Could Trump use the Falklands to punish the UK? — BBC Newscast

[0:00] Chris, shall we explain why you and me are on a Saturday episode of Newscast and also why it [0:04] sounds like we're in a historic legendary recording studio? Well yeah, we have been [0:08] invited, haven't we, alongside newscasters in the room in front of us to Maida Vale in North London, [0:14] quite a spot in BBC and music history, isn't it? And quite the place to spend the afternoon in the [0:22] company of regular newscasters and the full Newscast ensemble of presenters, which is great, [0:29] isn't it? And we get to sort of gently appear on Paddy and Laura and sort of Henry's weekend out pod, [0:35] which is great. Hello Laura, hello Paddy, hello Henry. Hello. Would you like to paint a picture [0:40] of where we are? We are in the incredible historic, as Chris said, BBC Maida Vale Studios. We have [0:46] the, perhaps the ghosts of many fantastic music stars who've come here to record incredible [0:52] art over many, many decades and for some reason they've let all of us in today. Yes. And if you're [0:58] listening to, rather than watching this, we are in quite as a kind of art deco room. We've got our [1:03] usual newscast chairs, which Chris has already moaned about the cushions. There's a nice coffee [1:08] table, a little Persian rug and a lot of news to talk about. As we were walking here on our way from [1:14] the green room, there was a steel drum lying about, a timpani or timpano or whatever the correct [1:20] singular of that is. There's about four different organs around us as well, by the way. So, [1:24] not our usual environment. There's no way to talk about the newscast. [1:29] AmeriCast is not that bad. [1:31] I'm going to specify which organ. We also walked past lots of things that said ladies' wardrobe [1:35] and various coat hangers and then things in garment bags. So, I had a quick look in one of them and [1:41] sadly there weren't any sequins in there that I was going to give to Paddy, but maybe for another day. [1:45] And so, through the wall in the studio next door is the gang from AmeriCast who are doing an episode [1:50] of AmeriCast and lots of the other podcasts that the BBC makes in the news space are going to be [1:55] appearing throughout the day as well. Oh, and also there's one other thing that you might be able [1:58] to hear, but they're being very polite. There's a whole load of newscasters here with us. Do you [2:02] want to say hello? Yay! There's four more hours of this by the way. So, you're keeping your energy [2:10] levels at the right place. That's good to know. Also, we've got these running orders in front of us and I've [2:14] already realised I've mucked it up because it says before all of that, it should say Laura tells us [2:18] about a dispute over the Falkland Islands and we'll explain what the latest on the UK-US relationship. [2:24] Shall I do it now? Why don't you just do it now? I'll do it now. So, we are making an episode of [2:30] Newscast as well as having a special get together with all of you guys and lots of our other colleagues [2:34] from different BBC podcasts too. So, in this episode of Newscast, we'll be talking about one of the big [2:39] stories of the day, which is our journalistic colleagues at Reuters got their sticky paws on [2:45] an internal Pentagon email, which suggested that the United States under the Trump administration [2:52] is thinking about different options to punish allies from the Defence Alliance NATO, who Donald Trump [2:59] believes, as he's told us multiple times, appallingly let America down by not helping them [3:05] in the way that they wanted with the campaign against Iran. So, what's been leaked is a list of [3:11] possible kind of punishment beatings, if you like, that America is supposedly thinking about. [3:17] One of them, which has made lots of headlines in this country, is whether or not America might [3:23] withdraw its backing, sort of tacit backing for the UK's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. And [3:32] that is really lighting a political flame, because whether you were alive at the time or not, UK control [3:39] of the Falklands is something that no mainstream British politician would touch with a barge pole. [3:45] And the capacity, yet again, of the Trump administration, via this leak, [3:51] to create turbulence amongst countries, notionally that are its allies, throwing up all of those [3:57] questions from a generation ago, back to the early 1980s, all of those questions around the sovereignty [4:03] of those islands, hearing those voices of Falkland Islanders pointing to, you know, recent surveys [4:10] showing, what, 99 point something percent backing amongst people living there for the sovereignty to [4:16] remain as it is, forcing a prime minister who's had quite a lot on in recent days, as you may have [4:23] noticed, and the government here to reassert the