Can Keir Starmer survive the latest Mandelson revelations? — BBC News

[0:00] Well, we're back after two weeks and nothing's happened. [0:02] It's even more of a mess. [0:03] I mean, I feel that we depart for a fortnight, [0:07] we turn our backs for a few short moments [0:09] and we come back to another gigantic mind-melting mess. [0:13] So we thank all the newscasters who've been listening assiduously [0:16] to newscasts all covering the crises, plural. [0:20] Yes. [0:20] We are, in a way, humbly coming back into your earbuds [0:23] because we're just offering the Saturday newscast, [0:26] but I have a feeling it's going to be dominated by Starmageddon. [0:31] I think it will because, yet again, [0:33] Starmageddon is unfolding in front of our eyes. [0:36] Yet again, as one senior MP said to me, [0:39] oh no, here we go again, [0:42] because of the saga around Keir Starmer's original decision [0:47] many, many months ago to give one Peter Mandelson [0:50] the plum job of being Britain's ambassador to the United States. [0:54] Welcome to Saturday's newscast. [0:58] Hello, it's Paddy in the studio. [0:59] And it's Laura in the studio, and how nice to be back together. [1:02] Now, shall we have a quick little recap [1:04] and then we can talk about all the different elements of this fiasco. [1:08] So this week, on Thursday night, [1:11] Keir Starmer fired the top Mandarin at the Foreign Office, [1:15] Sir Ollie Robbins. [1:17] He fired him because of an excellent scoop [1:19] from our journalistic colleagues at The Guardian [1:22] that revealed that Peter Mandelson [1:24] had failed the specific security vetting [1:29] carried out by a government agency. [1:32] Despite that, one Sir Ollie Robbins [1:35] had cleared Peter Mandelson [1:36] for the job of becoming the American ambassador, [1:39] but he did not tell anyone in Downing Street [1:42] or any government minister that he had done that. [1:46] Off with his head, in with his P-45, [1:48] out the door he went. [1:50] And so disputed is the account. [1:53] So dancing is Downing Street on the head of a pin. [1:57] And the allies of Sir Ollie Robbins [2:00] have said it's possible that Ollie Robbins [2:03] did not see the final vetting document. [2:08] Knowing that he had failed the test is disputed. [2:12] As some of his allies have said, [2:14] it's not like a driving test where you fail it. [2:17] It's like a risk assessment. [2:19] And you've described it in your online article, [2:21] which I have read. [2:23] And this is where I law-asplain. [2:25] You've described it like a credit check for a bank. [2:28] That's right. [2:29] So I think there are some things [2:30] that we have to try and understand [2:31] if you want to even begin to make sense of this story. [2:34] First off, what is vetting? [2:36] So vetting, generically, [2:38] is the process by which people [2:39] who get important jobs in government, [2:41] whether they're officials or politicians, [2:44] and people dig into their backgrounds. [2:47] Now, the element of this, [2:49] which we know that was failed by Peter Mandelson, [2:52] was the security check carried out [2:54] by what's essentially a quango, [2:56] the United Kingdom vetting agency. [2:58] They're commissioned to do that work [3:00] by the Foreign Office, [3:02] a bit like a bank might ask a credit agency [3:04] to look into, you know, [3:06] what you've been nautily spending your money on. [3:08] But the decision stays with the Foreign Office [3:11] about whether or not that person [3:12] is still okay to get the job. [3:16] A bit like a bank would make the ultimate decision [3:18] about whether you get their loan, [3:20] but they'd be informed by the report [3:22] that the credit checking agency [3:24] have been done on you. [3:25] Now, the accusation against Sir Ollie Robbins [3:27] in this case is that [3:29] not only is it extraordinary to think [3:32] that he might have been happy [3:34] to let a controversial person [3:36] like Peter Mandelson [3:37] go forward for a job [3:38] if he'd failed that specific vetting check, [3:41] but also for him not to have stuck his hand up [3:44] in the last months of meltdown [3:46] and said, [3:48] oh, by the way, Prime Minister, [3:49] or even, by the way, Cabinet Secretary, [3:51] or even, by the way, Foreign Secretary, [3:53] there might be something you need to know [3:55] about what happened many, many months ago. [3:58] Now, his defence is that [4:01] the whole process of vetting [4:03] is meant to be confidential. [4:06] Of course, or else it would completely fall over. [4:08] Nobody would ever put themselves forward for it. [4:10] But in these controversial circumstances, [4:13] the charge is twofold. [4:14] One, how did he make that decision in the first place? [4:16] But two, how did he then allow [4:19] senior people in this country, [4:21] including the Prime Minister, [4:23] to say misleading things to the public [4:26] that suggested that Peter Mandelson [4:28] had passed all the right checks? [4:30] And I can offer a wrinkle in reply. [4:33] Good. [4:33] Which is, in the timeline, [4:35] the Prime Minister had appointed Peter Mandelson [4:38] before the credit check, [4:41] as you describe it, [4:42] the developed vetting process had been finished. [4:45] So, allies of Ollie Robbins, [4:47] this goes back to my [4:48] dancing on the head of a pin story, [4:51] the allies have said [4:52] it's the job of the civil service [4:54] to deliver the government's programme. [4:58] And