Is Labour turning on Keir Starmer?

This is a Global Player original podcast. O schools, our communities, our towns, cities, villages, and islands to a third decade of an SNP government. Mae'n ymwneud â'r cymdeithasol mae'n ymwneud â'r cymdeithasol a'r cymdeithasol mae'n ymwneud â'r cymdeithasol.

That is the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anna Sawa, calling for Keir Starmer to quit. The most senior voice. Spelling out his belief that things have got too bad for him to stay. And he says his first priorities are to his country, Scotland. Was this the moment that the leadership crisis around Keir Starmer became uncontainable? Was this the tipping point? Is the Prime Minister, yet another Prime Minister, about to resign? Welcome to the news agents.

The news agents. It's Emily. It's Lewis. And we thought when we got up this morning we'd be talking about the resignation of Morgan McSweeney, Kirstarmer's Chief of Staff, now former Chief of Staff and right hand man. We thought at lunchtime that we might be talking about the resignation of Tim Allen, another very close aide to his in Downing Street. But it is now five to three and a question mark is looming. Really with

A greater urgency than I think we have felt at any point over the weekend over what Keir Starmer does next. Because this is a pretty senior voice. Going public and saying he has no confidence in the UK Prime Minister, the leader of his party. Here's a little bit of Anas Sawa. It is delicately phrased. In fact, in the speech itself, he doesn't directly call on Kirstama to go.

But it is well briefed and it is very clear by the end what he's intending to say. The situation in Downing Street is not good enough. There have been too many mistakes. They promised they were going to be different, but too much has happened. Have there been good things? Of course there have, many of them, but no one knows them and no one can hear them because they're being drowned out. That's why it cannot continue.

I am proud to have played my part in removing a Tory government that was doing so much damage to Scotland. And having a Labour government matters. I am proud of my Scottish Labour MPs who did the hard work, persuaded our fellow Scots, ran a historic and successful campaign, and who have spent every day since fighting for Scotland's interests. Kirstarmer is a decent man, and it is no secret that I have always got on well with him, and he has dedicated his life to public service.

I have also dedicated myself to public service, and I need to decide what I'm willing to accept and what I'm willing to tolerate. the people of this great country Scotland are crying out for competent government, for transparency, for honesty and for delivery. They want to see politics that is open and accountable.

They want to see leaders who put the national interest So this crisis, which has been triggered by the Peter Mandelson affair by the Epstein Files for Keirstama, has just reached a new level. And it's reached a new level for a couple of reasons.

Morgan McSweeney, as you say, Emily, we thought that we'd be talking about um today. And and indeed of course his departure, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and not just his chief of staff, but his principal aide. The reason, frankly, he even is Labour leader and and Prime Minister, that's how important Morgan McSweeney has been for him. Morgan McSweeney You normally prime ministers handpick their advisors in a very real sense Morgan McSweeney.

Pick here Starmer to be the kind of anti-Corbin person to take through to the Labour leadership and and eventually Prime Minister. He's a very, very big figure, his departure. matters. But ultimately other powerful advisers and aides have left Downing Streets numbers numbers ten before, and Prime Ministers have survived. You know, whether it's Dominic Cummings with Boris Johnson or whether it's Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill with Theresa May, you know, the list goes on and on.

When the crisis starts to be talked about and you have political figures of the stature of Anasawa the Scottish Labour leader, not just an MP or cabinet minister, but someone that senior in the party, come out and say that it's over. It is takes things to a new level for three reasons. One is is that it is a potential ignition for others, cabinet ministers, other senior parliamentarians and so on. To follow him. It matters because

We are facing, as Anasawa was saying there, Holyrood elections in a few months' time. What an absurd situation it is to be in, to have the Labour Party going into those elections. With their leader in Scotland saying that the national leader, Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, ought not to be in post, just makes the party look absurd.

And thirdly, it's a slightly more prosaic reason, but in terms of the numbers it matters. Labour have got thirty seven MPs in Scotland now, as were the place in the country that they did best in in the twenty twenty four general election, winning back dozens of seats. in the central belt in the old Labour heartlands. What are they to do in this situation? Do they listen to their leader in Scotland, Anasawa, who is calling on the Prime Minister to go and they act accordingly?

