dilemma about whether It is over this that Starmer should go.

And I think that what you're seeing as well is I mean, th the one thing I would say though is that, you know, from the PLP meeting, uh as you say, Emily, there was a lot of briefing that came out from it. This is a Kier I've never seen before. This is a Kier unleashed. This is a Kier who seems changed, sort of unshackled from Morgan McSweeney and those around him. If only people could see I heard Helena uh Baroness Helena Kennedy saying this yesterday. Um if only we could see the Kier

that we all see privately. This is something that is often said about failing prime ministers. You know, this is something that, you know, whether it goes from John B. Biden. I think a lot of people said it about Biden when it's like, Oh, if you could only

see him in private. And everyone's like, well of course we can't. He's the US President. Unfortunately seventy million people can't meet the Prime Minister in private between now and the next election. So so but that that is something that is always said and and usually the failures of a government and a prime minister are something specific to them. You know, advisors are around them and can be powerful, but so much of it

ultimately flows from them. And I I'm look, he is now doing this very big clear out of number ten. You know, we saw Tim Allengo yesterday, which I'm told is about the fact that he was a recommendation of Peter Mandelson's and I think there may be some concern about communications that may have happened between Mandelson and Alan and maybe they're getting ahead of that before their eventual publication. We're seeing Chris Wormold.

The Cabinet Secretary, Britain's top civil servant, I understand was sacked yesterday by the Prime Minister. It's now just a case of the negotiations. That's going to be announced it in a few days. So, you know, we're seeing a top political clear out of number ten, Prime Minister's top advisors, and the head of the civil service.

all at once. It is a sort of dizzying churn. Whether that enables I mean this is just I mean I think Tim Allen, for example, was the fourth or fifth comms director for Keir Starmer in just eighteen months. He's also burned through I think three chiefs of staff. Whether you're able to replace these principal aids and it make a material difference to the direction of the government

Perhaps but I think many MPs were worried that this is more about Starmer than those around him. But it is an amazing thing to see that level of churn all at once. Yeah, uh but all I'd say is it's it There's something must be done.

quite often doesn't go anywhere. And I remember the Brown government very well. I remember all those attempted coups. You know, there was Jeff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt at one point. There was James Pinnell and maybe there was David Miliband. There were a lot of people who kind of like walked up to the lion and sort of you know, prodded it and then ran away.

Because unless you know you might know what step one is, i.e., we don't like this guy in charge, let's remove him. But if you don't know what step two and three is, the process, the numbers, you know, people it always goes back to the maths, have you got the support to do this? and and the and the succession plan, then you can't do anything. And I mean the irony of course is that when Brown was in trouble

Who did he call up to sort of shore things up for him? The man with a V neck jumper, Peter Mandelson, who's got to be a big thing. But I guess what I'm trying to say is Those are the sort of the knee jerk moments when you think you're in trouble and you turn round and you do the worst thing possible rather than the sensible thing. But I think Uh certainly for the Labour Party, it's it is harder to remove people from office as they know they've only had four ever elected prime ministers.

So I think that was an important part of the sort of tenor of the conversation yesterday. We're not very good at this is the subtext. We're not very good at getting people into power. Like for God's sake, think twice before you fuck it up. Yeah, I mean the Labour Party has only ever removed one of its leaders. In a direct fashion.

As a result of a challenge and that was J.R. Klein's over a century ago. So, you know, there's not much of a are we due one? Yeah, we could be due at G one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Take it out on Paul J. R. But yeah, look, um who shot JR?

Look, I think that is absolutely I think that there is a lot of fear in the Labour Party right now. There's a lot of fear about the markets and market potential reaction which number ten is is putting around with some success. Uh and it's not entirely unjustified. There is fear about what happens when you rip the band-aid of Keir Starmer away from the Labour Party where there is so much

bloodlust just bubbling around, right? You can see it and you can feel it with the briefing that it is going on. A Labour Party leadership contest, and I think it will come. But a Labour Party leadership contest is going to be a really bloody affair. There are just so many unresolved tensions within the Labour Party at the moment ideological, how to deal with reform, personality clashes.

that it is going to be really, really nasty. And you can see that whether it's streeting or with Rainer or Miliband or whoever it happens to be. And so I think that the Idea of doing it in this way, in an uncontrolled way, was enough to deter a sufficient number of Labour MPs and the Capita itself. Not least because, as as we've said for the last week or so, every single one

of the potential replacements for Starmer are themselves highly problematic in one way or another. It is as if the executioners have got blades above their own heads. One thing I'd say to your list, and you've sort of reeled off the usual suspects, Rayner Don't think about Al Khan's with his quiet beverage.