therefore, [4:58] Ollie Robbins was effectively [5:00] doing the job [5:02] that he was recently employed to do, [5:04] which was to enact [5:05] the government's bidding. [5:07] The government's bidding was, [5:08] ooh, Peter Mandelson, [5:10] no problems have ever come to light [5:12] with him, have they? [5:13] He's never had a nickname, [5:15] the Prince of Darkness. [5:16] He's never had rich and powerful friends. [5:19] He never had a relationship [5:21] with Jeffrey Epstein, did he? [5:22] Oh, yes, he did. [5:23] Yes, he did have... [5:23] So, they appointed him. [5:26] That's the whole shebang. [5:28] They appointed him. [5:29] Then, Ollie Robbins, [5:30] it was his job, say, his allies. [5:32] Let's listen to what Sir Simon MacDonald said. [5:35] He's somebody who did that same job. [5:37] So, in times gone by, [5:38] he was also the civil service boss [5:40] at the Foreign Office. [5:42] And he was trying to explain [5:43] where Ollie Robbins [5:45] might have been coming from [5:47] on the Today programme this morning. [5:48] Within the news cycle, [5:50] Ollie Robbins had been required to resign. [5:53] I mean, this shows to me [5:55] that the number 10 wanted a scalp [6:00] and they wanted it quickly. [6:01] I cannot see that there was any process, [6:06] any fairness, [6:07] any giving him the chance [6:10] to set out his case. [6:12] And that feels to me wrong. [6:15] Security vetting is a key part [6:17] of the system, [6:18] a key part of a posting overseas. [6:20] It is a confidential process. [6:23] So, there is a report. [6:26] The details of that report [6:28] are very closely held. [6:30] They would never be shared [6:32] with number 10 or the prime minister. [6:34] If there had been a failure, [6:37] then that fact, [6:39] that ultimate conclusion [6:42] would have to be conveyed [6:44] to the political level. [6:47] But the fact that it was not [6:49] indicates to me [6:51] that the picture was more complicated [6:53] than number 10 wished to present. [6:56] So, as Simon MacDonald [6:56] is suggesting there, Paddy, [6:58] this picture is much more complicated [7:01] than one piece of paper [7:02] that had a big red cross [7:04] against Peter Maddelson's name [7:05] that Ollie Robbins tore up [7:07] and chucked in the bin [7:08] and said, [7:08] never mind, [7:09] he can have the job anyway. [7:10] And it's complicated [7:11] for quite a few different reasons. [7:14] First off, as you say, [7:15] and I think this is probably [7:16] the most important one, [7:18] Keir Starmer had already announced [7:19] that Peter Maddelson [7:20] was going to be [7:21] the American ambassador to the States. [7:23] The notion of that [7:24] had been sold [7:26] to Donald Trump's new White House. [7:29] For anyone, therefore, [7:31] to say, [7:32] oh, stick the brakes on, [7:33] we can't do this, [7:35] could have caused [7:36] a really big political ruction. [7:38] It would have been embarrassing [7:39] for the prime minister. [7:40] It might have angered [7:42] the Trump White House. [7:43] Remember at that stage [7:44] how carefully Keir Starmer [7:46] was trying to build [7:47] a relationship [7:48] with the flamboyant maverick [7:51] with a troubled past, [7:53] the president on his way back [7:54] to the White House, [7:55] by sending him [7:56] a flamboyant maverick [7:57] with a troubled past [7:58] who he'd concluded [7:59] was the best man for the job. [8:01] So imagine what kind of reaction [8:03] there might have been [8:04] if Peter Maddelson's appointment [8:06] had been torn up [8:07] and chucked out. [8:09] The second thing [8:10] that's really important [8:10] that you and I have talked about [8:11] on Newscast a lot, [8:13] and we reported on it [8:14] when this all blew up [8:15] back in September 2005, [8:17] is this vetting took place [8:20] after the cabinet office [8:22] had already done [8:23] its own process. [8:25] And then Keir Starmer [8:26] had asked his own questions [8:28] of Peter Maddelson [8:29] via his chief of staff, [8:30] Morgan Sweeney, [8:31] after that process had completed. [8:33] So the context [8:34] for Ollie Robbins here is [8:35] he knows that the prime minister [8:37] wants the job. [8:37] That's out there in public. [8:40] That's not even a question [8:41] of, oh, private push [8:42] inside government. [8:44] Point two, [8:45] Ollie Robbins knows [8:46] that there's already been [8:47] a process carried out [8:48] by the cabinet office [8:49] ethics and propriety department, [8:51] the PET report, [8:52] as it's rather ridiculously called. [8:55] He knows both of those things. [8:58] And both of those things [8:59] have led the prime minister [9:00] to conclude that Peter Maddelson [9:02] should be the man in Washington. [9:04] So therefore, [9:06] some people might suggest [9:07] it would be pretty difficult [9:08] for Ollie Robbins [9:09] to have put the brake [9:10] on that process. [9:11] Now, we don't know [9:12] what Ollie Robbins saw. [9:14] We don't know [9:14] what the vetting agency's [9:16] report threw up. [9:17] We don't know [9:18] if it raised issues [9:19] that were very different [9:20] to what had been [9:21] in the original vetting report. [9:24] But those two bits of context [9:26] are very, very important [9:27] when it comes to this. [9:29] But it will be [9:30] absolutely fascinating [9:32] box office next week [9:35] when first Keir Starmer [9:36] on Monday [9:36] is going to have to answer [9:37] questions about this. [9:39] And