Or do they listen to the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party, their leader in Westminster and it is just a little bit? Worth saying on that that the Scotland Labour MPs, the Scottish Labour MPs have been especially unhappy. for quite a long time now. For the reasons that Sawa was saying, which is they have felt they had long fancied their chances of dislodging the S and P in those Holyrood elections in office since two thousand seven.

in Scotland and they feel they have been dragged down by the party's national performance. So that block of thirty seven Scotland Scottish Labour MPs, if there were to be a contest potentially an important constituent voting block of the PL.

Yeah, we should say that it is essentially breaking news as we're recording this. We are getting responses. I mean it's not it's not the easiest conditions in which to try and have a relaxed conversation, but As we're watching the screen here, we are seeing various cabinet ministers come out. And defend the Prime Minister. John Healy, the defence secretary is one. Starmer has my full support.

Rachel Reeves, another, Yvette Cooper, another, Bridget Phillipson, Education Secretary, another. West Streeting, we understand was doorstepped and asked whether he had Full support for Keir Starmer. We do not think he answered that doorstep at that moment. We're waiting to hear from West Streeting, but obviously question marks there. David Lamy, Deputy PM, another one who has shown Keir Starmer his support.

What I would say is that to your point, there will be some people looking at Anasawa now and saying Would this have come anyway? You know he's actually said

that he wants to get rid of a failing SNP government and this is too important to miss. We cannot allow the failures to continue here in Scotland. We have an NHS crisis in Scotland. There are some people There are some people in the Labour Party in Scotland who are saying, Is this Anna Sawa trying to get ahead of what may be a bad defeat for Labour in Scotland and saying I need some distance?

with the Prime Minister. And I think it's also fair to say that A lot of things have been elided at this point. It is ostensibly about Mandelson. It is ostensibly about Epstein. But actually, if you go through some of the responses from various parts of the Labour Party, as we have done all week, all last ten days really.

There are some people who won't I would say are using the Mandy Rice Davis sort of defence, you know, she was ironically a witness in the profumo affair. They would say that, wouldn't they? You know, so in other words If you think you're gonna be in trouble in the elections, you might say that anyway. If you think that Starmer has fucked up not just over Epstein and Maddelson but in taking the party to the wrong direction, you would say that anyway.

if you think that he made a catastrophic mistake going f as far back as the winter fuel crisis, you would say that anyway. So are there people who now feel More able to vocalize stuff that they have frankly been feeling for more or less eighteen months. And I think you have to

just in your head, differentiate that from whether this is entirely about the Epstein Mandelson scandal. Because if it is just about Mandelson, if it is just about Epstein The irony of Keir Starmer being brought down, you know, in this country, by a billionaire paedophile he's never met, he was not mentioned in the papers, and we see so little. So little being done in the US, so little being done.

to let's call them rapists and paedophiles all over the world that have not actually been targeted so far by the the sort of journalism that that we're discussing here. There is something sort of catastrophically wrong with the system, which is what makes me think It cannot just be about a relationship to Epstein and in fact And I saw himself. Had to explain why. He was photographed by the

on the steps of the embassy with Maddelson saying, My good friend Peter Maddelson, you know, congratulations, just five, six six months ago. Look, Westminster is a place that is not unknown to hypocrisy. I think it's been basking in hypocrisy. the last week or so. I happened to look uh yesterday or the weekend for my Sunday show on LBC to put it to different political parties, just to check in Hansar. Whether a single member of Parliament got up when Starmer appointed Man of the House.

Given that we all now think it was so egregious And so obvious. And so obvious. Let's just see if a single MP got up at Prime Minister's question and said, Prime Minister, how on earth are you appointing this man with these links to Geoffrey Epstein that are well known? Think a single one got up, Emily?

Not just at Prime Minister's questions. Never. At no point at no point has a single MP got up during that period and mentioned Geoffrey Epstein. Not even at Prime Minister's questions, but full stop. Yes, there was some commentary from a couple of MPs, I think Alicia Kearns in particular. outside of the chamber. But in terms of the reception to that decision at the time There was nothing. Right. Nothing. So on that level

There is profound hypocrisy. Kemi Badenok didn't say a word she's saying now that everybody knew and everyone. To your point exactly at the time in January. And I think her defence was, Well I can't be everywhere. So in other words, no. Well do you think if it was that important, she might have said something. But yeah, let's listen to that clip from the Today programme. You did not say. Because he has a relationship with Geoffrey Epstein and that continued even after he had a conviction for

paedophilia, he is unsuitable to be ambassador. So only being wise after the event. No, not at all. And in fact many Conservatives uh raised uh concerns. Ian Duncan Smith, Caroline Downage, we put down parliamentary questions.

