Is Trump's peace plan too good to be true?

This is a Global Player original podcast. This is the moment that Donald Trump learns he might be on the cusp of a breakthrough in the Israel-Gaza War. He's been tapped on the shoulder by Marco Rubio. so that he can exit his meeting to post his first social media words that will tell the world he thinks he's got peace. They're smart but they're not smart enough. They

to find the criminal conspiracy. Okay. Yeah, I was just given a note by The Secretary of State saying that we're very close to a deal in the Middle East. And they'll gonna need me uh pretty quickly, so uh I will take a couple of more questions. This is the moment the world has been waiting for. been hoping for for two years. It has sparked celebrations in the Gaza Strip and in Israel itself.

It is a first step, but there are still huge questions over what happens to Hamas, who governs Gaza still to be resolved. But it does look like a step has been taken forward. Welcome to the news agents.

The news agents. It's John. It's Emily. It's Lewis. And it was good to wake up to news that real progress had been made and the first part. of the peace deal had been agreed between Hamas and the Israeli authorities that should see the release of all hostages, dead and alive, on Monday. Also on the other side the release of a number in the thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including some who were serving life sentences. And so you would have to say.

Donald Trump, hats off to you. You seem to have pulled something off. This twenty point peace plan that had involved Tony Blair's in the negotiation, the Qataris, the Turks the Egyptians, and of course the Americans. has reached something that looks like Adeus.

And it is one hell of an achievement. So to take you through some of the first steps of what has been agreed, we should see A pullback of Israeli troops in Gaza, an influx of aid into the whole area, which, as you know, um is in a massive Famine, humanitarian crisis, and then this will lead to calls for Hamas to disarm, to have no role in the governance of Gaza. And under this plan, Hamas, which has basically governed Gaza since two thousand and seven, in other words, nearly twenty years.

would then be replaced by what they're calling a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee. That would be overseen by a Board of Peace, kind of supervisory, Donald Trump would call himself chairman, and we think there is a leadership role there for Tony Blair. And the way the White House is seeing this is that Gaza would be de-radicalised.

Terror free zone that no longer presents a threat to the neighbours and it would be redeveloped for the benefit of people of Gaza. If you're wondering about those earlier plans, which saw Trump deciding on the Riviera of Gaza completely bereft of any Palestinians at all, that doesn't happen. It is meant to be

Absolutely clear that no one is forced to leave Gaza. Those who do wish to leave will be free to do so, free to return, but the proposal is offering the people who live there the chance to build a better Gaza.

And there is so much here that is very, very febrile and very, very delicate. That really any discussion of what Palestine looks like, what Gaza looks like, who controls, who rules, who organises, who polices. seems to come way way down the line. But the stuff that we're just trying to get our head round essentially is what happens tonight.

with the cabinet meeting that Netanyahu is calling. We know that the two members of the far right in his cabinet have already said that they will vote against it, but crucially they're not threatening to leave the government. And once they ratify this agreement at six PM sort of Israel Middle East time Then a window, a clock starts on a seven two hour window, and in that window they have to see the release, first of all, of those hostages who are still alive.

I think that um first thing to say with all this is that there's obviously been celebrations in Gaza and in Israel. Worth remembering, of course. That whatever happens now, even if this very, very fragile peace comes into force and if it holds, the destruction in Gaza has been

something that we haven't really ever seen before. You know, ninety percent of all the homes in Gaza have been destroyed, sixty thousand Gazans a have been killed. It has been a period of unspeakable human tragedy and of course the tragedy that we saw on October the seventh as well.

But I think that you've got to say that in terms of like the origins of this, we can talk about whether it holds and how substantial it will be, but if it does come into force, this is a major diplomatic victory for Trump. Yeah. Yeah. Major significant thing. And one that across different analysis you'll read today, there is a common consensus, which is that Trump has handled this in a way which is very distinctly him, is unique to him, and has handled Netanyahu

In a way that only probably he would. The truth is that this deal was sort of basically the deal that Biden presented 12 months ago or whenever it was. And two things have changed since then. One, Israel has become even more diplomatically isolated. And Trump has used that diplomatic isolation to strong arm Netanyahu. To give in. And to basically say, and on the other hand, as well, to basically say to Hamas, and I think it's clear that Hamas believed him, that if they did not accept it.