then Ollie Robbins [9:40] has been summoned [9:41] to speak to MPs [9:42] about exactly [9:44] what happened [9:45] next week too [9:46] on Tuesday. [9:47] Yes. [9:48] And of course, [9:48] the sequencing of it [9:49] means that the prime minister [9:50] can't, [9:50] even if he hopes to, [9:51] can't shut it down [9:52] on Monday. [9:53] So we know [9:53] we're going to have to [9:54] readdress with Downing Street [9:56] what the Tuesday testimony [9:58] of Sir Ollie Robbins [9:59] is before the Foreign Affairs [10:00] Select Committee. [10:01] The prime minister [10:02] goes first [10:03] and many party leaders [10:06] have said [10:06] he has misled [10:08] the House of Commons [10:09] and under the ministerial code [10:12] which Keir Starmer [10:13] beefed up himself [10:14] and we should contrast [10:16] his behaviour [10:17] as the leader [10:18] of the opposition [10:18] when facing [10:20] Boris Johnson [10:21] which we'll do [10:21] in a moment. [10:22] But do you have [10:23] an answer [10:24] as an impartial journalist [10:26] to the question [10:26] did the prime minister [10:29] mislead [10:30] the House of Commons? [10:32] The prime minister [10:33] said things [10:33] that given what we know now [10:35] definitely gave us [10:36] a misleading picture [10:37] about Peter Mandelson's [10:40] suitability [10:41] and clearance [10:42] for the job. [10:44] And the specific charge [10:45] there lies actually [10:46] to an answer [10:46] that the prime minister [10:47] gave to a question [10:48] from a journalist [10:48] when he said [10:49] that Peter Mandelson [10:50] had been cleared [10:51] by the security [10:53] vetting process. [10:55] But [10:55] did he give [10:56] a misleading picture? [10:58] Yes he did. [10:59] And that's why [10:59] Downing Street [11:00] is so apoplectically [11:02] furious about this. [11:03] You know Keir Starmer [11:04] has been all over [11:04] the airwaves yesterday [11:05] saying how angry he is [11:07] he's furious [11:08] people in government [11:08] are flabbergasted [11:09] at everything that happened. [11:11] And you can see why. [11:14] Undoubtedly [11:14] you can see why [11:15] any political leader [11:17] would think [11:17] well hang on a minute [11:18] I was sent out [11:19] with information [11:20] that turns out [11:20] not to have been [11:21] quite 100% true. [11:24] There are though [11:24] to use your word [11:25] of the day [11:26] quite a lot of [11:27] wrinkles with that. [11:30] One [11:30] how do you define [11:32] what the actual process is? [11:34] If you're Olly Robbins [11:35] you might think [11:36] well I completely [11:36] followed the process [11:37] because the process was [11:38] take a look at all [11:39] the information [11:40] take that report [11:41] into consideration [11:42] but actually [11:43] I followed the process [11:43] because I thought [11:44] well you know what [11:44] the risk can be managed [11:45] and he's already been [11:46] given the job anyway. [11:47] And it's my job [11:47] to implement the government policy. [11:49] Correct. [11:50] So you could say [11:51] if you're Olly Robbins [11:52] I followed the process [11:53] to a letter. [11:53] You could also say [11:55] if you're in government [11:55] well hang on a minute [11:56] civil servants [11:57] are meant to make sure [11:58] that ministers [11:59] don't mislead the house [12:00] they're meant to make sure [12:01] that everything's done accurately [12:03] and he didn't do that [12:05] so actually [12:06] he didn't follow [12:06] the process properly at all. [12:08] Two views are available [12:10] when looking at [12:11] the same circumstances. [12:13] The second wrinkle [12:14] is that there is [12:15] also a law here. [12:17] If you are [12:18] as sad as I am [12:19] and you've been looking [12:20] carefully at this [12:21] for the last 24 hours [12:22] under the Constitutional [12:24] Reform and Governments Act [12:25] Section 3 [12:27] it says very clearly [12:29] that security vetting [12:30] is nothing to do [12:32] with ministers. [12:32] It's about officials [12:35] and officials are bound [12:36] by confidentiality. [12:38] They're not meant [12:39] to be spilling their guts [12:40] to ministers [12:40] about what has gone on. [12:42] If you talk to people [12:43] in government about that [12:44] they say aha [12:46] but yes you can tell them [12:47] the outcome [12:48] come of the decision [12:49] and officials are also bound [12:51] by the Civil Service Code [12:53] which is a code [12:54] not a law [12:55] but it also says [12:57] very clearly [12:57] that they need to make sure [12:59] that ministers have got [12:59] you know the truth [13:00] the whole truth [13:01] and nothing but the truth. [13:04] So I suggest [13:04] in the end [13:06] a lot of this [13:06] is going to come down [13:07] to that sort of battle [13:09] that we always have [13:11] in Westminster [13:11] between process [13:13] political reality [13:16] and then perception. [13:18] So is the perception here [13:20] that Keir Starmer [13:21] went out and said things [13:22] that were not true? [13:23] Absolutely. [13:24] Do people who are [13:25] backers of Ollie Robbins [13:26] who's got a reputation [13:27] as a very capable [13:29] very process focused [13:31] stickler for the rules [13:32] in government [13:32] do they think [13:33] that he followed the process? [13:35] Yes they do. [13:37] But is the political reality [13:38] that in this whole disaster [13:40] Keir Starmer