I'm I have a big team. It's not just me uh doing this work. I'm not a one man band. But to be clear, the Leader of the Opposition did not raise that. No, no, I was raising all the problems that he was creating in the economy, uh his endless U-turns, the national drooming gang scandal. The terrible policies. There was a lot I was raising. I can't do it all on my own. I do have a team of people and we work correct to raise those issues.

Many things were in the public domain, but the fact of the matter remains the Prime Minister chose to make this appointment despite his vetting um information telling him otherwise. But it is true to say that as we say often on the show, two things can be true at once. The Mandelson thing is clearly bad judgment.

But it is the touch paper really for a far longer standing set of systemic concerns about the performance of the government, which who knows, I mean maybe there'll be plenty of time for discussion for this. We could find ourselves doing a post mortem of the Starmer Premiership. By the end of the week. Today. In the next hour. Who knows? So maybe we can sort of reserve it for that. I think it is

interesting in terms of what the reaction has has been from Downing Street to Sawar's call on Starmer to resign. Because up to that point we'd actually heard nothing from Downing Street pretty much apart from Jackie Smith, the skills minister. out on the airwaves this morning, defending the government position. That was after Pat McFadden, the Work and Pension Secretary, yesterday

saying if the Prime Minister stays in place, a pretty remarkable kind of situation to be in where you've got a cabinet minister openly suggesting, well maybe the Prime Minister might not be in place. But since the Sawa speech, even in the minutes afterwards, it's clear that Downing Street is attempting to mount some sort of fight back. So number ten putting out a quote saying Keir Starmer is one of only four Labour leaders to have ever won a general election. He has a clear five year mandate.

From the British people to deliver change and that is what he will do. We've seen a succession. Since the Sarwell speech of cabinet ministers, something that we hadn't seen at the start of the day, slightly Unusually people to come on. Indeed so. Yeah, Darren Jones, uh the Chief Secretary of the Prime Minister, the battle for Britain in the years ahead is between a modern diverse Britain led by Labour, dark divisive Britain

under a form, we must get behind the the Prime Minister. We've seen the Chancellor come out, we've seen the Deputy Prime Minister come out, we've seen the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, come out showing their support. Now you might think, well, yeah, I mean that's a bare minimum, but it is true to say that it appears For now, as we record it are recording this

Downing Street and number ten intend to ignore Sawa and fight on. It is worth noting, of course, goes back to that point. Is this the start of something? Is this the kind of Jeffrey Howe moment for Kears Starmer as it was for Margaret Thatcher, the famous Geoffrey Howard speech where he almost called on her to go and that sort of set off a a sequence that led her to her resignation.

But as you say, Emily, nothing from West Streeting. And talking to different Labour people just, you know, since that speech, I'm detecting two camps. One is a sort of absolute fatalism about the situation. Some of whom are proper Starmer loyalists.

who just think that the authority's gone and is over. And then a selection of others, one of whom described this to me, this entire thing is complete lunacy, saying that the cabinet will back him and that he will fight on, and he will fight because not least because there is this continuing concern as to who will replace him. And indeed there is suspicion around Anasawa, precisely on the West Reeting point, because who is Anasawa Good friends with, known to be a close ally of

One where streeting. So you can just see all of the kind of bloodlust of the Labour Party, which is just the lid is just about Being kept on it at the moment by the fact Keir Starmer is still there, but my word it is ready to explode. Yeah, we should explain if you're wondering that Anna Sawa himself could not be the next Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour Party, because he's not a city MP. He gave up

But let's just step back to where we thought we'd be on Monday morning before the Anasawa speech. I was told that The Morgan McSweeney decision was made on Friday. I've only been told that by one source. I haven't had double confirmation. But if that is true, Essentially it tells us that it was in Keir Starmer's mind from Friday.

And they delivered it on Sunday after the morning rounds, after the politicians went out on air, presumably because they wanted it to set the pace for this week rather than end last week. In other words, Keir Starmer figures He's got a good run at this week. It's also worth knowing that in parliamentary terms, today Monday is what they call a one line whip. Most of the MPs will not be back in Westminster until tonight.

