¶ The Mandelson Affair Unveiled
This is a Global Player original podcast.
Mutual loathing between Starmer and Mandelson.
It is absolutely also true that McSweeney and Mandelson had a very close relationship.
He was basically finding a job for his mate.
Sarma wanted to keep Mandelson up.
We've all seen the diligence that came back in December saying, warning, warning, this guy is a risk.
Flags waved.
When you strip all of this away, this story is about something really constitutionally important, which is whether the Prime Minister tells the House of Commons the truth.
The nature of the relationship that I understood he had with Epstein was not a close friendship. How I understood it at the time was a passing acquaintance that he ha regretted having and that he apologised for what has emerged since then was way, way, way worse. than I had expected at the time and it was when I saw the pictures, when I saw the Bloomberg questions in September twenty twenty five, I have to say it was like a knife through my soul.
That is Morgan McSweeney, the former Chief of Staff to Keir Starmer, and the man who until now has lived in the shadows, explaining why he got it so very badly wrong. to support Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to Washington.
been called before a parliamentary committee to explain whether it was him that pushed that appointment through to get Peter Mandelson the job that he longed for. Welcome to the newsagents.
🎵 Music
The news agents.
¶ McSweeney's Elusive Influence
It's Maitland. And today we heard from Morgan McSweeney, who was the chief of staff to Keir Starmer until he was fired, stroked, resigned over the Mandelson affair. last year. And you'll remember this time a week ago, we were listening to Ollie Robbins, the most senior Foreign Office civil servant who had been summarily fired from his job on the Thursday night that Keir Starmer discovered that Mandelson hadn't in fact passed the vetting process in the way that he had understood.
Ollie Robbins essentially took the floor and pretty much threw Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, under the bus in a way only a senior civil servant can. And today we were listening to Emily Thornbury and her parliamentary committee interrogate Morgan McSweeney. and ask him questions as to whether essentially it had been his friendship, his loyalty to Peter Mandelson that had made him push through an old mate. for a job to which he really should never have been appointed.
I think one of the most remarkable things uh about today I mean the story is is continues to sort of cascade and and have lots of different elements that are worth interrogating. But one of the really notable things is that we're hearing from Morgan McSweeney at all. I mean this is a man who has in one form or another orbited around or been in latter years absolutely central to Labour politics. I mean again just to remind people, in so many ways,
Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer, they have been inseparable. In so many ways, it was not Keir Starmer who chose Morgan McSweeney.
w to be his chief of staff, which would be a more normal arrangement. In so many ways it was Morgan McSweeney as the head of Labour Together who chose Keir Starmer to be their man to defeat Corbynism within the party. He is an absolutely central figure within Labour politics, but until today Has barely ever been seen or on camera or given an interview or anything like
People wouldn't have his voice.
N ex exactly. I mean there have been people I n I I know people from our old world of of of T V news who in all the years, you know, they've been trying to find when he left Downing Street just a clip at something, anything.
Just to archive footage.
try and bring the guy to life and I think there was an interview of him in two thousand and and six in Barking, you know, helping m Margaret Hodge there when he was he was helping her tr defeat the the BMP. This is how shadowy and elusive and even ghostly this guy is. But he has been central. He's now been speaking for hours at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And you can also see I mean I have this sort of theory really in a way. You know you know how kind of um
uh dog owners and dogs often come to resemble each other. I always think this is often the case with spads and their ministers, right? They often have a lot of the same kind of characteristics and you can see there In Morgan McSweeney you can see in his per appearance and performance today how he would be so associated with Keir Starmer. He likewise is a quite gentle, quite a mild mannered, quiet.
¶ Mandelson's Self-Promotion and Meddling
guy who is not someone who sort of hogs the limelight or attention. And what he also is, you can still see, is deeply loyal to his former master because he has done nothing today that in any way undermines anything that Keystama has previously said. It is absolutely clear that he continues to see ultimately his political fate and the Prime Minister as being intertwined.
I think what was so interesting about his evidence today was to listen to him talking about his relationship with Peter Mandelson where he says, no he wasn't I was a grown man, I was in my forties. You know, he wasn't my mentor. I wasn't in kind of hock to him. I wasn't doing what he asked.
Peter Mandelson, you got the impression, was someone who was such a self publicist about anything and everything he does, that he was kind of busy advancing himself. Who's whose whose idea was it that Peter Mandelson should be the next ambassador? It was Peter Mandelson's idea that he should be the next ambassador. Whose idea was it h that he should be the Chancellor of Oxford University? It was Peter Mandelson's idea.
It's always referred to as Mandelson as well, by the way. Not Peter or Peter Mandelson, just Mandelson.