That Trump would aid Netanyahu and Israel in destroying whatever was left of them. So Hamas has become weaker. Trump has been willing to be stronger than Biden was. in forcing Netanyahu to act in this way. And don't take my word for that, I mean, you know, there was Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has largely been critical of Trump up to now.

has said no president, Republican or Democrat, has ever come down harder on an Israeli Prime Minister on issues so critically important to his politics or his country's security interests. And it's clear that when Israel decided to

attack the Hamas negotiators in Qatar that there was a red line or at least it surprised the Trump White House and Trump went down like a ton of bricks on Netanyahu and that's partly why we've ended up where we are. I think one of the things that's so important to consider I agree with absolutely all of that. Is the timing in politics is critical. It's not just what is an agreement going to be, what do both sides want.

You've got to get the stars in alignment at the same time so that people want to make a peace deal. A year ago, Netanyahu probably didn't want to make a peace deal. He wanted to prosecute his war But Biden could have gone down harder on him. Yes, but the degree to well, that was a failure of Biden, I think. And that Biden ultimately was a very pro Israel, old fashioned president in that sense.

But I don't think he had the leverage then because Israel wasn't as diplomatically isolated as as it is today. There had not been a famine, there had not been the international outrage. Of course there were humanitarian concerns then, but it has become so much worse. And I think as you say, the Israeli targeting of those Hamas officials in Doha which Netanyahu has been forced to apologize for.

actually probably served to galvanize. Trump forced him to apologise. Trump to forced him to apologize when he was in Washington. And Trump said, You're gonna sit down, you're gonna ring up the Qataris and you're gonna say, I'm very sorry. It's like you've kicked a ball through someone's window and you've broken it. And I so I just do think that, you know, the weird things that you thought, Oh my god, this has got terrible actually Trump used as the opportunity

to strong arm Netanyahu to say, You've got nowhere else to go. And equally The Turks, the Egyptians and the Qataris have also been strong arming Hamas now. being really angry with Netanyahu saying, Don't be so fucking negative. Yeah. You know, can you imagine Biden speaking to Netanyahu in that way? No way. Yeah, I was speaking to somebody who was quite close to some of this and

They said this whole agreement could have been there a year ago. We know that Biden had the framework And this person said, if Democrats had had the balls to push Netanyahu into it. And I think that they describe the bear hug. Now a bear hug is obviously not a good thing. It's a thing that makes you, you know, drop everything else because you can't breathe.

and that was what Trump did. I also think the other way round of looking at this is that Trump went to Hamas first, not Netanyahu. So it was when Hamas capitulated on this, when Hamas said, We've got nothing left, right? We've essentially had the the shit bombed out of us. Exactly. And what you have to remember of course with these deals is that Israel and Hamas do not negotiate directly. So the people at the table are the Jordanians, the Qataris, the Egyptians.

and the Americans, right? It all takes place normally in in Egypt. I think these talks were taking place in Egypt. So the idea that as soon as Hamas basically had to capitulate, there was nowhere left for Netanyahu to go. Right. So he has to. He has to. But it doesn't mean that he isn't facing

all the usual grief inside his own cabinet that have stopped this for so long. And I guess one of the areas and I think domestically there will be a lot of concern about this, which is when you look at the numbers, which is twenty four hostages, you know, people who've done absolutely nothing wrong get released alive, and how many

Three thousand I think it is. Right. How many how many Palestinian prisoners? Three thousand. And the likes of Ben Ghavir and Smota are just saying these are people who will go out onto the street you know, armed and murderous, you know, with an intent to take revenge. And so I think there will be a disquiet about that disparity still, and I think that will I mean none of this matters today. The only thing they have to start today is the process

of a ceasefire and that seventy-two clock to release the hostages that are alive. But then you get the prisoner release, then you get The return of those hostages who are I tell you what, I think that we've talked about the Trump personality and the role that has played.

in getting this this far. And yesterday in Washington a number of the hostage families were there. And they had a call with Trump. So they were in a different room. Trump was on the phone. It's worth listening to it because The voice you hear at the beginning. Is the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick?