So there aren't a lot of people sort of chattering, talking. Kirstarmer will speak to people this evening. but there isn't that sense of a chatter amongst MPs about him going or there wasn't before Anasowa made his intervention.

And I don't think we should start believing that just because the loudest voices in the Labour Party, and I would say to some extent the voices you always expected have been calling publicly for Starmer to go. That's not true of Sellware. No it's not. Although Sawa, as explained, has got his own reasons. You know, he's fighting Scottish elections in a pretty perilous moment for him and his party up there. And as he said, consistently

His priority is Scotland, not the UK, and so he thinks that he's got to protect Labour MPs in Scotland right now. But I would just say I think there are a vast majority of sitting Labour MPs who think it would be ridiculous. To lose, as you say, the fourth ever elected Labour Prime Minister over a crime that was nothing to do with him. I mean

was there a failure of of sorry, a crime that was nothing to do with him? I mean Epstein's crimes, Mandelson's alleged crimes. There's a weird phrase that's often used at sort of political moments like this. Gradually then suddenly. In other words, things that seemed inconceivable ten days ago, two weeks ago. now seem imminent and I think there is a danger of momentum. In other words, a lot of people now will be saying he's gotta go, he's toast, it's over, it's done, it's finished.

If you look around the The Labour Parliamentary Party, you will actually find a lot of MPs who were remaining solidly behind Keir Starmer, who remained solidly behind the idea that chaos should be avoided at all costs. leadership elections should be avoided at all costs. This idea of sort of dispensable politics, dispensable leaders.

should be avoided at all costs because he was the one that won an election in twenty twenty four. And I do think that it is worth trying to Put this back into context of the crime that is being described because Epstein is making us recalibrate what a crime looks like now. I mean, in those files, there are rapists, there are paedophiles, there are money launderers, there are people who are As has been alleged, selling state secrets.

I don't think Keir Starmer fits into any of those categories. And if he is going to lose his job over this, if the UK is going to lose its leader over an association and an appointment, So many other crimes. are yet to be even discussed. We're in a really perilous place. We're in a really dangerous place in terms of I guess what the sort of next stages of democracy looks like. Because it seems to me too fragile

to start saying that this is a reason for him to go. It's worth saying that West Streeting has even while I've been recording this saying he said that he thinks that Keir Starmer doesn't need to resign. Not the most ringing endorsement, but he doesn't need to resign. It has not been the best week for the government. Give Keir a chance.

I'm getting even as we sat here, Emily, and it's one of those sort of days where everything is obviously developing minute by minute, I'm sort of texting dozens of people up and down the Labour Party. My sense of of what they're saying as of right now is that they feel that this is not the end right now.

Partly because the cabinet has clearly agreed to come out fighting for Starmer. Again, even as we've been sat here now, the list has extended to much of the cabinet. You've got Vet Cooper there, Liz Kendall there, Peter Carr, Pat McFadden, the chief whip, Johnny Uh Reynolds, John Heedy, the Defence Secretary. So there clearly is a bulkwork of support for now for Keir Starmer. People I would have an eye on still.

His deputy, Lucy Powell, very interesting position that she is now in, Andy Burnham ally. I'll be looking at other members of the NEC, I'll be looking at key trade union officials and trade union voices. I'll be looking to the chair of the parliamentary Labour Party, some of the leaders of the top select committees, the Welsh First Minister, Alinid Morgan as well.

There are other power players and power brokers who have not yet showed their hand and displayed their hand who will be crucial in the hours between probably us finishing recording this podcast and the hours you listening to it. Of course, even if Starmer gets to the end of the day and he's got that key meeting with the Parliamentary Labour Party tonight, and I can imagine the psychology just knowing the Labour Party

I can imagine psychology being one suddenly of rallying around, wanting to show some support, as you say Emily, receptive to the fact that I think there are lots of MPs who are deeply pissed off with Starmer, who are deeply frustrated by the performance of his government. Deeply frustrated by his lack of vision and ability to communicate whatever vision he has, who also think that this is not the thing over which he should resign or go.