With his quiet beverage. The one missing from that list I'd say is Shabana Mahmoud, who I think is massively underpriced in this. She is sitting on a very small majority, I think about three thousand, but this is the year that if things go Labour's way, this is one chance, this is the year where if things go Labour's way, we could be looking at a net migration figure by September of about zero. I mean

it would be unprecedented, I mean not unprecedented, but for decades. It is entirely possible that we will be looking at net migration at zero or roundabouts then. And if that happens Shabana Mahmood I think leaps to the top of the pile as the Home Secretary who has sorted out the one problem that every voter ac so pretty much across the board has said is their number one, number one stroke, number two priority. So I would say that She may not be.

front and centre of people's thoughts at the moment, certainly on the left of the party. But she may very well be a proper contender in the next six months. I'm sure she's a contender. I think her her the the blade above her neck is just simply her political reputation within the Labour Party, which is that she's right wing.

And it's very hard if you're right wing consider I mean, I don't think that's entirely fair by the way, but it's also to some extent a reputation she herself has cultivated. So it's a Yeah. If she gets the numbers down they might be thinking about it. Maybe perhaps. But again that requires us to get to that point and that is another reason why I think Starmer Survived yesterday, which is it is pretty much in everyone's interest, apart from maybe streeting, for this contest to come a bit later.

Than it is. I do think, just in terms of just finishing up a West, it leaves Starmer. Look, he survived, that's a net plus. I think there can be no doubt that his authority continues to weaken. I think some of that is to some extent a little unfair around the Mandelson thing in particular, but uh overall much of it is our own doing. I do think that he continues to he is on borrowed time. The question is simply when. And this story, even the Mandelson story.

is going to get worse before it gets better because we are going to see those documents released and there is just no way and no world where that doesn't damage him and damage his government further. But it feels to me, you know, obviously in terms of what's coming up, we've got Gorton by election, we've got May and the May elections. Actually the weird thing is I mean we've been talking about that two thousand and nine analogy, Emily, that came after the

local election results of that year which were terrible. And actually perhaps if If Sawar were really interested simply it didn't. It came on the eve of the local election results. Well they were expected to be yeah, but it was on the nuts. I mean yeah, I I r I remember it'cause I was it came five minutes to ten. On the night. before the elec the local election results. I think it was when they were It was the night of the election results. It was the night that people

had it was the night that the polls closed. Yeah, election night. Yeah. No, exactly. But I mean, you know, that I think was the moment everyone was expecting. The Mandelson debacle has kind of brought it all forward and in that sense, after all of that, we're kind of where we were about a week ago after all the sound and fury. We'll be back in a moment looking at Charles' intervention into the Andrews scandal and what we now know about the Epstein files thanks to some unredacted material.

Break. Conservative party Kevin Baton up back to the Liberal Democrats. Listen on our free Player app or the LBC app. Leading Britain's conversation.

This is the uh Most vulnerable the British monarchy has ever been. I mean I heard they were asking the Queen questions about the Epstein class. They they ought to ask the King and Queen questions and maybe this will be the end of the monarchy.

really been at the forefront of spearheading the release of the Epstein files, uh along with Thomas Massey, his Republican counterpart. And now he is turning his focus on the part that King Charles, that the royal family should play in bringing Andrew forward

To testify. Yes, and of course this builds on what we've seen over the last twenty four hours in the UK as well, with the King's saying that he would cooperate with any police investigation that is going on with regards to as we were talking about yesterday, Andrew's time. as a trade envoy. And this is I mean quite extraordinary I think there to hear, you know, someone in America, a congress congressman in America, publicly opining about the idea of this bringing about

The end of the royal family in the UK. Despite the fact, of course, this story has been around for 15 years or so. I have to say, one of the things that I find quite peculiar about this entire story is this consistent focus. that there has been on whether or not Andrew should go and testify before Congress.