long-standing British position of every British [4:29] government going back a very long way around the future of those islands. And yet another curveball, [4:34] of which we see so many, don't we, coming out of this White House? [4:37] We do, but one of the curiosities about it is actually in a secret leak document, [4:41] which is more standard journalistic fare, from other eras, rather than just, you know, [4:46] late night posts on Truth Social, which also have the capacity to surprise and shock and create huge [4:51] amounts of news. And Henry, how has the government been handling this? Because I suppose it's a weird [4:56] one, because yeah, it's a leak of a potential policy that might only reveal what one part of the Trump [5:00] administration might propose in a discussion with another part. [5:03] Yeah, although there does tend to be a pipeline under the Trump administration, [5:07] where it begins with elite document or a stray report here or there, but it does [5:12] tend to end with usually about the sort of time I arrive for work, which is five in the morning UK [5:17] time, Donald Trump, presumably just before going to sleep, posting on Truth Social something [5:21] disobliging about the UK. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's where this goes. I mean, [5:25] the formal UK government response is this, sovereignty rests with the UK and the [5:30] islanders' right to self-determination is paramount. But I don't think they know what they will do or [5:37] how they will handle this if President Trump is to make it a public possibility that the US, [5:45] let's be clear, because actually, and I confess I didn't know this, the US has always been a bit [5:49] ambivalent about the UK's claim to the Falkland Islands. What they would be doing here is backing [5:53] Argentina's claim. So if the US did do that, potentially even while the king is there on his [6:00] state visit, that would be just another category of crisis. By the way, I was thinking on my way here, [6:06] two-ish years into an unpopular prime minister's first term with questions of the sovereignty of [6:15] the Falkland Islands suddenly coming out of nowhere. It's all feeling quite 1982, isn't it? [6:19] We could send our three ships. Well, and that is, I think, one place this goes, is that if this were [6:27] to become serious, and we should never discount the possibility in the Trump administration that [6:30] it does become serious, the UK does not have the military wherewithal that it had in 1982. [6:36] It's interesting though, isn't it, Paddy? Because part of this reminds us of how Trump is beyond, [6:43] you know, beyond the sort of late night, oh, it's all crazy headlines and crazy news. Part of this is [6:49] about his reorientation of America, which way it's looking. And it's clear that he wants to be [6:55] looking to allies, not friendly friends and chums over in Western Europe. He's looking in other places. [7:02] So he looks to Argentina's leader. Remember the guy who went on stage with a chainsaw, Javier Melay? I'm [7:06] probably pronouncing that incorrectly. I'm sure one of you might want to tell me exactly how it's done. [7:12] But he's looking to other parts of the world, rather than his traditional allies, in a sense. [7:20] And for the UK government, there's not very much they can do as he's, you know, metaphorically tearing [7:25] up part of the friendship. [7:26] Yeah, I mean, I think that you can sort of say the Falklands and Greenland are part of the same [7:32] world in which the Americans have been saying for years, Europe, 80 years after the Second World War, [7:38] can you possibly pay for your own defence? Now, I know you want us to pay. I know you want taxpayers [7:44] in Iowa, Nebraska and Dakota to pay for your defence in Berlin. I know you want us to do that. But is it [7:51] just possible you could pay for your own defence? Someone's had to drag the Germans towards their [7:58] checkbook to make the Germans pay for their defence. Most people in defence have said Donald Trump is [8:04] right to say that NATO countries need to cough up. It's really unpopular because Donald Trump is [8:12] unpopular in Europe. It's really unpopular to say most people I've met say that Donald Trump is right to [8:19] say that NATO needed to pay more. And those people are posh decision makers of all political parties. [8:25] Yeah. And, you know, Keir Starmer will say that now and other European leaders will say that now. [8:28] But there's a very big difference. We've talked about it. It feels like we've talked about it [8:32] so often at the weekends. There is such a yawning gap between the rhetoric of Western European leaders [8:38] like Keir Starmer and actually the reality of how much cash they're prepared to put towards defence. [8:43] Yes, I've heard him tell you in interviews, Chris, he's told us in interviews that they're [8:47] increasing defence spending