And that they think that the message that that would send and the idea of it just sits uncomfortably and leaves a bitter taste in their mouth. Both of those things can be true at once. All of that said, we have got to remember as we sat here on Monday afternoon that this story will get worse before it gets better. Why is that? Because we will get the documents. And whatever is in those documents we can guarantee that they will not be embarrassment free for this government.

for its connections with Peter Mandelson and the things that they say about the United States and Donald Trump. So we know that this story there is much still yet to weather for Keir Starmer on this story alone. Before he can get to what I would say is the finish line for him this week. He's in one of those positions where he's got to go day by day, which is basically Thursday.

which is when Parliament breaks up for the half term recess. If you can get to Thursday, get to the other end of that, MPs can go back to their constituencies and either calm down or get riled up by the responses they get from their constituents, then at least he'll have survived the week. But it feels like a long time. Assuming those documents come out between now and a g then, it's a long time to get there. He is being saved as well by there being no obvious successor. And whoever you are

Cannot see an obvious successor. They might have an ally, they might have a thought, they might have a preference. But there is no one who is an obvious successor to Starmer at this point. And if there's one thing we know about him, he's pretty steely. Now I I'll probably wake up tomorrow completely regretting this, but I think that You might know there's worse to come, but also figure What's the point of going now? Why would you give all that up now? What does he gain from giving it all up now?

Unless it is the case that he as is reported at the weekend is so dispirited by events. That he decides himself that he's had enough. Right to the point. Exactly. We will be talking about some of the contents of the Epstein files and about how it relates to the royal family. And actually Emily, just before we go, we've been saying that this is a kind of rolling uh story with Lots of different Labour people coming out.

and responding to it. I think a very significant one, just as you've been speaking, from Angela Rayner, obviously the former deputy leader, deputy prime minister, saying The recent scandal around Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein was shocking and demands that both this government and our party learn the lessons But the worst possible response would be to play party politics or factional games.

Westreeting take note, I suspect she's saying Labour is only getting started on changing things for the better, etc, etc. I urge all my colleagues to come together, remember our values and put them into practice as a team. The Prime Minister has my full support in leading us to that end.

Very significant intervention alongside Lucy Powell. So saying their deputy leader also coming out in favour. It feels to me That Keir Starmer is likely still in the end game, but that game might be a little bit longer than it might have looked, even when we started to speak. Bring Yeah. Продолжение следует... Listen on our free Global Player app or the LBC app. Leading Britain's conversation.

The news agents. Joel! How long have you known about Andrew and Andrew? So that is some audio from a walkabout that the King, King Charles, was doing in Lancashire this morning. As you can hear, he is heckled. about what he knew. about Andrew and Epstein. This is the second heckle to take place of this kind in the last six months or so. You also heard there that people who had turned up

to see the king were heckling back and and booing the person who heckle. But nonetheless this will be of concern for Buckingham Palace that this keeps happening. Not least because Today is the day where police have announced that they are assessing allegations that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor passed on confidential information about overseas trips. to Geoffrey Epstein. So in a sort of weird inverse mirror image.

Andrew is suspected of forwarding official reports of trips to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam in twenty ten and eleven when he was a government. trade envoy. He has been accused of quotes ruthlessly exploiting his role to further his relationship with Epstein. Yeah, to put this in context, Andrew was made a trade envoy for the UK government and

I guess it was a role that was seen at the time to be sort of finding him work, finding him a job. It was where he earned the um subroquade the Air Mars Andy. But the connection had already started to be made in the press between him and Epstein. And I wonder whether the role came about because people figured that a senior royal had to be sort of out of the UK, out of the Gosset Columns, out of as it were harm's way, and they gave him something that they thought would play to his strength.

And the police in Thames Valley have now confirmed they're assessing information. After these emails appeared, that show Andrew had shared information from official visits. And I've been looking at some of those emails as well. They specifically name Vietnam, they name Singapore, but Even in twenty ten years.

The Duke, this is from the Epstein Files, writes to Geoffrey Epstein, I will call you later this evening after I've had my chat with my Libyan contact to see what we can arrange for you in Tripoli. And Epsian just says, I'm in Abu Dhabi. Now, we don't know what the context is for that, but clearly, even when he was. In Libya or talking to Libyan contacts, he was thinking primarily of Geoffrey Epstein as he was doing government business.

And I mean you've said it's a mirror image of the political situation. It's exactly the same allegation, which was that Epstein sent these incredibly powerful men off into All sorts of spheres. to bring back information that he could presumably monetize. Whether it was Mandelson telling him about the Euro bailout or about British government selling off assets.

or whether it was Andrew was trade envoy, i. e. trying to bring in drum up business for the British state, Telling Epstein, giving him his contacts, and giving him information within five minutes of receiving it according to the emails that we have now seen.