needed someone [13:41] to point the finger at [13:42] and blame? [13:43] Yes he did. [13:45] So let's look at [13:46] some of the key questions [13:47] both men will face [13:49] one of them [13:51] always [13:52] is timeline [13:53] the ministerial code [13:55] says you must clear up [13:57] and make transparent [13:58] things that are mistakes [13:59] at the earliest opportunity [14:02] Prime Minister [14:04] is Monday [14:05] the earliest opportunity [14:08] when you knew [14:09] last week? [14:10] Well that depends [14:12] who you ask [14:12] so the government [14:13] took a very unusual step [14:14] they published [14:15] the minute of a meeting [14:16] that happened last week [14:17] where you can see [14:18] in black and white [14:19] that the Prime Minister [14:20] hadn't known [14:20] up until that point [14:21] and you can see there [14:23] that he's saying [14:23] okay [14:24] and I'm paraphrasing [14:25] we've got to find out [14:26] exactly what's happened [14:27] and then we've got to [14:28] correct the record [14:28] so they've tried to [14:29] sort of preempt that [14:31] by putting that document [14:33] out into the public domain [14:34] I have no doubt [14:35] that the opposition parties [14:36] are going to try [14:36] and give him a hard time [14:37] over not coming clean [14:38] absolutely straight away [14:39] we know now also [14:41] that a couple of [14:42] very senior civil servants [14:43] Antonio Romeo [14:44] the cabinet secretary [14:45] and Kat Little [14:47] the head of the cabinet office [14:48] both knew [14:49] some time ago [14:51] I don't mean like [14:51] months and months and months [14:52] but in recent weeks [14:54] they however [14:56] you know [14:57] here's an irony here [14:58] we're sort of trying [14:59] to find out [14:59] from a legal point of view [15:01] were they able to tell the PM [15:02] because there is that law [15:04] that says security vetting [15:05] shouldn't be shared [15:07] so that's all kind of [15:08] quite murky [15:08] but you're right [15:09] the timeline is going to be [15:10] really really important [15:12] so there's that pressing question [15:13] of has the PM come clean [15:15] quickly enough [15:16] Prime Minister [15:17] when you said [15:19] he had been security cleared [15:22] he had not [15:23] so you were misleading [15:25] in that answer [15:26] were you not [15:27] and there's two questions here [15:29] one [15:29] is that something [15:31] that Keir Starmer [15:32] assumed [15:33] because it hadn't been [15:35] flagged to number 10 [15:36] two [15:37] is that something [15:39] that he was [15:40] deliberately [15:41] told [15:42] three [15:44] why hadn't he asked [15:47] and checked [15:48] because this has been [15:49] one of the hottest [15:50] most damaging [15:51] enormous [15:52] see it from space [15:53] political controversies [15:54] that has haunted [15:55] Keir Starmer and his team [15:57] for months [15:57] and months [15:58] and months [15:59] and months [15:59] and months [16:00] on end [16:01] and you've got [16:02] one camp in Westminster [16:04] saying [16:04] how on earth [16:06] can Ollie Robbins [16:06] have taken this decision [16:07] on his own [16:08] without telling a minister [16:09] you've got another [16:10] camp in Westminster [16:11] saying [16:11] how on earth [16:13] Downing Street [16:13] not ask this basic question [16:15] because as soon as [16:16] this thing blows up [16:17] imagine you give someone [16:18] a job [16:18] it all goes terribly wrong [16:20] you say [16:20] oh god [16:20] who checked the references [16:21] bring them to me [16:23] right now [16:24] I want to see exactly [16:25] everything that we knew [16:26] and it appears [16:28] that Keir Starmer [16:28] didn't really do that [16:30] and that's why [16:31] when you talk to [16:31] you know Labour Party [16:32] insiders [16:33] and MPs about it [16:34] you get back [16:36] very quickly [16:36] to the overall [16:38] sense of [16:39] disappointment [16:40] about how Keir Starmer [16:42] has run his operation [16:43] and somebody said to me [16:44] it feels like [16:45] he has never gripped [16:47] the danger [16:47] of this whole [16:48] Mandelson row [16:49] and that involves [16:51] a sort of lack [16:51] of curiosity [16:52] about really getting [16:53] to the bottom of it [16:54] you know [16:54] and I spoke to lots of people [16:55] saying [16:56] even if [16:57] this vetting report [16:59] said what it said [17:01] it is astonishing [17:03] to imagine [17:03] that in the managing [17:04] of this crisis [17:05] that Downing Street [17:07] has only just [17:07] in the last couple of weeks [17:08] managed to [17:10] actually even find out [17:12] that that wasn't the case [17:13] now I'm told that [17:13] the Foreign Office [17:14] had been resisting [17:15] passing this document [17:16] across [17:16] but there's an awful lot [17:19] I mean there's an awful [17:20] lot of dispute [17:20] at the moment [17:21] about who exactly [17:22] had done what [17:22] and this that [17:23] and the other [17:23] and I suspect also [17:24] there may well be [17:26] on all sides [17:27] some rather convenient [17:28] hiding behind [17:30] well we couldn't [17:31] possibly do this [17:32] because that wasn't [17:32] convention [17:33] and then the other side [17:33] was we couldn't [17:34] possibly do this [17:35] because of that convention [17:36] but you know [17:38] I think at root [17:39] this has been a mess [17:40] for a very very long