very significantly. That's true. But by the measure that they say [8:54] it's really, really required, it doesn't touch the sides. And this is the thing, isn't it? There's [8:58] been one leap forward in acknowledgement from plenty of European leaders that the central diplomatic [9:06] international argument that Donald Trump made in his first term around Europe not pulling its weight, [9:11] Europe now pretty much acknowledges. But how does it get from there to a place where you're actually [9:17] making a substantial difference? And we saw just a couple of weeks ago, the intervention of Lord [9:21] Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary, former Secretary General of NATO, the only Secretary [9:26] General of NATO who has been in the seat when the crucial decision has been made post 9-11 for [9:33] NATO allies to come to America's support, basically saying, you know, [9:37] Keir Starmer is talking the right language, but where is the money? And that's a massive challenge. [9:43] It'd be a massive challenge for this government and its successors, if, as many anticipate, [9:48] the international environment remains one, where governments are, as they would see it, [9:53] making a rational case that so much more has to be spent on defence. And then with what trade-offs? [9:59] With what trade-offs in terms of money that's spent elsewhere? Or taxes? It's absolutely huge [10:05] decision, isn't it? Over the next, the coming years, the coming decades. [10:08] I'm just wondering though, where this decision in Washington could actually end up falling. And it [10:13] could, there's a whole range of possibilities, isn't there? That this ends up just being a slightly [10:17] rhetorical thing about, oh, if Argentina was to invade the Falklands again, and the UK triggered [10:23] Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which is the Collective Self-Defence Clause, maybe America would not [10:29] approve the whole of NATO to weigh in behind Britain in some kind of military campaign. But there's so many, [10:35] hypothetical steps to get there. And actually, maybe America would never have weighed in behind [10:40] Britain in a military campaign, because they didn't in 1982. And so all of this might be quite [10:44] kind of theoretical and rhetorical rather than a real kind of threat. [10:48] Well, we could always ask our chums next door on America. They might be able to have a guess at [10:51] what they might do. But I think if you go back to what happened in the 80s, America did sort of help in [10:57] a tacit way. So they absolutely didn't have a formal role, but I think there was sort of intelligence [11:03] support and that kind of thing. And as you say, America's position on this has always been quite [11:08] sort of ambivalent. But as such a close pal of the UK, that kind of tacit support, [11:16] you would have assumed as a UK government is something that could have been maintained. [11:21] It's also not clear how serious Argentina is about. I mean, of course, they've always claimed [11:26] vehemently in modern times that it belongs to them and the Islas Las Malvinas in Spanish should [11:33] be returned to them. But we also don't know if they have any intention of actually doing anything [11:38] about it. Or as you say, if this is a rhetorical bust up and it's something that will never actually [11:44] have to bother the government in concrete terms. But as you said, Henry, if it does, [11:49] what on earth would they do? [11:50] But this specific episode doesn't have to be serious for it to be very serious in general. [11:57] And that I think is the core here, is that when I talk to people in the UK government, [12:02] not even necessarily about this, because it's only broken in the last day or two, [12:06] but about the posture of President Trump in general, what scares them is that they essentially [12:12] have no way of operating British security and British defence policy without a friendly America. [12:18] More than that, without an America with which we're in lockstep. And actually that was true [12:23] in President Trump's first term as well. And we are so integrated in a way that voices on the left [12:30] of the Labour Party and beyond have been saying for decades we shouldn't be, but we are so integrated [12:34] with the American security apparatus that it's not just a question of how much the UK might have [12:40] to spend on defence. It's all sorts of ways in which defence and security operates just [12:44] do not function if you are not sort of bound together with the US. And they just, I think, [12:50] are in the foothills of trying to work out how on earth to solve that problem, because it does [12:55] increasingly feel to them like a problem. It does. But there's another wrinkle though, [12:58] hey, because being in Donald Trump's bad books is not necessarily a bad thing for a British [13:03] politician right now. He is not popular