And it does start to really confirm that picture we've got of the relationship between Andrew and Epstein. I want to give you a couple more emails that come from the file. One is from Saturday, July the twenty fourth, of twenty ten. Andrew, Prince Andrew, is writing to Epstein Congratulations. DS told me you were allowed out from yesterday.

Allowed out, what does that mean? Allowed out means after prison, after he'd been imprisoned for soliciting the minor, convicted paedophile, and after he'd been released from house arrest. He then writes How long are you in Paris for? I'm back in London from the sixteenth. He then goes on to say, it's really good news. If you're in Paris around the 16th, I'll be across to pay homage to your new life ahead.

So Andrew not only recognises that he was in prison, that he is now free from house arrest. But he uses this extraordinary language. I'll be across to pay homage to your new life ahead. So he is celebrating the release, he's celebrating what he calls the new lease of life for Epstein.

And the thing is I mean I mean it's actually remarkable looking through some of this stuff and some of the reporting on it, just how similar it is to the Mandelson episodes. Just how many echoes there are. Not least this sort of stream of consciousness which appears to exist Between both men towards Epstein. How quickly these reports and this information, however useful it is or otherwise, and we can't we can't know that yet. And Andrew, you know, frankly, as you say, was sort of

Being put to some work, trying to give him something to do, not entirely clear how important it was what he was doing. But nonetheless, for example, one of the emails. Just before two fifty eight PM, november thirtieth, twenty ten, Amit Patel, the Duke's special adviser on trade, sent him an email with the Asia reports attached for the trip that he was doing in the Far East. It said, Sir, please find attached the visit reports.

For Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shenzhen in relation to your recent visit to Southeast Asia. Andrew forwards that. Four minutes later at three oh two PM at the time he was staying at his wealthy friend's Manhattan Townhouse. It is unbelievable. However valuable that information or otherwise as I say is, the network of information being constantly funneled

to Epstein that he ought not to have. It is no wonder that Vince Cable who was the business secretary at the time that Andrew was eventually stripped of his role as trade envoy, is calling for the government to publish all documents related to Andrew's time. as trade envoy, because so far that is something that this government and this cabinet office has not been willing to do. In fact there was supposed to be a routine release of documents.

at the end of December, where those documents were due to be published, and funnily enough, they were withheld. They should be published immediately. I it's very interesting. A lot of people are asking about the psyche of Epstein when you go through these emails and people are sort of saying, was he very magnetic? Was he full of charisma? Did he have this astonishing personality? What was it that drew people into his circle?

And actually from everything we read so far, it's almost like the opposite is true. He is clearly loaded, which I think, you know, not to get too Mrs. Merton. Yeah, exactly. What was it that first attracted you to the billionaire paedophile Geoffrey Epstein is fairly obvious. But also he's incredibly sort of blunt with people that are very, very powerful. And one of the emails I actually couldn't move past. Was this one it's an invitation from Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex wife?

Dear Geoffrey, Beatrice, Eugenie and I would love to invite you to celebrate the fifty years of Papa Stroke Andrew. It will be on february twenty sixth, twenty ten from seven thirty at St. James's Palace, London. Just clock that date again, because February the twenty sixth of twenty ten, I told you he got out from house arrest in July. So he was still actually under house arrest on February the twenty sixth.

And he gets this invite from, you know, the Mountbatten Windsor family. It'll be suits and cocktail dresses, and you know me, mysterious mischief. So bring your presence, your presence and your humour. And he doesn't even answer the invitation. So he gets sort of pushed by the Duke of York's office, dear Geoffrey, for the invitation. Please could you kindly let us know if you can attend? And Geoffrey Epstein just writes back, not able.