Who treats these families like you would treat your children who've just been to another child's birthday party and yet? What do you say before you go? Oh thank you very much for having me. Just have a listen. President Trump, you have the best crowd in the world. What do you guys have to say to President Trump?

I mean honestly it kind of sticks in the craw that. There will be some hostage families that are incredibly grateful to President Trump and there will some who, you know, as we're hearing today, have found this whole Stasis.

Absolutely appalling. They place the blame at Netanyahu's feet. They place the blame, I think, at Trump's feet for not getting on with this slightly quicker, more more quickly. And they don't think, oh yeah, we're really grateful for what's happened. They think, why didn't this happen two years ago? Yeah, I and I think that's fair, but I think that it's also fair that left to his own devices or left with the Biden policy

And yeah, who would have kept going? And indeed, doubtless there's probably some ambition of him that hopes to resurrect it um at some point. And and this is the thing, I mean I think we've talked there's been I think there's a lot of guff often talked about like the idea of um Trump's personality and his particular way of doing international politics of being kind of so unpredictable and that might generate results. We've seen I think the the limits of that in Ukraine.

I think it's fair to say that there's been some truth in that here, that he's been willing to do things that other presidents wouldn't do and therefore it has yielded something. The question of course is is um how long it yields anything for, right? So you've basically got

Three, I would say, sort of objectives this, right? This you've got to remember the macro context here, this is not just a war that started on October the seventh, twenty twenty-three. This is basically a war that has been going on on and off since nineteen forty eight, since the creation of it.

And what the White House is saying and the way they're talking about it, the way Trump is talking about it, he's literally talking about bringing an end to a conflict that in his own words has sort of waged for either hundreds of years or even three thousand years, right? That is a very separate thing. to what this is. So there is a Short term piece, i.e., just ending the bloody war, that is what this is about. That's what stage one is about.

Stage two is about getting back to something like the status quo anti, where you can be reasonably assured that this war that has gone on since bit of the war since twenty twenty three does not resume. And then of course The stage three, which is the hardiest, knottiest, thorniest bit of all, where many American presidential hopes are.

have gone and died, which is actually securing a long term. And the Palestinian authorities are talking about returns to the other. Exactly. And each of those is harder and harder than the last. But the the the question you raised, which is the timing, fascinating because On the one hand it's very simple. It is exactly two years and two days since that atrocious massacre of October the seventh. And so you could say, well this is, you know, in essence an anniversary of sword.

But it's also and I'm going carefully here because I don't want to minimise what is happening, but it probably isn't entirely a coincidence that on Monday Five members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee sat down around a table in Oslo to decide who they should nominate for this year's Peace Prize. That announcement will come on Friday. And there has been, as I think you all know, enormous pressure. from those around Trump, and indeed from Trump himself.

To make sure that he is in consideration. Now, technically, that can't actually happen, I think, because the nominations closed back in January before Trump had even made his mark in any kind of way. And they are now discussing, I think, three hundred and thirty or so people who might be, you know, up for the award this year. I bet he had a letter in before he even became president. Well, certainly

There will be those round him who think that the closing of a nomination means absolutely sod all. Well he'll think he'll think that they should take it away from whoever it's been given to him. Exactly. Just one quote. And there's been this wonderful line from those around the table. Donald Trump does not align with the ideals of the Nobel Peace Prize.