time [17:41] the last 72 hours [17:43] tells us very clearly [17:44] that Keir Starmer [17:44] as a leader [17:45] has failed to get [17:46] a grip on it [17:47] because he keeps [17:48] being blindsided [17:48] by more stuff [17:49] coming out [17:50] from Peter Mandelson's [17:51] whole appointment [17:52] around the US [17:53] it is [17:54] his party gate [17:55] that's what it is [17:57] and questions [17:57] to Ollie Robbins [17:58] Sir Oliver [17:59] did you [18:01] I was enjoying this role [18:02] I feel like [18:03] so I was the Prime Minister [18:03] last time [18:04] did I do a good job [18:05] of that or not [18:05] now I'll be [18:06] on Ollie Robbins [18:06] thank you for coming [18:08] for our committee [18:09] did you see [18:10] did you see [18:12] the full [18:12] developed vetting advice [18:14] including [18:15] red boxes [18:16] did you see [18:18] the full advice [18:19] or did you see [18:20] redacted advice [18:22] so I don't know [18:23] how Ollie Robbins [18:24] will play this [18:24] he may say [18:25] I'm bound [18:26] not to get into [18:27] any of this detail [18:28] I'm happy to share it [18:29] with the intelligence [18:30] and security committee [18:31] or I'm happy to write [18:32] to you confidentially [18:32] but I'm bound [18:33] by the same laws [18:34] I was bound by now [18:36] outside government [18:36] and I was bound [18:37] by well inside government [18:38] I just don't know [18:39] how you'd play it [18:40] the answer to that question [18:42] I think may however be [18:43] think of big civil service [18:45] departments [18:46] as a pyramid [18:48] you've got people [18:49] sort of [18:50] the kind of bottom half [18:51] doing the work [18:52] with all the papers [18:53] the higher you go [18:54] up the pyramid [18:54] the skinnier it gets [18:55] by the time you get [18:56] to the top of the [18:57] top of the boss [18:58] they're not necessarily [18:59] going to be given [19:00] a big 100 page report [19:01] of something [19:01] they might be given [19:03] a one side of A4 [19:05] they might even have [19:06] a trusted official [19:07] or trusted staff member [19:09] telling them something [19:11] without them seeing [19:13] all the documents [19:14] we don't know exactly [19:15] what he was told [19:16] but that is not impossible [19:18] and again it's just [19:21] it's not impossible [19:22] that that vetting process [19:23] turned up much [19:24] that wasn't already [19:25] in the other report [19:26] that had been done [19:27] by a different bit [19:28] of government [19:30] so again [19:31] there's a second question [19:33] if you want to go back [19:34] to our role play [19:34] I would do it the other way [19:35] Sir Ollie Robbins [19:36] why did you not demand [19:39] to see the full vetting report [19:41] if you did not see [19:43] the full vetting report [19:44] knowing how controversial [19:45] this appointment [19:46] might have been [19:47] indeed there were people [19:48] in the Foreign Office [19:48] who thought it was [19:49] a terrible idea [19:50] to put Peter Maddelson [19:50] in that job [19:51] so now I have to take [19:52] two routes [19:53] one I've [19:54] there were three routes [19:55] there's the routes [19:56] where I've said [19:56] I can't possibly discuss [19:58] security vetting [19:59] under protocols [20:00] well known under the law [20:01] there's that one [20:01] in which case I say [20:02] I'm very sorry indeed [20:05] Madam Chairwoman [20:07] but I can't go into that [20:09] then there's a version [20:10] where I say [20:11] I haven't seen [20:12] the whole report [20:13] but I feel [20:14] I am able to say that [20:16] so I can say [20:17] well as I've already testified [20:19] it's just not done [20:21] that way Madam Chair [20:23] I don't see [20:24] the full report [20:25] I'm advised [20:26] of my statutory role [20:28] to advise the Prime Minister [20:30] and to carry out [20:31] the government's programme [20:32] the appointment [20:34] of Lord Maddelson [20:35] had already been announced [20:37] and it was my clear job [20:39] under the very well-known statutes [20:41] to enact the government's programme [20:43] and I had discretion [20:45] I was advised [20:46] I had discretion legally [20:47] and there we are [20:49] we should also just say [20:51] Sir Ollie Robbins [20:53] doesn't sound like that [20:55] we're just being [20:55] we're being discreet [20:57] so yes [20:58] you're being so humphry [20:58] you're inhabiting the role [21:00] very well [21:01] then there's the third answer [21:02] I preferred it [21:03] when I was asking the question [21:04] don't we all [21:06] don't we all [21:07] yes [21:07] so then there's the third version [21:09] of this [21:09] which is where [21:11] I have told them [21:12] that I did see [21:13] the whole report [21:14] and then I have to explain [21:16] there [21:17] what the consequences [21:18] of seeing the whole report are [21:20] but that's very closely aligned [21:22] to the first answer [21:24] because I can't [21:25] under the law [21:26] I can't say what's in the report [21:28] so I'm then in a very interesting [21:30] sort of testimony [21:32] live testimony moment [21:34] where I can tell you I've seen it [21:36] but I can't tell you what I saw [21:37] correct [21:38] which is where the whole thing [21:39] gets into [21:39] you know [21:40] a kind of Kafka [21:42] Orwellian [21:44] or you know [21:45] yes minister sitcom [21:47] from the 80s [21:48] you know [21:48] pick