And whether the king should compel him to do so. Now there may well be a question about that, and personally I think that They absolutely should or he absolutely shouldn't the king, given that he and that is Andrew is living and getting his bed and board from the king, presumably now in perpetuity, I think the king absolutely

should make sure that his wayward brother is cooperating with all inquiries. My question is is though, is why we are sort of outsourcing our curiosity on this matter and our institutional curiosity on this matter to Congress. And to the FBI and to the Department of Justice. I think if there are questions, which I think there are significant questions, not just about Andrew's time as a trade envoy, not just about

his relationship with Epstein, but also about what the royal family knew institutionally about what happened and when. This should be a matter for our Parliament to investigate. We should have our own parliamentary inquiry, never mind what the police are doing. We should have a cross

party, parliamentary inquiry which is looking into this. I'm starting to feel it's absolutely pathetic that we're just talking about what Congress is doing and, you know, they have their own hypocrisies by the way, because, you know, they should maybe put a little bit more pressure on their own domestic political figures. But we really as a country should not be outsourcing our

curiosity and our institutional inquiries on this matter to Congress and to the FBI. We should be looking at this. Our Parliament should get some backbone and for once talk openly about the royal family and ask the questions that ought to be asked and put some pressure on them from this side of the pond.

I mean to be honest, you don't have to outsource it even to the royal family. You could start with the Met Police. I mean if there's an investigation to be done into Mandelson and we know that I think lawyers are with him as we speak and investigations through Scotland Yard are underway, then why isn't the same sort of process going on with Andrew? He is his own man.

if he is approached by the police, I think the king has made it entirely clear that he's on his own now. You know, he's he doesn't have the title and he doesn't have the royal residence. and he doesn't really have anything more to do with the royal family, so he's there. But it's interesting that as we speak, Prince William is in Saudi and he was thrown a question. I mean politicians get thrown questions the whole time. Royals

Mmm, less often do they sort of face something that's blurted out and this is what faced him in I think it was in Riyadh. Sir, to what extent do you think the royal family has done enough around the Andrew and Epstein issue? So he will have heard that because it was pretty quiet. He was doing a walk about, he didn't respond to it.

and the palace has let it be known that everything's going very well and he's had wonderful meetings and he's met MBS, the Crown Prince. I mean, I don't think He realizes I don't think anyone has actually connected these dots particularly that they have sent William away from what they think is a a Royal Epstein scandal into the arms of another Royal Epstein scandal because MBS is quite frankly, as we mentioned yesterday, all over the Epstein files. And in fact

Epstein claims he knows him very well. There are a lot of messages that mention him and that go between them from what we can see. And in November of twenty sixteen, Epstein actually proposed

a formal role for himself at the top of the Saudi court. And he writes in one of these email chains, My suggestion is to become the financial confidant to the Prince Whatever entity suits you, I'd welcome the opportunity to be, if not the major contributor to the financial structure of the vision, I'm happy to represent KSA's interest, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's interests.

I would need to review all financial components myself, otherwise instead of a beautiful palace it will look like a Bedouin village, I would request a thirty-minute Skypour meeting every two weeks with the Prince. In other words, Epstein is setting himself up to be About as close a financial advisor to MBS as it's possible to construe. We don't know if that role ever materialized. We don't know what happened to that relationship. But the idea that William is running head first into MBS

thinking he's got away from the Andrew scandal and the Epstein scandal at home is absolutely mind boggling and nobody at the palace or in government seems to have even recognised that yet. Well I mean this is the sort of one of the

uh remarkable things about this story, isn't it, is that the pressure where it exists comes from where our collective gaze or where the media's gaze happens to be. And it is convenient for a lot of people. to have that gaze in certain places. And and, you know, although as I say, I absolutely think Andrew should go and testify in front of Congress, it is also true to say, let's be honest, that that congressional inquiry is not devoid of politics.

and I would have a little bit more time for some of the ire that we hear from certain people in Congress if that gaze were apply to more people within American politics itself. I mean, Donald Trump, as we've said repeatedly, I mean he's in the Epstein files a lot. Again, it doesn't imply criminality, but given If we're concerned with getting to the truth of the nature of Epstein's network, of the web that he managed to weave over decades, how he managed to peddle influence.