I mean so many of these relationships have fractured over all of this that, you know, Peter's friends are have gone to the hills and there aren't many uh left who are sort of standing by him right now. Um and I just thought that was very interesting as well, the extent to which You know, there were other people who Morgan McSwinney said he spoke to, two of whom I've known for a very long time.
And over the sort of twenty, thirty years I've known these people. They've never spoken about politics, gossiped, they don't want to do that. And those are the sort of people who stay in the shadows. And so the idea that it was just Peter Mandelson, this Vengali figure Of Peter Mandelson's own creation that was that that was so important is actually probably, I thought very convincingly, put, you know, dispelled.
by McSweeney when he said, You know, there were lots of people I spoke to, they just didn't publici publicise themselves in the way that Mandelson did.
Yeah, that really came through and there were some really juicy nuggets in some of the evidence that we heard today. The case essentially being built up against Morgan McSweeney, if I can go that far, was that he was basically finding a job for his mate. And
Yeah, yeah.
I mean he denied that Peter Mandelson was his mentor. He said I didn't meet him'til I was forty four. I was already an adult. you know, he wasn't that influential, but he accepted that he was a a friend and somebody who he'd taken advice from, particularly in the run up to the twenty twenty four election. And there is one moment where
Uh Emily Thornbury says, Isn't it right that Peter Mandelson was also going for the job as Chancellor of Oxford University and he thought he could do not one job but both jobs. And did you actually seek advice? from a senior civil servant that that to try and explain whether Mandelson would be allowed to do both jobs. Could you be a part time Washington ambassador? And Morgan McSweeney
Just says I I have no recollection, I can't remember. I mean, what else can he say? It sounds absolutely ridiculous. But this idea that he is perhaps so enthralled. to Mandelson that he thinks he's actually either choosing between two jobs in the end, you know, Oxford didn't want him and and that one didn't come across. But this idea that he's trying to make things work to the point where he has to go and check whether it might even be possible.
um to do two jobs he he he says he doesn't remember that. And there's another bit which I th thought was really interesting, where they they remember that Mandelson was actually in Downing Street at the time that Kirstarmer was doing a reshuffle.
And Morgan McSweeney's asked whether Maddelson is getting involved in the actual reshuffle. He's already ambassador by this time. It's over the um resignation of Angela Rayner. She's the deputy PM, she's gone over tax affairs and Maddelson happens to pop up in Downing Street. and is messaging Morgan McSweeney saying, You should be doing this, you should be appointing that, I would do that, that's how I would do the reshuffle.
McSweeney says, Oh, I didn't pay any attention, loads of people text me, I didn't even get back to him till the end of the day. Fine. But this idea that Mandelson has sort of reasserted himself. Right into the heart of Keir Starmer's government. Again, even when he's doing an ambassadorial job that he thinks his views are needed, in the reshuffle of Starmer's cabinet.
¶ The Truth About Mandelson's Appointment
There is a mutual loathing which is kind of you know, it it does need underlining. There is a mutual loathing between Starmer and Mandelson. And I think it predates Mandelson's appointment and the subsequent sacking and the subsequent grief that it's caused. that Zama wanted to keep Mandelson at arm's length and Mandelson was forever trying to be part of the inner circle because
you know, that's the oxygen you breathe if you're Peter Mandelson. You have to be part of the inner circle where decisions are being made and he kept on trying to ingratiate himself in that inner circle.
And his attempts were being rebuffed and I think that Mandelson th you know thought found that very difficult and found, you know, why isn't Starmer more interested in me? And you had Morgan McSweeney who would facilitate the p you know, the promotion of Peter Mandelson, even though y you did learn from McSweeney that
Keir Starmer wanted the next ambassador in Washington to be a political appointment, and he wasn't going to decide who that should be until after the presidential election. You know, if it would be Kamala
So we had a very small window.
that McSweeney and Mandelson had a very, very close relationship. Indeed Mandelson uh now rather infamously said, I don't know who and when Morgan McSweeney was invented, but whoever it was, they will find their place in heaven. So what we saw today, given the nature and history of that relationship, was very striking, because when I say that McSweeney was determined to continue to do his old master, A. Kirstama's work for him,
You could see that the strategy that McSweeney had throughout was to blame and blame and blame again Peter Mandelson in saying that he was not honest either with him or with Keir Starmer himself. Just listen to this exchange.
Rwy'n credu bod hynny'n hyfforddiant, yn gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud gwneud.
I agree, and I think that when I look back on it, I certainly I think it would have been much, much better if I had asked Pet to ask those follow-up questions. I guess my thinking at the time was I put follow up questions to him in writing.
and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the truth and the full truth. Um uh I didn't feel that I got that back from him. Um but it wasn't my decision It was the the Prime Minister's decision um and he saw the uh D V as as as part of that decision.