And his divisive leadership stirring will harm his quest for the award. They say the president's military posturing, US aid cuts, and worldwide tariffs conflict with the spirit of international harmony. So on so many levels There is no one who fits the bill less than Donald Trump in the entire world. And yet You know, somehow he's still the bookie's favourite? I mean, what's going on? And you just go on to get it next year. Well he might do. I mean that seems to be

A fair run. Twelve months, let's see where we are in twelve years ago. One, he's going through the colonnades at the White House. The peace president is the captain. There's another one. The peacemaker. This time he's sitting down with a MAGA hat on. And then you've got kind of quotes from the US ambassador to Japan. Congratulations to President Trump, the greatest peace president in US history. So this line, Donald Trump the peace president, is getting an awful lot of play.

On Truth Social, as if they are also trying to remind the Nobel committee in Oslo. Uh so what happens if he doesn't get it? I mean let's just imagine we wake up tomorrow and he doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize and I think Starts a war. I'm gonna say there is a z I'm gonna say there is a a slightly higher than zero chance he gets the Nobel Peace Prize tomorrow.

But does he lose interest if it goes to somebody else? Well I th I think I think it's not a war out spy. Or he thinks it's about the long game. Look, I think that um if this genuinely holds And it develops into something.

And he continues his efforts with Ukraine and Russia, which okay have not amounted to very much so far. But there are other conflicts, you know, that you can point to. What happened in Armenia and Azerbaijan, both countries have Honestly, no, that doesn't no. Most of the things that he claims to have stopped have not.

Some of them have though. Some of them actually have stopped, like Armenia and Azerbaijan. Well India and Pakistan actually have been resolved. No, but the Pakistanis actually said that he Yeah, Pakistanis have played a blinder on that.

Is that you know what I'm saying is is that we shouldn't quote him as as p as the person that's No, I'm not quoting him, I'm quoting the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. But what I'm saying is is that in fairness to him, right? Look, I think mo a lot so much of it is bluster. I think that it is difficult.

to award the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who has gutted USAID and all of the terrible effects. People have died because of that in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. I think in fairness though, there was a lot of critique of Trump in the first administration and fear this time that he would be an isolationist. He's not been an isolation. Whether it's just because of his vanity, I'm sure it is largely his vanity.

But whatever is motivating him, that Nobel Peace Prize does seem to genuinely be motivating to be engaged in the world, not in the traditional multilateral institutions that typical American presidents have, but in a more bilateral way. You know what? If that is motivating him I could if Donald Trump Pulls off something like a durable piece I think we're slightly getting ahead of our skis here. I mean we haven't seen an if you take Russia and Ukraine. Absolutely nothing has come out.

of his attempts there, except a closer rapprochement between America and Russia. Let's not forget that. Let's not forget what he called Zelensky. Let's not forget How he tried to isolate him. Let's not forget how he put the blame on him. Let's not forget just how much Trump admires these strong men around the world, whether it's Turkey, whether it's Hungary, whether it's Russia. He's on the side of dictators. Now it just so happens with Netanyahu, he's got something to gain he thinks.

Possibly because it's the week of the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't know. But I just think we're getting slightly ahead of things when when he suddenly becomes like Mahatma Gandhi. Of course. Look, but after two years of this hideous monstrousness that has unfolded, take the victory. If Donald Trump wants to do a victory lap because his unique way of doing business peace in the Middle East and peace in Gaza. be freed and then just gives up on the rest of it.

And I'm not sure where that gets you. No, I well I agree, and I think there is a decent chance of that, and that is definitely the history of a lot of his interest that they're sort of passing fancies and they come and they go and so on. And there are so many barriers to overcome which will probably be completely

you know, insuperable, Hamas has got to give up his arms, will it do that? Netanyahu and dealing with his cabinet and the far right elements that we've already talked about. Netanyahu's probably gonna insist that every Hamas combatant who had anything to do or could be vaguely connected with October the seventh will be hunted down. It's just so easy to see how each of these things can just derail everything.