I mean that's it. So he's under house arrest, which maybe explain why he is not able. But he doesn't even bother to respond to this invitation, which is Sarah Ferguson inviting the convicted paedophile under house arrest to her family's. birthday party for Andrew at St James's Palace. Now look, this is um coming on a day where um again these allegations and now this new investigation from the police

Haunting another of our national institutions, the royal family. It is very striking that both the political part of our constitution, the government, and the sort of honorific part of our constitution, the the the head of state, the royal family, are all being dogs.

by basically the same story In mirror images of each other regarding two different men, Andrew and and Man. And it comes at a day when the Prince of Wales, Prince William, is off to Saudi Arabia on government business, being asked to go there by the government for diplomatic

purposes. And the Prince and Princess of Wales, I think perhaps recognising all of this is going on and not wanting to have this trip being distracted from, have issued a statement saying that they're deeply concerned By the latest revelations about Geoffrey Epstein in their first public statement on the scandal.

And they say that their thoughts remain focused on the victims, doesn't mention Sarah Ferguson, doesn't mention Andrew. I have to say though that this is kind of just the latest opaque statement. that the royal family have put out on this matter. And I'm sure that they are mindful of the victims and I'm sure they're horrified by many of the things that have happened. But I have to say that the royal family, for more than a decade,

Their approach has been this same pattern again. They contain, they delay, and they only act when the political pressure is Unbearable. And they put out of these statements. You know, go back on the timeline. They knew about Epstein's conviction in 2008. They knew Andrew kept seeing him afterwards.

Andrew remained a working royal, he remained in favour, he remained the Queen's favourite son. Virginia Gufferet named him in court papers in twenty fifteen. The palace then issued firm denials. There has never been a formal investigation No independent inquiry and no transparent process to establish what the palace knew and they never answer questions about it. We still don't know about the provenance of the money that Andrew paid.

to Virginia Gefraser State. So I don't know, I just kinda feel at this point there is so much, rightly so, transparency on the political realm and political arm of our government about what ministers knew when and what and it would be I think useful to have a similar

lens of transparency and a similar ferocity of transparency applied to the Royal Family. Just to bring it full circle, one of the tasks that Prince William has been set in Saudi is to cultivate good relations with Mohammed bin Salman, who is the son of the current leader, somebody that our government wants to, I guess, sort of embrace in terms of his own reforms.

Mohamed bin Salman, MBS, appears in the Epstein Files. He was in touch with Epstein. In fact, there is one email that links communication between Epstein and MBS. To I think three days before the murder of the journalist Khashoggi. And so the idea somehow that Prince William thinks that he's sort of escaping One set of headaches and headlines to go and meet MBS in Saudi, who was actually very much

Part of these files. You know, it's a whole different set of problems. I do have, I have to say, a certain amount of sympathy with the king who I think has tried to be proactive and I hear what you're saying about the delay and I think that's always gonna be, you know, how institutions and traditional institutions work. But he has tried to

Clear Andrew out of Royal Lodge, out of Windsor. I mean he's taken his title away. He's made it possible for the police to sort of essentially come and get him if they want. He's even hinted that that should happen now. And he's still gonna be dogged on a walkabout. with the British public. I mean, who knows if it was just one voice in a crowd that was amplified and I guess that's what, you know, we have to sort of put in context.

He is trying to clear this up and it's still pursuing Is he? Him. I I I would say yes. I mean I would say I think you and I are different on this, Liz, but I would say that going through and it's to to our earlier discussion, if you go through forensic we are being as a country compared to the United States.

who doesn't seem to be interested, that doesn't seem to be investigating or asking or searching or pulling people in front of Congress. We're not doing that and I think we are. And I do think that's to our credit. I agree with that, although the level of scrutiny on the Royal Family I would say By comparison to the elected governments,

And that is despite the fact that of course that most members of the current elected government, including Keir Starmer personally, are not directly affected or or implicated. I think there is a gulf between them. An absolute gulf. And the idea that I mean, yeah, I think yeah, the king's trying to deal with it now because he's got no choice.

But I think repeatedly, as we can see from the timeline over the years, and dare I say, the late Queen, it's you know, it's taboo to talk about her role in all of this. I think she's got a lot to answer for I agree with them. And and you know, there should be A reappraisal, I think, of the latter years of her reign. And and I c look I think William and I mean you could say that families you know, even royal families are often slower

than political parties, right? But as I've yes, I agree, but that's my sort of and again I think we disagree and that's fair enough, but like that's sort of my problem with them as as the House of Windsor, which is they're a family when they want to be and they're an institution when they want to be and they sort of pick and choose in my view. I I agree, look look the Kenga is probably

I think they still think there is more they could do and I certainly think they could answer some questions about it for a start and they could subject themselves to some interviews about it for a start. But yeah, well absolutely, if they if they want to come in that's fine.