He later went on to say I think a v in a very striking passage that's uh very stri striking exchange that um when
uh that so um uninformed or how little he knew about the exact nature of the relationship between Epstein and Mannelson, he said that when he saw when all of the information came out, he said that it was like a knife passing through my soul. Nonetheless, I think that, you know, this does not entirely put to bed one of the central questions of this whole affair, which is how much Keir Starmer, Amok Sweeney and number ten knew about the nature of the relationship between Malleson
and Epstein and how much they sought to find out. Because you could just consider what McSweeney said there. He said he didn't feel he got the full truth back from Peter Mandelson on his Epstein links. He said he felt that at the time. Kirstarmer appointed him anyway. So presumably the process there something is is awry or not entirely clear about how it can be that if you feel that even at the time the guy is misleading you, you appoint him anyway.
¶ Ignored Red Flags and Flawed Process
I think we should just break down that there are actually two parts to the due diligence process. There is the vetting which came in January, but earlier than that, There is the Propriety and Ethics Committee, which carried out their diligence in December. It was that committee that came back with their red flags waved. They said he is high risk.
So when people
McSweeney was talking today about the fact that this had come back and he hadn't asked further questions, and Starmer did see that. They'd all seen They'd all seen the diligence that came back in December saying, warning, warning, this guy is a risk. At that point, and I was told by somebody a couple of weeks ago, and this was breaking, who'd been right in the heart of the vetting process, if that had come back to me and I was
Pushing somebody forward, I would have stopped at that point. So it is entirely possible for both McSweeney and Starmer to have withdrawn things right then and there in December before any appointment. had been announced. They didn't. They went ahead, they announced it, they then started the vetting process. We know now that Simon Case had said get that done before. And the vetting went on and as we now know, they also raised red flags which
Yeah, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong.
But they were told along the way.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's and that's why I think this is so difficult. For Keir Starmer, right now there's a commons debate on whether this whole matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee, the same committee that did for Boris Johnson when Harriet Harmon was the chair of that committee.
And you've got Labour now kind of whipping and saying, You mustn't support this, we mustn't have this go to a a privilegious committee. The fact that Starmer is in this position is pretty much largely of Starmer's making, of the terrible judgments that were made In that period, in November, December, January. We've got to get him out to Washington in time for inauguration and it's got to be Mandelson.
¶ Starmer's Crisis: Blame and Perception
You know what, John, I I I agree with that, although but I would put a slightly different complexion on it. I think clearly it was a mistake now, we can see to a uh a point Manelson. Um I think that you can hear from McSweeney and when Starm has bothered also to m to make the case, you can see
You can see their calculations. We talked about it so much at the time, uh and why it might have been a good idea. Ended up not being. But I actually think the reason that Starmer is in the mess it is in now and the reason that McSweeney is before that committee now. Is because simply Starmer has failed repeatedly to simply accept that this was a political decision that he made. And if he had just taken full responsibility at the very beginning, if he said look.
Look, yes, I was getting paperwork saying that you know there were potential risks. Of course I knew that there would be risks Yeah, we need a trade deal. He was an EU as McSweeney was saying today, he was an EU former EU trade commissioner. We thought
that he would be perfect for the politics in the court of Trump. Of course, as McSweeney said today, if Cumor Harris had won, there's no way we'd have appointed him. But these were very exceptional, unusual circumstances. And even though I didn't really like the guy very much, In the national interest, I swallowed all that because I thought it was a gamble worth taking. I'm sorry, that obviously wasn't true. Instead, Stom has sort of said that, sort of.
But since then what he's tried to do consistently is to bury himself and bury all of us and the public and I think they're all pretty confused as a result of this, bury himself in processes. is to consistently try and say that if only he'd been told this, or if only this bit of the civil service machinery had worked better, or if only someone had informed me about this, that and the other, I would have made a different decision. We all know that's just nonsense.
They had decided that the truth of this story, let's get it back to its absolute absolute simplest. The truth of this story is they had decided they wanted Mandelson for all of the reasons we've just described. And it wouldn't have mattered really what bit of paperwork came out of the civil service they would have made the same decision. And his failure to just accept that sorry John just one second.
has meant he's got up in the House of Commons repeatedly and said things which have now proven to be At best. And if he'd just done what I just said, none of that would have happened and they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.