your [21:49] pick your bizarre reality [21:53] where people can't really say [21:54] anything [21:54] you know [21:55] well I do know [21:55] what I don't know [21:56] but I don't know [21:57] what I do know [21:57] and you can't know [21:58] anything that I know [21:59] because then you would know [22:00] what I know [22:00] you know [22:01] I mean you just get into [22:02] this ridiculous cycle [22:03] thank you [22:03] I'm sure it didn't make [22:04] any sense at all [22:05] it did to me [22:05] it just brought it all home [22:06] so I think we now need [22:08] as promised [22:08] to compare this [22:09] to the duffing up [22:11] that Sir Keir [22:12] as leader of the opposition [22:14] gave to Boris Johnson [22:16] as Prime Minister [22:16] I've just been reviewing [22:18] the clips actually [22:18] and it's things like [22:20] think [22:20] very carefully [22:22] before answering [22:23] this question [22:24] and then there's another [22:26] moment in the Commons [22:27] where he goes [22:27] he's either [22:28] either [22:28] either he knew [22:30] what was going on [22:31] or he didn't [22:32] he wasn't in control [22:34] that's another [22:35] and you can hear [22:36] in the [22:37] the Howe House [22:38] thinking [22:38] yes that's the [22:39] those are the choices [22:40] that's right [22:40] and again [22:41] it comes to a fact [22:42] that in politics [22:43] ignorance is not a defence [22:44] you know [22:45] you can have a debate [22:46] about whether it should be [22:47] or not [22:48] but ignorance in politics [22:49] is not a defence [22:50] if you are a political leader [22:51] to say [22:51] oh sorry I didn't know [22:53] politicians [22:54] leaders are the ultimate [22:56] in accountability [22:58] and authority [22:59] that is the whole basis [23:01] on which our system rests [23:02] which is why [23:03] Keir Starmer [23:03] was so effectively [23:04] able to go after [23:05] Boris Johnson [23:06] in that way [23:06] for a long time [23:07] and they lent into it [23:08] week after week [23:10] after week [23:10] after week [23:11] you had Mr Rules [23:12] going after Captain Sleaze [23:14] to be a terribly [23:15] cartoony person [23:16] about it [23:17] it worked for Labour [23:18] and now they're finding [23:20] fairly or not [23:21] that the boot [23:23] is on the other foot [23:24] and you know [23:25] when you talk to people [23:25] who are loyal to Keir Starmer [23:26] you can hear almost [23:27] this sort of agony [23:29] in their voices [23:29] you know [23:30] one of them said to me [23:30] this is so painful [23:32] for Keir Starmer [23:34] because he sees himself [23:35] and he is [23:36] they believe [23:36] a man of such integrity [23:38] but this row [23:39] to use their phrase [23:40] was wiping that away [23:41] in the public's eyes [23:42] and it comes also [23:45] at a time [23:46] when the government [23:47] has been struggling [23:48] on all sorts of fronts [23:50] they've been unpopular [23:51] for a long time [23:52] they're going to the polls [23:54] in a couple of weeks [23:55] in Scotland [23:57] in Wales [23:58] and right round England [23:59] in a huge set of elections [24:01] and right when they felt [24:03] things might have been [24:04] beginning to stabilise [24:06] a little bit [24:07] here they go again [24:08] another big fat mess [24:11] over Peter Mandelson [24:12] which is [24:14] the worst kind [24:16] of political story [24:18] because it talks [24:19] because it talks [24:19] to sleaze [24:20] it talks [24:21] to bad behaviour [24:22] it talks [24:23] to kind of [24:24] power and ambition [24:25] someone everyone's [24:27] heard of [24:27] which not all [24:29] political rouse [24:30] involve [24:31] you know [24:32] this is not [24:33] obscure [24:33] again to use [24:34] our word of the day [24:35] this is not [24:35] an obscure [24:36] wrinkle [24:37] this is a controversy [24:39] that has [24:40] once every few months [24:41] blown up in flames [24:43] goes away for a while [24:45] blows up in flames [24:47] goes away for a while [24:48] and Kostar has just [24:49] not been able to move on [24:50] from it [24:51] and you've done [24:52] much more work [24:52] than I have [24:53] with victims [24:55] who are [24:55] in news stories [24:57] and in this case [24:59] in this simple case [25:00] it was known [25:02] that Peter Mandelson [25:03] was a friend [25:03] of Jeffrey Epstein [25:04] it was known [25:05] what the scope [25:06] of some [25:07] of Jeffrey Epstein's [25:08] crimes was [25:09] and so [25:11] if you are [25:12] on the side [25:12] of victims [25:13] you say [25:13] actually [25:14] you know what I think [25:15] if we are going to [25:16] honestly listen to victims [25:17] and be on their side [25:18] we don't promote [25:19] we don't give [25:20] the top job [25:21] that I can give [25:22] really [25:22] one of the top jobs [25:23] I can give as primaries [25:24] we don't give it [25:24] to a friend [25:25] now being a friend [25:26] does not imply guilt [25:28] but it does [25:29] to your point [25:29] about perception [25:30] it does seem to say [25:32] that victims [25:33] have not been [25:34] listened to [25:35] at the point [25:35] of that appointment [25:36] look there are [25:37] certainly lots of people [25:38] in the Labour Party [25:39] who were saying [25:40] who believed [25:41] at the time [25:42] of the appointment [25:43] that the Epstein [25:44] connection [25:45] which Mandelson [25:45] had apologised for [25:47] he