Nonetheless, as I say, Biden didn't do it, Trump has done it, you've got to give him some credit. Watch this space to see what happens next. But I agree. We're right to be sceptical about what comes after Monday if the hostages get released. And you know, I hope that the progress and the steps have been put in place

kind of become concrete and then you see real progress. We're right to be sceptical, but I think as you say, Lewis, right to salute something of an achievement thus far. Very diplomatic. That's me. That's why that's why he does the rapping for the Nobel Peace Prize. I didn't realise he did that. He's going down to Paper Chase to buy all the the other brands available. We'll be back in just a moment.

with Lucy Powell, who's vying for the deputy leadership and the other. UK under Ran. News here in Edinburgh. I'm Simon Marks. My American Week is next. Reporting from the heart of Card. app or the new LBC app. LBC leading Britain's conversation. The news agents. While rumbling on throughout this party conference season has been the unexpected

prospect of a deputy leadership election for the Labour Party. And this week ballots, electronic ballots have gone out for that contest between the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson.

And Lucy Powell, who until recently was leader of the House of Commons. And Lucy Powell is joining us now. Lucy Powell, thanks for coming in to talk to us at the newsagents. Let's just start with that. It seems to me that the this fundamental split between you and Bridget Phillips is basically this kind of inside outside thing where you're promising to be a kind of full time deputy leader, she's saying, I'm gonna be a voice at the cabinet table I mean in reality

What difference does that really make? Well, that's not the only difference at all. I mean that is an important difference. Look, I think the first thing to remember is this is a party role. It's directly elected by the Labour Party members. It's not a government role. Neither of us are going to be the Deputy Prime Minister. That's David Lamy. And as far as government

Aaron Powell Carrot Harmon would once said that she thought it was sexist that she didn't become Deputy Prime Minister as a problem when she was Deputy Leader. Do you think you ought to be Deputy Prime Minister if you're Deputy Leader? Well, we're not going to be. But would you like to do that?

Uh n uh I'm I'm really happy with the with the way I'm thinking about this job uh differently, which is as a political job. You know, I'd be in the political cabinet, I'll be in lots of the sort of political free from the constraints of running a big department at the time that that demands.

voice to the table as well, representing members. That's the problem when we when we spoke to Bridget Phillipson about it. That's the problem that she says will arise, that you'd what you've just said, which is you'll be free of collective responsibility. Therefore you will be able to, as she puts it, sort of throw hand grenades into the government that you'll the press will be constantly asking you for a point of difference between you and Keir Starmer and that that will present a point of

Of instability for the government. And that's kind of true, isn't it? No, and I completely reject that. I mean look, judge me by my actions, that's just not how I operate anyway. I haven't been doing I could have been doing that for the last four weeks and I've not been doing that for the same thing. I've been saying we need to do better. Uh I think that's just a point of fact, isn't it? I mean we're it's not going that great for us in in the polls. It's not been going that great.

ac rydyn ni'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd Mae'n gwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud.

actually think the constraints of of being in government, being appointed by the Prime Minister perhaps stops people from vocalising things when they need to. And I think I can do I think what Bridget's conceding is that I will actually be able to do that more effectively. But I'm not going to take to the airwaves to do that.

I'm gonna do that inside as much as I can. But Lucy, you know, John Prescott when he was deputy leader to Tony Blair He said, Tony's the train driver, I'm the guard who can pull the emergency called every now and then. You seem to be saying, No, no, I can also be the train driver because if I think he's veering too much one way I'm gonna make us go an in another direction. I've been really clear. Look this job is not about creating some alternative policy platform or some alternative

um budget or some alternative uh power base. But you want Keir Starmer to change policies. I I've I've not been s I've not been saying that. What I've been saying is I will make sure that the m the the views of party members, more broadly, you know, the communities that we're here to represent, that those broad voices in the Labour movement, which actually have always been heard at the top of the party, we've now got this sort of narrower and narrower

yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n when we really represent that those broader voices. And I think uh that's what I can bring to the table. So yes, it's about making sure the politics is in the conversation. How's this gonna go down? How's this gonna Cynllwch i'r stori sy'n mynd i'r cyntaf o'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch i'r Cynllwch

You know, if you want to talk about the Tony Blair, John Prescott era, Tony Blair also had a very plural cabinet for the whole time that he was Prime Minister. He had Claire Short, Robin Cook, John Prescott, always in his in his cabinet apart from when they Are you saying there isn't that plurality at the moment? a set of voices and it's not been as connected as it needs to be. Do you think that's why it got rid of you?