I think all of that is absolutely right. There's a there's another complexion to it, which is I think that really sticks in the craw of British public opinion. And I was contacted uh funnily enough over the weekend by Luke Trill who'd been doing focus groups and saying this is you know what we'd said on the podcast at the end of last week was exactly what was was being said to him in focus groups, which is
You just you just sacrificed a decent bloke, Ollie Robbins, to save your own bloody skin. And that was it was somehow I think that is so ugly when Ollie Robbins was trying to do his best in
frigging difficult circumstances when there was pressure from number ten that just to get this done and to have Mandelson appointed and we heard in the committee today there was no plan B if Mandelson had not been approved. And so you think Keir Starmer's willingness to sacrifice somebody else so that they can take the rap for his decision making and his flawed judgment, I think is what people think nah that's not right.
¶ Privileges Committee Debate and Democracy
I mean I suppose the the question here then is kind of really is where it will leave us by the end of the day. I'm not sure that these either these two committee performances will have ch materially changed very much. Not least because I mean the the the the moment of real jeopardy today could have been The vote as you refer to John of the uh that Kemi Badenok has brought forward, the motion to refer the Prime Minister to the privileges
uh committee which would then potentially investigate him and you know in extremis, as eventually they found with Boris Johnson, if they conclude the MP's on that committee, cross party committee, that the Prime Minister has knowingly misled the House
then he could face suspension from the House of Commons, which in theory in the end could lead to a by election, all sorts of things. It would be an unprecedented situation. But it looks like that is not gonna happen because the Labour whips, in fairness, have done a pretty good job, I think, over the last twenty four to forty eight hours.
In convincing Labour MPs they've been using this line saying it's a stunt, saying this is a party political thing, we can't possibly have this hanging over the Prime Minister's head. going into the local elections. And it looks like from from what we're hearing, the mood music from most Labour MPs is they've accepted that and they're gonna they are gonna be whipped and they'll vote with the whip. There have been a few exceptions to that in the debate so far in the
House of Commons though. Including uh the Labour MP, Emma Loule, uh who is the MP for South Shields.
Isc investigations, committee hearings and process don't come up on the doorstep. What does come up time and time again is a general feeling that there is something just not right.
yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r Mae'r gwaith wedi wedi 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 Mae'r Prime Minister yn ymwneud â'r pethau, ac mae'n ymwneud â'r pethau, mae'n ymwneud â'r pethau, mae'n ymwneud â'r pethau, mae'n ymwneud â'r pethau, mae'n ymwneud â'r pethau, mae'n ymwneud â'r pethau.
Something which in recent years may have been sorely lacking from previous Prime Ministers. So I can't understand, Mr Speaker, why the Prime Minister doesn't refer himself to the committee. Instead, it will now drag on and dominate every headline and interview, it will overshadow and undermine every good policy we make and continue to drag every single one of us down.
Yn 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 ymwneud ymwneud. I know one thing for certain today Mr Speaker, that I will not be voting against this motion, but I want to listen carefully to the rest of this debate.
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
So there's two things to say about that. One is is that I know and you get this from from listeners, viewers sometimes there is a lot of frustration about sort of this story and sometimes that it's kind of feels like minutiae and it is and there is a lot of minutiae too and it is dead.
But Emma Lula has just summed up there why it is important that certainly the House of Commons uh takes it seriously and journalists take it seriously, which is that, you know, fundamentally, when you strip all of this away, this story is about something really constitutionally important, which is whether the Prime Minister
Tells the House of Commons the truth, and if he doesn't do so, he corrects it as quickly as possible. And if you want evidence for why that's important, just look across the Atlantic. And look and see what happens when basically the currency of truth in politics is so devalued that you can no longer, under any circumstances, believe what the leader of the country i is saying. So it is important that the House of Commons it still says something, what I'm saying is you know
said something good about British democracy and the House of Commons, that it is being taken seriously. That said, it is clear that the very fact that Keir Starmer and the Labour whips feel that they are able to whip Labour MPs to vote against the inquiry tells you something about the set wh how they feel the salience of this story is, i.e., they conclude that the public are just not listening to this anymore. And the comparison therefore is with Partygate, because in a way Partygate
It was the same charge. Boris Johnson is accused of misleading the House of Commons. Kirst Starmer's accused of misleading the House of Commons. But the thing about Party Gate was is it had such salience with the public that there was no way that would conservative MPs could vote against the investigation. Whereas this story frankly does not have that same salience and Labour MPs and Labour whips feel that they can instruct them.