said that [25:48] he shouldn't have [25:48] been his friend [25:49] that was all out there [25:50] in the public domain [25:51] but there were people [25:53] who felt at the time [25:54] that meant [25:55] he should not [25:56] ever have been [25:57] on the list [25:57] for that job [25:58] the fact is [26:00] Keir Starmer [26:01] knew it was a risk [26:03] but it was a risk [26:04] that he and his [26:05] chief of staff [26:06] were willing [26:06] to take [26:07] now politics [26:08] is about calculated risks [26:10] there was a moment [26:11] when it looked like [26:12] that risk had really [26:13] been paying off [26:14] the UK got [26:15] a better trade deal [26:16] with the United States [26:17] than many other countries [26:18] the relationship [26:19] between Trump [26:21] and Starmer [26:21] initially seemed [26:23] incredibly warm [26:24] there was all [26:24] the bonhomie [26:25] some people thought [26:26] it was absolutely [26:27] skin curdling [26:29] but other people [26:30] looked at that [26:31] and went [26:31] well played [26:32] Keir Starmer [26:32] no one would ever [26:33] have thought [26:34] that you [26:34] of all people [26:35] the right-on lawyer [26:36] from North London [26:37] would have been [26:37] the person [26:38] to be able [26:39] to get a great [26:40] smooth entry [26:41] into having [26:41] a relationship [26:42] with this maverick [26:43] unpredictable [26:44] sometimes bellicose [26:46] American president [26:47] but look [26:48] here you are [26:48] laughing and joking [26:49] in the Oval Office [26:50] wow [26:50] well played [26:52] well played [26:53] Peter Mandelson [26:54] but of course [26:55] when that drip [26:57] drip drip [26:57] of terrible [26:58] revelations [26:59] coming out [27:00] of the Epstein [27:00] files emerge [27:01] of course [27:01] that's when [27:02] that relationship [27:03] and that past [27:04] and the extent [27:05] of those links [27:06] became clearer [27:08] and then his position [27:09] simply wasn't tenable [27:11] but I was thinking [27:13] yesterday [27:14] I mean I was just [27:15] reminded that [27:15] it did take [27:16] quite some time [27:17] for Keir Starmer [27:18] to get to that point [27:19] do you remember [27:19] that week [27:20] when there was [27:21] more and more [27:21] coming out [27:22] and more and more [27:22] coming out [27:23] and then there was [27:23] a kind of oh my goodness [27:24] he's going to have to go [27:25] and Keir Starmer [27:26] was criticised [27:27] at that time [27:28] for not seeing [27:29] the risk [27:30] I mean not seeing [27:31] the risk in the first place [27:32] but not then acting [27:33] quickly enough [27:34] and then in the end [27:36] having to fire [27:36] Peter Mandelson [27:37] and of course [27:37] we spoke to him [27:38] back at the turn [27:39] of the year [27:39] and he sort of said [27:39] well Danny Street [27:40] knew everything [27:41] and so you go back [27:43] to the initial question [27:44] I'm the Prime Minister [27:45] I made this decision [27:47] is this fatal for me [27:50] I think not immediately [27:52] because as one MP [27:53] said to me [27:54] you know [27:54] this puts another nail [27:56] in the coffin [27:57] of the Prime Minister [27:58] if you could fit [27:58] another one in [27:59] because it's basically [28:00] made of nails now [28:01] I'm paraphrasing slightly [28:03] but there are more [28:04] quotes of that nature [28:05] available in my piece [28:06] on the BBC website [28:07] I think it doesn't mean [28:11] that in the next couple [28:12] of days [28:12] he's going to be [28:13] out on his uppers [28:15] we're in the middle [28:16] of an election campaign [28:17] the Labour Party [28:19] still has a huge issue [28:22] with being fairly convinced [28:25] that there's an awful lot [28:26] of problems [28:26] in the Starmer operation [28:28] fairly convinced [28:29] that he's probably [28:29] not going to be the man [28:30] that will take them [28:31] into the next general election [28:32] but not convinced [28:33] what the other option [28:34] actually is [28:35] I think this probably [28:37] changes the calculation [28:39] a little bit [28:40] in terms of what [28:41] is likely to happen [28:42] after the election [28:43] results in May [28:44] but is this [28:46] immediately going to be [28:48] a meaning and exit [28:49] for Keir Starmer [28:50] it doesn't feel like that [28:51] because nobody [28:52] has produced [28:53] evidence that he [28:55] deliberately [28:55] misled [28:57] or lied to anyone [28:59] did he say things [29:00] that were not right [29:01] and that seem untrue [29:02] in public [29:02] yes [29:03] that's why he is [29:04] so furious [29:05] but is there evidence [29:07] that on his part [29:08] that was deliberate [29:09] no [29:10] there is not [29:11] but look [29:12] this is a really [29:12] febrile [29:13] and unpredictable [29:14] situation [29:14] so look [29:15] you know [29:15] you never quite know [29:17] but another thing [29:19] I just wanted to say [29:20] briefly on this [29:21] it obviously doesn't [29:22] help with the public [29:23] and it obviously [29:24] doesn't help [29:25] with an increasingly [29:26] fed up [29:26] members of the Labour Party [29:28] and I get the sense [29:30] that some people [29:31] inside Labour [29:32] are starting to be [29:33] increasingly wound up [29:34] by the Prime Minister [29:35] coming out and saying [29:35] do you know what [29:36] I'm really cross [29:37] I'm really