You think because politically you were difficult? Because I vocalised my concerns about what was happening with the uh welfare reforms and because I fed back the problems that that w we were experiencing as a result with it within the parliamentary Labour I think I can really help you.

In number ten, that you acted as the chief whip for the rebels when you were leader of the house and meant to be getting this legislation passed. So to so so to your point, people in number ten said to you, that's why I was sad.

They thought that you were were not working for Kirstamba but working against Kirst were under collective cabinet responsibility. I mean it's r that's ridiculous. I was um I was what I was doing was feeding back ymwneud â phobl sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n

sort of lead rebel, then that is uh, you know, fundamentally not not true. But of course it does what it does do is confirm that actually, you know, those were things that I did did speak out uh about because I could see that they were not gonna land well. So, you know, I I definitely wasn't winding people up.

Do you think you can work well with Kirstarmer? Yeah, and I think Do you like each other? I think I can help him. I think I can help him to reach back into the party, reach back into the communities that we've got the I think he I want Care to really s uh to succeed and be successful. You're not answering my question. Well it's not that it likes a sort of uh d of course I don't I don't I like care, of course I like care. But it'd be helpful but it would be helpful if you like the leader.

Of course I like the lead Yeah, of course I like the leader, yeah. I mean You like him personally? Yeah, I don't I don't know an there's no animus personally. I've been to the football with Key, we've been to like various things together. We've we've watched Man City Arsenal together a number of times. You know, I've always gone with care. It just seemed to take a while to get to No no I don't know. It's just a kind of odd thing. It's not about it's not about like your

Well I think if you're working if you're the deputy leader of the Labour Party and he's the leader and it probably is quite important that you get on. Yeah, well we do get on. Absolutely we we get on. And

I get on with all all my colleagues. I try to be really positive in in this campaign. Do you trust him to like let's ass assume you win the current polling suggest that's that that that will happen. Do you trust him to bring you on board. You trust him to to give you the seat at the table that you need as deputy leader? I know that Kia respects the views of party members and respects the positions. yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n.

ac mae'n mandat sy'n gweithio, ond mae'n mandat sy'n gweithio, sy'n gweithio, sy'n gweithio, sy'n gweithio. Um but that's what the tradition of this job has always been, is that it's not someone who's appointed by the leader, is who the leader actually wants or prefers to have the job, the party members choose themselves directly and often what they do is they choose someone who can bring something additional to the table, who's a sort of complementary character and role. And I think that's why

more and more members are backing my campaign. What'd she say to what Bridget Phillipson has said um when she's warned in the last twenty four hours that members voting for you risks energizing our opponents? I mean I just reject that. I've been really positive in this campaign. I've spent the whole campaign talking about what I bring to the table, what how I would do this job. I've got a lot of time for Bridget. I think she's been a good education secretary. I'm not in the business of

sort of spreading project fear. I will leave that to others. I think we should just both put forward our case for why people should vote for us. That's what she's doing. Not against other people. Well, I mean it it's it's a bit of a ludicrous suggestion, isn't it? Well I suppose what she's saying is is it goes back to that point about

potentially having significant points of difference between you and the the leader and that that will energize your opponents. I I mean I just reject that. This is this is uh As I say, it's a directly elected position which Labour Party members choose. It's not that you first have to be appointed by the Prime Minister and then you can choose amongst those people. This is a and that's always been the tradition with this.

And you'd never be in the cabinet if he said at some point, let's say you get on really well and actually you're working with each other well together and he says, Lucy, I'd love you to head up a department you you'd never you'd say, I I don't want to do that. I think I can do a much more political and effective job for him and for this government.

in the role that I describe now. And I think there's a great virtue to that. And I think if we look back at our time in government, actually having in the previous government, um, having someone who was full time, you know, really building up the party, building up the infrastructure, building up the sort of political strategy uh work.

so that then when we next needed the party, it was there and we hadn't let it wither on the vine. And I think often when you're in government, you do let the party wither on the vine. Obviously the big moment of the autumn politically is gonna be the budget. Yeah. And and by which time you'll be deputy leader if you're elected. So obviously there is all of this talk about the cuts that Oh and then tax rises that the Chancellor may have to introduce.