I do so. It is slightly uncomfortable though. I th I mean I I hear what Emil's saying. I think it is uncomfortable on something like this, which is not a policy issue, it's not this is the direction I'm taking the government in as your PM. You're telling your party that you have to concur with whatever sort of message they've wrapped up. I I I think that's really
I think that's really uncomfortable actually. To your earlier point about the other side of the Atlantic though, you watched today Sir Philip Barton, you saw Ollie Robbins last week, you saw Cat Little in the middle. I just came away feeling incredibly proud actually of our civil service that they managed to speak with such clarity and such sort of um I don't know. Uh i it felt like there was a real Strength of
Quality.
to what we can do, you know, in the government, in this country. And part of this story is about that horrible break between politicians and civil servants at the moment. And it feels at the moment that the civil servants are coming out on top and
Well one point probably comparison with the US is if this were the US inquiry you would not have the level of cross party cooperation that we saw today. In a sense all you would have is grandstanding between Democrats and Republicans and you'd have Democrats attacking or Republicans defending or vice versa. So at least, you know, British democracy This might seem boring and dense, but it is actually a sign it's
Alive and kicking.
Well, in a moment we will be putting all this to Tom Baldwin, biographer of Sakir Stama and Friend Two.
🎵 Music
From a range of trusted voices. and award winning journalists.
Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari. It's time to
Find out the latest news and hear every side of the story.
is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson and I apologize again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Thank you. The pendulum has become turbocharged over the last few days, swinging hither and thither. gay abandon. So where is it now regarding the Prime Minister?
Listen on our free Global Player app.
LBC out.
LBC, leading Britain's conversation.
🎵 Music
¶ Biographer's View: Starmer's Leadership
Well joining us now is Tom Baldwin. He was the biographer uh of Keir Starmer and I think we could call you a good friend. A friend. I mean it was you that he came to after he'd made the Island of Strangers speech and regretted it and said I regret this and essentially withdrew it and you've just written now for the New World Tom, and I I I'm wondering whether it's too much to say or to ask if you're feeling a bit queasy about where the PM is now and where the government is now.
Um I'll say not great and I'd I'd I'd probably say that PM's been quite crazy about where he is and where the government is now. Um It it's such a weird story this in so many ways. Because, you know... We are in People really worried about lots and lots of things at home. And yet for two weeks we've been discussing these sort of arcane white or procedures.
obsessing about the latest words from this or that Mandarin and you know, processes of about vetting which we never knew anything about before and we've all had to learn about. I'm not saying it's unimportant I'm just saying it's a really weird state of politics when there do seem to be some huge things at stake. And the precise things which Keirstarmer's accused of doing wrong the specific Seemed quite trivial.
Arcane does suggest it sounds slightly dismissive, as if we're all running round chasing our own tails because the questions aren't important. But at the heart of them are questions about our democratic process, our questions about Kirstarmer's judgment are questions about whether he takes the rap for things, quite frankly, as the head of the government. And and I think those are important.
I'm the first person to say that I think matters of democracy are really, really important. But as I say, the specific charges against Keir Starmer do seem quite trivial. You know, so you know, two weeks ago when I was in America trying to explain to these friends in Texas who are pretty used to as you've just been saying, sort of American president who sort of lies so many times before breakfast they no longer choke on their own.
Why Kirston was in trouble for maybe unintentionally saying something m a bit misleading about a vetting process he didn't know anything about and they're just like, What? And so that
Well you said unintentionally. It wasn't that he unintentionally said something, it's that he fired Ollie Robinson.
But this is this is the second thing. So so by the time I came back The story had moved on from, okay, we accept you weren't being deliberately misleading, we accept you weren't deliberately lying. Instead of that, the media and the opposition were accusing him of reacting badly to the original accusation that he was lying. Because he wanted to nail this actually very serious charge that he had misled the House of Commons about whether Peter Mandelson had cleared uh his vetting or not.
The charge then became in this sort of glenderslag tradition Oh yeah, well fine, okay, you're not a liar. Move on. It's the way you reacted to us accusing you a liar. That's why you should be taken out of the way.
He's not nailing it. Firing him is not nailing it.
It was more serious than that, in the sense that the advice had been from the then cabinet secretary that developed vetting should be taken would ha should happen before any announcement. Kiasama chose to ignore that as the Prime Minister.
He went ahead, announced it, told the king, got a you know, agreement from the United States that this would happen before there had been vetting. There was a process where Ollie Robbins is and then Ollie Robbins gets hung out to dry. I'm just interested So so one I think it's more serious and two I'd say to you This isn't the Kirst Armour that he promised to be.
That you know, people are j summary executions are taking place and you write in your article about the body count having gone up outside Downing Street. It's that that is people are thinking, geez, that's not what I voted for.