really cross [29:39] I'm really really cross [29:40] that something's gone wrong [29:41] if it's your government [29:42] and you're in charge [29:43] that's an emotional response [29:45] that's not a response [29:47] of action [29:48] that's a reaction [29:48] to things going wrong [29:50] that's not actually [29:52] presenting [29:52] a solution [29:54] or [29:55] taking responsibility [29:57] you know [29:58] being cross for something [29:59] when it's your organisation [30:00] is kind of [30:01] it's a response [30:02] that's not going down well [30:03] with everybody [30:04] on his own side [30:04] I have to say [30:05] because the pavement [30:06] outside number 10 [30:08] resembles the departure lounge [30:09] at Heathrow Terminal 3 [30:11] Sue Gray [30:12] Matthew Doyle [30:13] Angela Rayner [30:13] Paul Ovenden [30:14] James Lyons [30:15] Stephanie Driver [30:16] Morgan McSweeney [30:16] Tim Allen [30:17] Sir Chris Wormald [30:18] Louise Hay [30:18] Tulip Sadiq [30:19] Annalise Dodds [30:19] Andrew Quinn [30:20] Sir Ollie Robbins [30:22] Peter Mandelson [30:22] in one way or another [30:23] all defenestrated [30:25] that's right [30:25] resigned [30:26] that's right [30:26] and several people [30:27] had to go already [30:29] over specifically [30:30] over the Mandelson mess [30:31] and Keir Starmer [30:33] you know [30:34] he's the boss [30:34] he's not yet been [30:35] held accountable [30:35] because of that [30:36] but the opposition parties [30:37] I think are going to have [30:38] a good old go [30:39] in the next few days [30:40] for sure [30:40] I should say [30:41] there will be names [30:42] on that list [30:42] who said [30:42] I was at the end [30:43] of my contract [30:44] I wanted to leave [30:45] so we haven't got time [30:46] to go through the full 15 [30:47] we'll be here forever [30:48] if we had [30:48] there's a whole podcast series [30:50] about people [30:50] there will be people [30:51] listening to saying [30:51] I wasn't defenestrated [30:52] I wasn't defenestrated [30:54] O'Connell's wrong [30:55] so I just put that in there [30:57] then they can blame me [30:58] no but for a government [30:59] that's not yet two years [31:00] into his life [31:01] it is absolutely relevant [31:02] and valid to point out [31:03] that an awful lot of people [31:04] have gone out [31:05] one way of the revolving door [31:06] you know [31:07] there have been an unusual [31:08] number of departures [31:09] I think for a government [31:10] that still has a huge majority [31:11] hasn't even been in charge [31:13] for two years yet [31:13] and should be still [31:14] in their pomp [31:16] but they certainly [31:18] certainly aren't [31:19] we should give you [31:19] the government statement [31:20] there have been lots of quotes [31:22] on the record [31:23] from angry ministers [31:23] but the government [31:24] has been saying [31:25] neither the prime minister [31:26] nor any government minister [31:27] was aware that Peter Maddelson [31:29] was granted [31:29] development vetting [31:31] against the advice [31:32] of UK security vetting [31:34] until earlier this week [31:35] once the prime minister [31:36] was informed on Tuesday [31:37] he immediately instructed [31:38] officials to establish [31:40] the facts [31:40] about why the developed [31:42] vetting was granted [31:43] so he could update [31:44] parliament at the earliest [31:45] opportunity [31:47] as part of our commitment [31:48] to transparency [31:49] we've published a readout [31:50] of the meeting [31:51] between the prime minister [31:52] the cabinet secretary [31:53] and the cabinet office [31:54] permanent secretary [31:56] where the prime minister [31:57] was made aware [31:58] so that's what we were [32:00] referring to earlier [32:01] that was number 10 [32:02] sort of attempt [32:02] to manage the fallout [32:05] of this [32:06] by publishing [32:07] an account [32:08] of a meeting [32:09] but you know [32:10] another former official [32:11] sort of old-handed government [32:12] said to me [32:13] why did they just not [32:15] get all of this out [32:16] straight away [32:17] give it all to the [32:18] intelligence and security [32:19] committee [32:20] which is a kind of [32:21] secret committee [32:22] who could then decide [32:23] just hand it all over [32:24] at the beginning [32:25] of this mess [32:26] that is the basics [32:28] they said to me [32:29] just get it all out [32:30] this has been running [32:30] for ages and ages and ages [32:32] and the government [32:32] is still being pushed [32:35] on this rather than [32:37] being out on the front foot [32:38] because don't forget [32:39] this all came out [32:40] because of the work [32:41] of journalists [32:42] our colleagues [32:43] at the Guardian newspaper [32:44] are the people [32:45] who brought this [32:47] to light [32:48] and successive governments [32:49] have found [32:50] that if you're in [32:51] a sticky wicket [32:51] the successful way [32:53] through [32:54] tends to be [32:55] to control the information [32:56] flow rather than [32:57] wait to be found out [32:58] that's all for today's [33:00] episode of Newscast [33:01] on TV [33:02] or if you've been [33:03] watching on YouTube [33:04] but you can find [33:05] the rest of me [33:06] and Paddy's conversation [33:07] on BBC Sounds [33:08] or wherever you get [33:09] your podcasts [33:10] as well as [33:11] all the other [33:12] Newscast episodes [33:13] from time gone by [33:15] goodbye for now