in this country by and large. And, you know, there's a lot [13:08] of chat and a bit of joshing about whether or not Keir Starmer has finally found a moment where he can [13:13] do the Hugh Grant love, actually, I'm going to tell that big brash American where to go. [13:18] Not sure the comparison really holds that much water. But from a political point of view, [13:22] there is a flicker of advantage, even though from a security and diplomatic point of view, [13:26] it is potentially an absolute disaster. And it's certainly unknowable. [13:31] But picking up, Laura, on that point and the sort of political brass tacks of this from Keir [13:35] Starmer's perspective, you know, in the last couple of weeks, he has sufficient pride in the stance that [13:41] he has taken as far as the UK's posture on the conflict in the Middle East is concerned, [13:45] that it became a central strand of his argument in his English local elections political [13:50] campaign broadcast. So he is absolutely grounding against a tricky domestic political backdrop that [13:57] he faces at the moment. That strategic call of the last couple of months as being a kind of key [14:03] calling card. And he's forever, when he gets the chance, drawing a comparison between his decision and [14:09] the language and posture that we saw in the immediate hours after it from both Kemi Bader [14:14] not for the Conservatives and Nigel Farage for reform. [14:16] The only historical context I can add is that the original invasion of the Falklands happened [14:20] on my birthday. [14:21] Oh! [14:21] But I was only two, so I didn't have very strong feelings about it. [14:25] Well, I was at school during the Falklands crisis. I remember it very well. The other thing, [14:29] too, if we are going to go back, the Argentine claim on the Falklands is a colonial one. And there are [14:34] plenty of people I went to university with who told me in 1985, we shouldn't be so reliant on [14:40] the United States. They said that in 1985. And also, there are many people in the room who actually [14:45] don't want us to be a wartime economy. This business of all of us going, well, I think we should spend [14:49] six percent on defense. Well, what about seven or ten? Let's just close primary schools. Then we can have, [14:56] we can have a new aircraft carrier. There's loads of people who say, actually, [15:00] do the classes on the aircraft carrier. Well, it's just like, I wasn't actually consulted [15:04] about the priorities just because we want to flatter Donald Trump. Although, please remember, [15:08] I began by saying many people I've met in the big posh world of running things say he was right [15:14] about NATO spending. So I'm trying to bookend it all in the time available. I loved your use of the [15:20] word. I always steal words from people around this Adam's family table. The word posture. [15:27] Which Adam's family do you mean? My family or the bunch of freaks? [15:33] I think it's polite to say yours. But the word posture, Henry's really put it out there, I think. [15:39] And Laura and Chris remind us the king's going on, I think it's Monday. And then the posture. So [15:44] you've got, you know, it's a fabulous reminder of how the Republic was born. They kicked George [15:51] III out. We've got Charles III going. We've got the posture we haven't seen perhaps since the [15:56] Victorian age. And that's why you need a newscast. [16:00] Also, I mean, I don't know what Spanish for newscast is, but presumably their version they're [16:04] recording today, they're panicking even more because one of the ideas of this memo is that [16:08] Spain is thrown out of NATO altogether. Although I'm not sure there's actually a mechanism in the [16:12] NATO treaty to chuck someone out like that. So maybe that's what they're discussing in [16:16] Spanish right now. [16:16] Yeah, but I'm not sure that Donald Trump is very interested in things like mechanisms in [16:18] treaties. I mean, because also, you know, the way that he's looked at NATO saying he's [16:22] crossed with NATO members for not helping him in Iran, that's not the point of NATO. [16:28] NATO is a defensive alliance. It's not a group of countries that promise to go along with each [16:32] other whenever they fancy taking on an international campaign. So I'm not sure that deep [16:38] understandings of how NATO's architecture is meant to work are really something that [16:44] sways the man who sits behind the big fat desk in the Oval Office. [16:47] He had an amazing month because he took on Bruce Springsteen and the Pope in the same week. [16:55] And the NATO thing has always been there. And as I said, many people agree with his fundamental [17:01] chrism. But so he's all he's doing is just showing us what's in his head. But as an impartial [17:06] journalist, I don't want to live in his head. I just want people to know in this room that I don't [17:11] think