¶ Starmer's Mistakes and Identity
Yeah, so that's what th that's why I'm trying to make the distinction between the specific and the general. So the specific things Yeah, wherever he actually misled the house commerce. I don't believe it true. Right? And it what happens then is that you know they're like a sort of flash of light which illuminates. a a a a landscape which you feel actually much more uncomfortable with. So you know, it's not just the way he treated Ollie Robbins because I think usually in our
The full process of national security? No. Was there a you know, a full vetting process? No, was there pressure put on the Foreign Office? Those are things that Keir Starmer has denied.
Well you but I think he denied sort of the undue pressure, which I think people were referring to uh that's what the implication was. Not you know We want to speed up and get on with yeah. There's pressure at every time on almost every decision any government makes. I think it's that we can get silly about pressure. But yeah, but look you're
You'll feel uncomfortable with it. I mean, I want to get to that.
But th but that's what that's what I'm trying to get to but I'm trying to say that I'm not really uncomfortable with the specifics. But I'm uncomfortable with the general. I'm uncomfortable with, you know, uh a prime minister who I think has behaved uncharacteristically for who he is as a person. Too many times while he's been in office. And yeah, I am frustrated that this very decent man who believes in process, who believes in the rule of law, who believes in evidence Reacts
in this way, not just once, but m you know, a few times now. I'm I'm concerned that someone who when I interviewed him this time last year, had the strength and maturity to admit making mistakes because the only people I trust in life, as much as in politics, are people who admit making mistakes and learn from them.
So what do you say?
Rather than people who just said, I've always been right, I've always been right. Well, I think since that interview I've been told us a number of times that he has been told, Oh, that interview sort of went wrong for him. You know, everyone said it was a terrible error to admit that, you know, he didn't like the phrase Island of strangers and he wouldn't have used it if you'd thought more about it.
And ever since then he says, Well, every time I make a mistake, you know, it's seen as weak so I'm not gonna omit any more mistakes. So if at the start of this story about Peter Mandelson, when it became clear to everybody That his appointment shouldn't have happened, and I don't think Keir Starmer would have appointed him if we he knew what we know now. When it became clear to him then
I think he shouldn't have done this sort of rather grudging okay I I admit that I made a mistake. He should have owned it. He should have said the world and his dog knows why we appointed Peter Ballison. You thought it was a great idea, John, because you wrote about it at the time.
I said it would be a risk but it was probably around...
Everybody knows it was a risk. But that's but you and just to own it and say, look, you guess what? People make mistakes in life. Prime Ministers make mistakes in life. And and and I learned from them and we moved and I I don't think we'd be talking about it now if it
I wan I want to ask you this question though,'cause you said something so interesting then. Mae'r man sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n?
Thank you.
But you're saying that the way he's behaving implication is that it is indecent the way he's firing people, the firing of Ollie Robbins. And there have and you know, you and you list that body count outside number ten, Downing Street, of the people who've been discarded along the way, who maybe not have done anything wrong.
Yeah, I think it's mistakes on top of other mistakes. And because you don't own the first mistake, you make further mistakes, and that's what's what's going wrong with in the specifics here. Um I don't think he's become indecent. I don't think that, you know, he you know, we saw n we just seen in i in the Iran war someone who Very e you know, he's the grown up on a political landscape inhabited by i in infants.
He's the person who says we need evidence that they've got planned. He's the person who says, I want this to be in accordance with international law and I'm not yeah and I'm not going to bend my principles for short term political gain. I think domestically I don't think he's been confident enough Often enough about his own instincts. I don't think if he had trusted his own instincts, he would have pointed Peter Mamson. I know, as a matter of fact.
That he didn't really like him yeah, he always said to me, I'm keeping him at arm's length, he's not really and then Uh, he's he was being criticised at the time for being too boring and too cautious, why can't you do something bold? And that sort of sense of oh god, I you know, I don't really get politics, I'd I'd better do what everyone's telling me to do be politic that's where he's gone wrong.
So while I'm I'm I'm still here defending Kirst Armer the man and I wish that more often we saw that man in Downey Street rather than this sort of Ursat's faux populism that he sometimes feels he needs to indulge in. And that includes, by the way, you know, z sacking people. you know, with regularity and sometimes without necessarily a a a a great amount of due process
¶ Future Leadership and Internal Doubt
It's that sort of tabloid care. It's that, you know, I'm going to tail, I'm going some hedge roll roll. And it's that's not that's not I think what he his first instinct would be.
Tom, it's a pretty um I think it's a pretty big moment actually for a for his biographer to sort of spell it out like that. Ha is that something you could say directly to him? Have you said that directly to him?
I went and had a drink with him last night and I said that and more, but I understand he'll be preparing for today's debate.
So are there other people that are where you are now, within cabinet, within the party, who think we thought he had this, you know, and bit by bit this has been eroded, whether it's about the sort of the freebies or the tickets or the, you know, the firings or the lashings out or the kind of, you know, inability somehow to to bring enough people with him.