Will you support her completely in in that if that's what she decides to do? Tax rises and budget cuts? Yeah, I'm I'm not here to write an alternative budget. Um I'd be really, really clear about that. You wouldn't oppose any of that. What what I'm here to to try and help in this role, the role that I sort of describe is to

make sure that we we can tell a really compelling story about what it is that we are doing, what the purpose of the Labour government is. And I think that starts with economic fairness for me. being really clear that we're we want a fairer economy, an economy economy that works for working people, you know, that trickle down economics just hasn't worked for ordinary people. That's why I've been saying look, we do need

because every day that that's in place more and more kids go poverty. What what what are where's where do you think the Well I think Gordon Brown's given, you know, uh over the summer, which I didn't think got as much attention as it should have done. I thought his commission, his report yw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw hwnnw ways of of raising kind of nine billion pounds to

to go directly towards tackling child poverty. So I think it's about making sure we've got those big arguments right. That's that's what I would see my task as doing. Get the big arguments right. Get the the story and the the communications of that right and the politics of that right. And it's not my job to

to to sit and and and you know work in detail on on a budget. You know, that is for the Chancellor to do. It is such a critical relationship that you would have with Keir Starmer. Have you spoken to him about how you see the deputy leadership role? Yeah, I did have a conversation with him and and I'll I'm sure I'll have another one with him soon. He was keen to have a conversation with with me and I was keen to you know have a lot?

I mean, we just had a brief conversation about how we could how it could work, w what was motivating me to ac mae'n ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r hyn. with our movement, with our community, and do some of the things I've been talking about in this campaign. For example, you know

just being a lot clearer about setting the agenda. I think we've seeded the agenda too much in the last few months as well. And do you think it works to your advantage electorally in terms of winning, the fact that you are seen as his not favoured candidate?

I think people see me as somebody who would be the voice of of of the membership and I mean to your point you were saying earlier. Mae'n ymwneud â'r rhaid i'w wneud y gallwch chi'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod. And that's because many of the backbenchers, especially the new MPs, have really seen me as their shop steward over the last 15 Monate.

Mae'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n. you know, they shouldn't have done. But, you know, now I think I can take that one step further and be the sort of shop steward for the for the membership as well. And I think that what members kind of look for in this in this role. That's his when you look at deputy leaders who've been elected in the past. I mean, even when even the year that Jeremy won as leader Tom Watson won in the at the same time as deputy leader because

There's always a bit of yin and yang with this, isn't there? That that party members do choose someone who's complimentary. There's there's been um a lot of criticism about number ten of being a boys' club, sexist boys club. I think even you've you talked about that before. Do you think that's the case, or do you think that's still the case?

I think that we need a cultural I think we need a cultural reset about how we're operating. I think we need to be more inclusive, more open. I think we need to recognise that um unity of purpose comes from not command and control and sort of strong arming people but comes from winning the argument and taking people with us. Do you think that's a good idea? If we if we if we can't win the argument

with the parliamentary Labour Party? How do we think we're gonna win the argument in the country? And so I think we just we do need a cultural reset. I mean look the do you think number ten's been a boys club? There's a bit of boys' club about it, but there's there have been some strong women working there as well, although some some of those have have less than less. Do you think that Morgan McSweeney can do what you're saying, build that bigger?

I think we need a more inclusive approach, a more open approach, and we need to recognise Yeah, I'd think Morgan could be, but I think we you know, it's not I don't want well look, I'm not gonna make it about individuals. I don't think this is about individuals. Do you think he's about Prime Minister Well? I think this is about a culture.