and money and favours both sexual and political and commercial, then we might think that someone who knew him very well for a very long time, i.e. Donald Trump, even if there is no implication of criminality, might have something to offer that congressional inquiry. They are bringing Bill Clinton before it. They're even bringing Hillary Clinton before it, even though by all accounts she never even met the guy at any point or even spoke to him. But Donald Trump, funnily enough, weirdly enough,

Yeah, I don't think it's for want of trying. I mean, when I mentioned Rokana and Thomas Massey, they are currently reviewing Files that have been redacted but they're able to see the unredacted files because of their positions in Congress. And they have come out and they've said six men are implicated, including a prominent figure and someone high up in a foreign government. Massey confirmed that the Department of Justice is redacting a well known retired CEO, Tide.

to Epstein and they have also dug into that relationship between Trump and Epstein. Trump famously said that he kicked Epstein out of his club in two thousand and four and that was the last time he was ever seen there. And These congressmen have now been joined their committee has now found evidence that Epstein was in Mar-a-Lago in two thousand and nine. In other words

Five years later and was never asked to leave. So I think what feels like a drip drip at this point, it's very hard to get a handle on the whole thing because it's three million, is nonetheless leading us to some extraordinary new revelations. Which I think are gonna be followed up with testimony and Les Wexner, who is another

Key name in the Epstein Files, no suggestion of wrongdoing, is going to testify before Congress Well he was Epstein's patron, wasn't he, for many years. As far as we know, it was Wexner's fortune that made its way to Epstein through whatever friendship they had. And again, just to reiterate the point about why I think it would be really important for our own Parliament to look into this matter, particularly with regards to the Royal Family. I mean again

Look at the gulf that we're seeing with the way we're treating these two institutions. We are seeing profound political pressure on Keir Starmer and the government, entirely rightly to explain what happened with Peter Mandelson. We are going to now see a whole suite of documents, communications, WhatsApps, all with Peter Mandelson and so on. Are we getting that from Andrew?

Are we getting that from the royal family? From the endless private secretaries they have, the institutional flunkies that they have, the royal families themselves? If you suggested that, that would be considered unthinkable. Why?

Why? Because actually you can make a strong argument to say that with regards to Kiyostama and the governments, however bad it is, whatever it is that they've done that is so bad it is at least one step removed on the political side of things than the royal family because With the government we're talking about a man

who was connected to Epstein, but as far as we know at the moment there is no suggestion of actually partaking in in what happened sexually. But with the royal family and with Andrew, the allegations have long been always denied that Andrew was a direct part of that. And that therefore you might think the pressure and that the desire for scrutiny on the royal family would be even greater than on the political side of government.

But it isn't and it isn't really ever there because it's just considered impolite to ask. And we saw so much praise for the king yesterday saying well he would cooperate with the

uh inquiries, well I should bloody well hope so. Of course he would. Well wh why what would the suggestion be? That that he wouldn't'cause he's above it? I mean, so what? Well I guess the answer that's staring us in the face to that is that The reason many people are asking for Keir Starmer to go has got very little to do with the victims, it's got very little to do with Epstein, it's even got very little to do with his

knowledge of Mandelson it's because there will be a lot of people who'd already decided that Keir Starmer was finished and they're using this as a pretext to finally close the door on him. We'll be back in a second.

The news agents. Well before we go, the Labour Party has had a call for unity and togetherness from perhaps an unexpected quarter. But I I will finish by just uh saying this for all of its challenges. I believe this government has in fact Drawn a line.

ac wedi'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i' To relieve unsung Britain. From the cost pressures it faces. For instance, the decision to renationalise rail is a prime example of that.

I think something the government should talk about more, having frozen railfares, we now need to start talking about lowering railfares. That's the benefit that public control can bring. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'r hyn. To do that requires stability, and I make my own call for that today, across the Labour Party. Of course, stability comes from greater unity.

And that would be helpful. by a more inclusive way. Well, it tells you something about the twenty four hours that Keir Starmer has had that uh it turns out Andy Burnham has come out as his biggest backup. Субтитры сделал DimaTorzok Andy Burnham is actually having a lovely month now. Not only does he not have to fight a by-election that he might lose, but he's not even now

seen as the biggest traitor amongst the labour heavyweight. Andy Bannon the faithful. Yeah, he's fine. He's fine. We will be back tomorrow. We'll see you then. Bye bye for now. This has been a Global Player Original Production.