No, my frustration is and I think the frustration of lots of people who know him is That he is actually the kind of grown up serious prime minister we need for these really serious times. I think he is the person who doesn't represent a particular faction of the Labour Party and therefore can take the Labour Party through a very, very rocky period in government. I think he is the person who actually has the values and the principles and a patriotism
To leave Britain for this really difficult time. But I haven't seen enough of that Keir Starmer. I've seen too often a Keirstarmer, you know, he'll rage against, you know, civil servants sipping in a sitting in a tepid bath of marriage decline. who, you know, will blame other people.
We should explain that was his phrase about the civil service.
That was around the time that the Peter Management point was being made. And so yeah, you can see, yeah, there's a sort of implicit pressure on civil servants there. Yeah. Um and yeah, I I I think I don't think it's ever really a good look for a Labour Prime Minister to sort of be raging against the state apparatus. The state is actually the w the way
W w where where we bring change and it's yeah, the yeah, I think the left and centre should believe in a state. And I think too often there's been a sort of irritability of oh, we haven't made enough progress because our people civil servants be getting away.
He said he pulled I pulled the levers and nothing happened.
May and maybe sometimes when those civil servants are saying Are you sure, Prime Minister, is that really a good idea, Prime Minister? They're not actually seeking to be an obstacle, they're actually giving him good advice.
Tom, can I try a yes-no question on you?
Detroit.
Will he lead Labour into the next election?
I'm not going to give you a yes no answer. I think he should carry on now. I think he can carry on. I don't know whether he will. And and and yeah, let me explain what I mean by that.
You two months ago every single journalist in the lobby was saying he's definitely finished, oh my god, he's completely gone. You know, Tim Shipman was writing the longest piece he'd ever written about why it all you know. And then two weeks ago Mae'n ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud.
The person who says they know what's going to happen next is a fool and I don't want to be a fool. I genuinely believe it's the right thing for both the government and the country from the carry on moment. I believe that he can. To predict what happens in the next three years I think is to
Does he need to lay out a process by which maybe he says to reassure that he can carry on for the time being? that he says, right, this is the process by which I'm gonna stand down or I'm going to open the leadership up.
Or whatever. No, I mean I l I I think we've seen before when people set a timetable for their departure Uh they become lame quite quickly.
¶ The Path Forward: Vision and Unity
Yeah, at that time there was a very obvious successor. There isn't an obvious successor at the moment. Um the likely candidates are either unavailable, unsuitable, unready or unwilling. Um so let me just sort of s you know, there is a I think the I y I think it's wrong for him to set out this timetable. I think it's also pointless to say I'm definitely going to lead Labour into the next election and yeah, because
I think a lot of people doubt that now and I think you can embrace that doubt. I mean I the speech I'd like to hear him give is say, I know lots and lots of people are pissed off. I know lots of people are disappointed by the government so far. I am too. Uh we live in extraordinary times. The world has changed.
And because of that we can't do everything that we once wanted to do and I'm gonna have to do things that I won thought we'd never have to do. So today here is a twelve month, eighteen month agenda. You know, we're gonna begin negotiations now to rejoin the European Union because it's gonna take a long time to get those negotiations.
What is this Tom Baldwin or is this Kirsten?
I th I think I think there's a big m there's a big direction of travel about where they're going in the European Union, but I think they should make it explicit. I've no doubt in my mind that at next election Labour will have a bigger boulder offer on Europe. I think the question of how they get there and who does it is is more robust.
I I think you could do a lot more about defence. I think you could do a lot more actually about this opportunity agenda and getting young people back to work. Taking some really big decisions around which you know, labour decisions, labour values around which Labour can unite now. Rather than having a long period of introspection where we rip ourselves apart, we turn on ourselves, we allow factions to grow. And I think the British people wouldn't think
But Tom, if you're right and Keir Starmer has had the worst kind of epiphany, which is that you can't ever apologize in politics because that shows weakness. then do you think you get that? I mean, do you think you get back to a pla is is he now saying I I'm kind of done with
I'm I'm done with being the good, honest, decent guy. I've got to sound more like Trump, or I've got to sound more like not Trump, but you know, I've got to push ahead. I've got to sound like a strong man, otherwise nobody nobody trusts me.
I think he I think I I genuinely think it's a mistake. not to I mean he's a m he's acknowledged he made a mistake about Mamson, but it's a little bit grudging and then the next bref he's, you know, blaming Morgan McSweeney, he's blaming Oli Mswe uh Ollie Roberts. So so so I mean I I I think I think The grown up, strong, principled Kia Starmer that I know owns that mistake. No one else was responsible for it than me. Yeah, I was given advice, but I decided to take that advice.