that breaks BBC rules to say I don't want to live in Donald Trump's head. [17:16] Well, just to provide some balance, I'd be quite fascinated to live in his head for a day or two [17:20] at least. I think after that, maybe not. But this is at the key of what the Prime Minister did by [17:24] sending Peter Mandelson. He thought this is such a disruptive, consequential man. You need to put [17:30] someone close to him on our side who can do it. So guess what? Our best hope probably in the eyes of [17:36] the UK state at the moment is the King, because he certainly doesn't like Keir Starmer very much, [17:42] but he's not going to be rude to the King. He's probably going to be rude about Keir Starmer [17:47] in front of the King. That's what's coming our way. [17:49] And what I mean, so I've been a bit of a like, when it comes to this royal visit, like everyone [17:55] calm down. There's not going to be that many opportunities for fireworks because it's a royal [17:58] visit. It's state banquets. It's not like a rolling press conferences with the King having to answer like [18:03] questions. But actually, no, this is making me realise, oh, no, [18:07] the King and the Buckingham Palace are going to have to be really nimble because yeah, [18:10] that world doesn't exist anymore. [18:11] I was talking to someone the other week who has been in the whole business of, [18:14] and just imagine, put yourself in the shoes of the people responsible for organising the [18:19] choreography around the King's trip every nanosecond. Now, these are people who were schooled in this [18:26] the whole time. And because choreography is such a part of the kind of architecture of monarchy in [18:32] public. But doing that with President Trump on his turf in America, where you have Mr. Fireworks [18:40] as the president, who will seize all sorts of opportunities to say whatever he wants to say, [18:45] and where, you know, as we know, convention is not his shtick. And so just imagine being [18:53] responsible for every moment, including obviously the public moments, because the very nature of a [18:57] visit like this is that it's public. And every arched eyebrow, every remark that's caught on [19:03] camera, every single moment that is in front of the cameras is going to be analysed to death. [19:09] So get ready for that every week, everyone, because next week we might be going, and then [19:14] the bit when the King didn't let Donald Trump go first into the room, that was definitely a sign [19:19] that the UK was asserting itself over its old ally. But there was one already in Windsor, [19:24] I think. Donald Trump goes, he's a great king. And you can see the king. [19:29] Hang on, keep going, keep going. You can't just give us a couple of words like that. [19:32] I mean, the king's never actually been called a great king before. You're a great king. [19:41] And look, here's Melania now. I thought one of our colleagues had come to take your microphone. [19:48] Yeah, stop. From the man who said he wanted to help the BBC in this historic building. [19:54] We got about 11 minutes in, at least before we got to an impression, which for weekend newscasters, [19:58] you'll know that is unusual. Normally we're about two minutes in before we start off. [20:02] You two have been there. You've been in the White House. And you probably, [20:06] you three have been there when these big set pieces happened. [20:09] Oh, it's just absolutely nuts. I mean, it's just completely nuts. It's also just really surreal, [20:14] isn't it? If you go to the Oval Office or I can go to one of the state rooms. And I know I always [20:18] wail at this story, but we were at the first press conference that Donald Trump had done with the [20:21] foreign leader since becoming president with Theresa May, who, as we all well remember, [20:26] didn't like being it. Was a relaxed character. [20:29] Very relaxed in front of the cameras and didn't at all look like she'd rather be chewing a wasp. [20:32] And it was just incredibly, incredibly tense. And guess what? One of the parts of the question [20:40] that I asked him was about, it was about whether or not he was serious about pulling out of NATO. [20:46] And here we are all these years later, that would not be a bad question to be asking Donald Trump [20:51] right now. You know, it's exactly where people feared in government things might go under Donald [20:57] Trump. Tinkering around with the very important security fabric or the kind of architecture that [21:04] has kept this country, as many people in government would see it, this is part of what has kept this [21:09] country safe for decades and decades. You might not like it. A lot of people don't like the way that [21:13] it's organized. But that is what underpins the nerves about how Donald Trump behaves, which doesn't, [21:20] of course, mean that he's wrong about everything. Many people applaud and believe in [21:24] a