I think this is about a structure and I think it's about politics and I think all of those things I can help improve and that's what I want to do. Lucy Papp, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Thanks Lucy.

The news agents. So I think that despite what Lucy Powell was saying, and she was very um very gamely sort of engaging with it and uh our sort of questions which obviously she could see what we were trying to do, but like I think it does demonstrate exactly

where this is likely to go, right? Which is that you know, we we've not had before or well not in in certainly in last few decades, you know, we've not had a deputy leader of the Labour Party elected at a different time to the leader. You know, normally it happens at once and yes

There can be friction between them and it can be difficult but it's usually internal and they're out there to sort of represent the leader, come what may. Lucy Powell is saying, she's setting herself up as to say, I will be on the outside. And yes, I will be, of course, a a sort of an emissary for the party and I'll take our message to the media and so on. But everybody knows, everybody knows this is a woman who was literally dismissed from the Prime Minister's cabinet.

only a month ago or whatever it was. And now again the twist and turn of politics. She is now poised to end up returning as his deputy, having been sacked by him a few weeks ago. So look Is this gonna be good for business for us, the news agents, for newspapers, for broadcasters? It's gonna be fabulous. Is it gonna be good for Kirstama? Probably not. It's gonna make his life a hell of a lot more difficult as a result. And I thought there were so many areas where she looked

sort of both ways at once. I'm it's not for me to write a budget. We've obviously got to get rid of the two child cap on on on benefits. I was not the chief whip opposing the welfare reform measures. But I do see myself as the shop steward. Well, you know, angels dancing on the head of a pin. And so I think she wants to put herself up as that left wing alternative.

to some of what's gone on in the government to date. Even just imagine it, right? On the day that she's elected, next Prime Minister's question. She's presumably she's not gonna be on the front bench, she'll be on the backbenches somewhere, the cameras will pan to her, Kemi Bade, Knock, and whoever are gonna be pointing to her. And sort of pointing out it's gonna be a blow to his authority, come what may, no matter how Lucy Powell acts. It is gonna be

A blow to his authority that she wins and Philipson loses. Because although number ten have not declared themselves for Philipson, everyone knows that she is basically the candidate of

number ten and she is herself saying, you know, I'm the internal voice, I'm the person who's gonna represent your views around the cabinet table, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So that in itself is gonna be damaging. And of course, long term, even if Lucy Powell is fastidiously loyal to Keir Starmer, which she says that she will be

She does come from a different wing of the party to him, or or rather where he is now at least. Probably actually roughly they start in the same place, but now he's he's uh he's sort of more represented by the right of the party. She's on the soft left of the party. you know, close allies with Ed Miliband, close allies with Andy Burnham. And although Andy Burnham is a wounded animal right now, I don't think he's extinguished.

And of course his big impediment as we've discussed before is the fact that he's not in parliament. Well You know, the people who can put him in parliament at some point is Labour's NEC, the National Executive Committee, and Lucy Powell, as a deputy leader, will have a permanent seat on the NEC. It's obviously not enough in itself.

But it is you know, Passama has been controlling the party up to now. Angela Rayner again was not his person as such, but they did work reasonably closely together. So having someone come in in these circumstances does represent a chink in the authority.

that Starmer has had over his party which has been pretty ironclad certainly since the early days when he banished half the Corbin lot. And there's just now if she wins, there is an alternative power block that people can rally around as the deputy leader who is trying to challenge Kirstama. And that is reality of fact of life. Also, the reason you've got to love politics is it's also personal.

And he fires her and now she comes back even more powerful than she was. And the permagrine he'll have to have when he's shaking her hand at the party conference. Everyone's gonna have a field day. And we will be back tomorrow and it's the fortieth anniversary of Neil Kinnock's famous speech Taking On Militants. And you'll be speaking to him. Absolutely.

in the Labour Party's very long term fortunes from the Nadea of the nineteen eighties to the present day and there's lots of contemporary relevance and stories and echoes that we're gonna explore. And don't forget news agents USA of course as well. And we'll see you tomorrow. Bye bye. This has been a Global Player original production.