The one way in which I have some a little bit of sympathy for him is that he's there's a cruel irony to it to it all, which is he waited for so many years and decades in that long apprenticeship he had, and his reign is being completely defined by this and it's out of his control and it was more, as I say, his late mother's fault than anybody else's. William obviously also has an eye, doubtless.

on his reign to come and not wanting it to be defined by this. All I'd say is is that I hope that when and if that day comes and if this scandal in one form or another is still going on, I think he's gonna need to do more than issue bromides and platitudes.

about victims and actually it would be Arabia and I think it would mean maybe more to those people if he actually effected some institutional change and asked some hard questions about the institution one day he's gonna lead. We'll be back in a moment asking why Trump

Has got so angry after watching a football. The news agents. Brasil, Colombia, Venezuela Mi patria, Puerto Rico. That is Bad Bunny, the world's most Streamed living artist. And he was both the half-time concert for the Super Bowl last night and the magnet. for pretty much all of Donald Trump's ire. Now, Donald Trump is not a big fan of foreigners. We know that by now. And Bad Bunny has made his mark as an incredibly successful Puerto Rican artist.

Who only sings in Spanish, which is why Trump really doesn't like this, because he thinks it's quite anti-American. So Bad Bunny was basically the draw for. So many people last night. for the Super Bowl because he had been outspoken about Trump's immigration, about his ICE. peace moves which we've covered so much in Minneapolis, in Minnesota, and last night Trump said that he was an affront to the greatness of America.

He also said that the Super Bowl halftime show is absolutely terrible. One of the worst ever. It makes no sense. It's an affront, as you say, to the greatness of America. Doesn't represent our standards of success. Creativity or excellence. It is just a slap in a face to our country which is setting new standards and records every day, including the best stock market in 401ks in history.

Do you remember when we were in Washington after the election and Trump managed to assemble, to everyone's surprise, this extraordinary multiracial like coalition that the Democrats working class multiracial coalition that the Democrats have been sort of dreaming of and fetishizing?

And salivating over for years. And Trump, of all people, had done it. And everyone was talking about like, you know, he'd done so well with Latino voters, and like, you know, this was gonna be a new era for Republican politics. And in that time, in the time since. Trump has completely this epitomized it perfectly because in that time He's basically Sent Ice Agent after the people's grannies, who were going to church and then says of a Spanish

speaking artists, no one understands a word he's saying. No. Apart from like, I don't know, the twenty five percent of America or twenty percent of America. that is Latina. I mean Trump always hates the half time at the Super Bowl. There is something of a sort of precedent for Bad Buddy. I mean he was unique in the sense I think it's the first time we've seen the whole thing performed in Spanish. But there's always somebody that upsets Trump at half time.

And even in the year that he was elected, in uh sort of January, February of twenty sixteen, which was the year of the election, I think it was Beyonce who did the Super Bowl half time. And Trump hated her because it was all about black power and it was about black female power. And if there's two things that Trump really doesn't like, it's like powerful black people or powerful women. And if you combine them and you let them sing on a global stage, then he gets really upset.

And I think it has become something of a sort of a moment. The halftime Super Bowl has in the last decade become more about that experience. Expression of a sort of thing. The half time at the Super Bowl has always been the countercultural moment. You know, it's been the time when the artists have basically had the stage to kind of go, This is what's going on in America, or this is what should be going on in America, or this is what not is not going on in America. And so it was almost clockwork.

That you know, Bad Bunny gets a rapturous applause and Trump hates him. And sort of each side I think has now played itself out. to in the roles in which they were sort of given and It probably won't do any of them any harm. You know what this means, don't you? It means Donald Trump is even less likely to listen to our show. After your interviews in Spanish.

That you are starting to do. He's going to really hate that. He's not going to like that at all. Do you think that's the moment he switched off? I think that might have been the moment he switched off. He was a big fan before that. He doesn't like the Spanish though. It's the Fresno. Maria in the markets. It is a slap in the face. No one understood a word it was that I mean to be fair. He was sort of true. Do you know what it also means?

It means the Bad Bunny, the chair awaits. We can do it all in Well, that is coincidentally my nickname for John. Bad bunny. No. Bad kangaroo, mate. Bad kangaroo. At some point he'll be back. See you then. Bye bye. This has been a global player original production.