We wouldn't be talking about it now if you'd done that. Okay.
I mean can he change? I I was talking to someone who was put out to do the morning round. You know, the the the you know, the minister who was kind of had to put the flat jacket and the tin hat on
Which one you're talking about?
Well, you know, th I so anyway, uh look, there are various people who uh you know, asked do you know how Kirstama's doing? How is he you know, is he f how's he feeling? And they hadn't spoken to Kirstama. And there are an awful lot of people who you think would be politically very, very close to him.
And I y that you know, so it's not like there is a band of brothers or band of sisters or whatever who are there to kind of get through this together. It feels like he's I mean, obviously it's a lonely job being Prime Minister and the buck stops with you, etcetera, etcetera. But he doesn't seem like he has that coterie of tight political mates who are there rooting for him.
No, but there's always a mistake to judge Keirstone by the standards of everyone who's come before him. And you know, he doesn't He doesn't operate like that. He Mae'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid people who he's fallen out with or needs to fall out with and so sometimes doesn't engage with it and that makes these problems worse and that makes some of those relationships worse.
Um and you know, he is I think I I think he's a toughie. I think he has extraordinary reserves of resilience, but I don't think he has huge reserves of confidence at the moment. And to go out and say right I'm going to like you know, ring you know, every member of the cabinet and I'm going to you know and you know, bring him around I don't think he's got that kind of forcing him at a moment. You know, he's, he's, He's you know, he's not gonna leave down his street.
And if he has anything to do with it, under this cloud. Und we've yeah For a decision which he never really wanted to take in the first place and he bitterly regrets taking. He doesn't want to be defined by this one decision. He wants to be defined by the things that
speak to his values, like his position on the Iran war, like his position on opportunity for young people that like his brother. Uh yeah, you know, like strengthening our defences and keeping his country safe. That's what he's about. And so I think I've You know, the politics of this and, you know, making sure that, you know, Minister X and Minister Y are feeling great about themselves. He needs to do a bit more of that, but I don't think he will. I think he can actually get past that.
if he gives people something to unite around. I think there's a will to unite. There's yeah, there's a recognition. Yeah, but lots of people you spoke you know, have you spoken to them, I've spoken to them. Say Kit's finished, you know. And then I say, So what do you want to happen next? And they there's a pause.
Because they can't tell you when Tony Blair was going, everyone said I was gonna be Gordon Brown. They can't tell you who they want. They can't tell you what would happen if they get who they want. And that's the problem. And so The same conditions which saved Kirstama two months ago, last time people built a scaffold for him, I think still apply, perhaps even more so given what's happened with the Iran war.
But he I right now I think he's got to give the party a sense of here's an agenda that we can unite around, here's a direction. a destination which we can reach, which we can all be proud of. I mean I been I've been on this podcast before and I've talked about
How Kirstarmer appears to be crossing a minefield, yeah, step forward, a step aside, step back and two steps forwards. That's the right way to cross a minefield. You can't just be wandering around the minefield though. You've got to say where you're going. And that's why I think that's a good thing.
No, but but you don't but you don't run across it boldly saying la la la right. You d you you cautiously, see if you can spot a mine, move to the left, feel your way. But you've got to be moving in the right direction. Just wandering around is better just to stand still. So you I mean w I think one of the reasons why this story has been so huge.
I think disproportionately huge, actually when you step back from it. We are talking about some pretty sort of obscure processes about vetting and so on. The reason th this has had such a sort of impact is for those two months since the last leadership crisis around him
They sort of just sailed on without making a big plan and sort of setting getting ready for the next shock. And so when you hit another bump in the road, it reverberates through the vehicle with real intensity because people just feel there isn't anything else there. Now, I think there is
the outlines of agenda. I think you'll begin to see what he wants to do on Europe and on defence and you've got Alan Milburn doing this a really important report into i into uh people not in education, employment and training. And I think there's gonna be a lot of substance, but right now we need to have that sense of where we're going. you know, what the big labour agenda is, what we can achieve together over the next twelve months, and then a lot of this goes away.
Tom Bolden, thanks for coming in.
Teşekkür ederim.
Thank you.
🎵 Music
And just a word that on the NewsAgents USA you can listen to our interview with Fiona Hill. You will know her as part of Donald Trump's first administration. She was his director for European and Russian affairs. And last night she told a parliamentary committee here that she thought the UK had become extraordinarily vulnerable to Russia. We're gonna be asking her about our national security. About Trump's position and about the state of democracy. She is an incredible listen.
This has been a global player original production.