lot of the ideology that it puts forward. But it's that fundamental shake to the architecture [21:30] of how everything's been set up in this country for such a long time. [21:33] And when his approach to being president so often is that the stagecraft of it [21:37] is the statecraft. Then you throw in a visit like this. I mean, yeah, it's back to that point. [21:43] Just imagine being the team around the king and approaching the handful of days ahead and thinking [21:50] every single nanosecond there is jeopardy. [21:54] Watch carefully how close they allow any microphones. Because pictures are one thing and [21:59] a microphone catching something is another. So that might be really interesting. But the royals, [22:04] they know what they're doing. Remember just before the Scottish referendum, that one sentence from the [22:08] queen outside the church, you know, they know what they're doing. So, you know, love it or loathe it, [22:15] the monarchy do soft diplomacy. That's what they are for. And that's what will happen. But I mean, [22:25] it's God is going to be fascinating. [22:26] Right. Chris, who's producing this episode of Newscast, messaged me to say, [22:29] we think the Spanish. Shut up. No, no, not at all, actually. No, he says the Spanish. [22:34] He thinks the Spanish. Oh, I don't speak Spanish. The Spanish for Newscast would be [22:39] Noticiascast. There you go. Any Spanish speakers in the audience? [22:43] Would you agree? Anyone who speaks Spanish, Noticiascast? Yeah. There we go. [22:49] OK, close enough. Close enough. Good. Thank you. Right. Third time for look, Adam. [22:53] Noticiascast. Say it again. Noticiascast. I want Paddy to do it in his Donald Trump voice. [23:00] Yeah. I'm not going to do it just because you want it. It has to come unbidden. [23:06] Oh, also, Laura, because we're in the room where Bing Crosby recorded his last ever thing. [23:11] Should we do the famous Glaswegian Bing Crosby joke? Do you know it? [23:14] I don't know. What's that? I know. [23:17] What's the difference between Bing Crosby and Walt Disney? I don't know. [23:24] Bing sings and Walt Disney. [23:26] Oh, well, groan. [23:30] Audience is loving it. Lots of Glaswegians in the audience, I can tell. [23:36] If we're going down Scottish joke route, there's a man says to the baker, is that a doughnut or meringue? [23:43] No, you're right. No, you're... Oh, I've got a doughnut. [23:45] No, you were right the first time. [23:47] Oh. [23:48] Or a meringue. [23:48] Right. Oh, we should just say, actually, Foreign Affairs Select Committee. [23:51] Tuesday's shaping up to be a huge, huge day. Henry, do you want to just give us the running [23:56] order for what we're expecting on Tuesday? [23:56] Well, we still don't know the precise running order, but we do know that at 9am on Tuesday, [24:00] Sir Philip Barton, who was Sir... Everyone in this, by the way, is a Sir or a Lord. [24:05] So Sir Philip Barton, who was the predecessor of Sir Ollie Robbins, who gave that explosive [24:11] testimony last week, will be giving his account of Peter Mandelson's appointment. [24:15] I mean, that matters because... To Dame Emily Thornberry. [24:17] To Dame Emily Thornberry. [24:18] To Dame Emily Thornberry, as I can learn now. [24:21] And that matters because Ollie Robbins claimed, I'm going to ditch the honorifics, Ollie Robbins [24:27] claimed that Philip Barton had told him that he was coming under a lot of pressure to approve [24:31] the appointment. So that will be really interesting. Later in the day, at an unspecified time, [24:36] the as yet unenobled Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's former Chief of Staff, [24:40] will be giving evidence. Now, that's really interesting for all sorts of reasons, not least [24:46] because he's barely ever spoken in public. And I think a lot of people will be interested to [24:51] hear his voice. Although he briefly talked about this in Ukraine, of all places, last week. [24:56] And social media got quite excited about hearing his voice. [24:58] About hearing his voice. [24:58] He has an Irish accent, by the way, if you haven't heard. [24:59] What is interesting, and to bring newscasters right up to date, is that they had asked for a [25:03] third person to come and appear, a man called Ian Collard. And he really matters because [25:08] he is the person who briefed Sir Ollie Robbins on whatever that security document did or didn't [25:15] say about Peter Mandelson. And in the last hour, Emily Thornberry, Dame Emily, has posted on X, [25:21] that the Foreign Office is saying, no, Ian Collard can't come to the Select Committee. [25:24] All right. [25:24] Now that I think is going to become a big political row over the course of the weekend, [25:28] dare I even say it on Sunday with Laura Koonsberg. [25:30] It certainly will. [25:31] Can you just help me understand what role Ian Collard played and what the withdrawal of [25:35] his appearance by the Foreign Office means in criminology? [25:38] So I can't remember what exactly his title or something like director of security, [25:42] but the core of the dispute here is that Ollie Robbins says he received a verbal briefing [25:48] from Ian Collard, which said the vetting authorities have looked at Peter Mandelson's case. [25:54] They say there are some issues, but they're borderline and they can be mitigated against [25:58] in order to give him security clearance. The government position is that that is wrong, [26:03] that the security vetting document was much harsher on Peter Mandelson, [26:08] that two red boxes were ticked indicating that security vetting, [26:12] the security vetting view was that he shouldn't get clearance. [26:15] Now, the only way of understanding who is right or wrong there really, [26:20] is to know what Ian Collard told Ollie Robbins. [26:23] And the government is not letting Ian Collard appear before the committee, [26:27] although they are letting him reply in writing. [26:29] But look, he's a government employee. [26:31] It's a different situation to Ollie Robbins, who very famously is, as of 10 days ago, [26:36] not a government employee. [26:37] But we're recording this at 2.37 on Saturday, and I give it about another 30 seconds before [26:41] the opposition party's cry cover up. I think it's going to be a giant, stinking rag. [26:46] Yeah, when it's that central question at the heart of so much of the conversation of the last week [26:52] about how do you reconcile the two different accounts of what this vetting process concluded. [26:57] And here's the central character who could cast light on both what he said, [27:01] and if he felt able, broadly speaking, what he saw. [27:04] But surely if he's going to write a letter, [27:07] well then we'll be able to scrutinise his position on the basis of that letter. [27:10] And also that will be in black and white. [27:11] So there'll be less room for kind of verbal evasion. [27:14] Yeah, but it's different though, isn't it, in a letter, because you can't have those dramatic [27:18] Emily Thornberry stares or follow-ups. [27:22] Henry, you realise we're wrapping in the air. [27:24] I don't have a mocked up a voice. [27:25] I started to worry about it. [27:27] How long's left? [27:28] It's not the same. It's just not the same. [27:32] And you can't watch it on telly, right? [27:34] Because the Prime Minister's had to endure days of this for political nerds, [27:39] total box office watching this stuff unfold live on TV. [27:44] I mean, I want to start from the fact that a moment ago, I did not know who Ian Collard was. [27:49] So let me now say what I think about Ian Collard. [27:53] I remember in another BBC clown shoe incident, when they did something ridiculous. [27:58] What did you have in your polish this morning? [28:00] Dame Margaret Hodge, who was chairing, I think, the Public Accounts Committee, [28:03] got them all together, all the BBC bosses together. [28:06] Because she kept getting the BBC person and they go, ah, well, now, it's actually, [28:11] Henry Zeffman was head of Spending Brackets Radio when we took the decision to axe the radio programme. [28:18] So Henry wasn't there. [28:20] So she took this, she got all seven BBC people who'd been named in different parts of committees. [28:25] BBC people saying, ah, but Laura Koonsberg runs Scotland. [28:29] So she got all seven together at the same time. [28:32] And that reminds us of the power of the committee system, which was brought in by Margaret Thatcher. [28:40] Based on the big democratic rights of us as voters, which the US Congress has always embraced, Henry, [28:47] the committee and the humble address, which has now been employed, the committee has powers, I believe. [28:53] And turbocharged in relatively recent years by having elected chairs and where senior figures will say [28:58] that you can be as influential, achieve as much by chairing a high profile select committee as you [29:04] might if you were a relatively junior minister. [29:06] Because she was going to be Attorney General and he didn't. [29:08] Well, and this is the, this is a sort of wonderful undercurrent to the drama that we've seen play out, [29:13] that Emily Thornberry had loyally served various Labour leaders in opposition on the, [29:19] on the front bench, would have reasonably assumed, as much as anyone can, [29:22] when a party then wins a general election, that some sort of ministerial birth somewhere would be, [29:28] would be hers. The Prime Minister wanted to bring in Lord Herma as Attorney General. [29:31] Who's his friend. [29:32] Yeah, who's his long standing friend. [29:34] But even with that gig filled, I mean, there's still plenty of others and she didn't find one. [29:40] And, you know, acknowledged on a human level that that was, that was disappointing. [29:44] And look at the central role that she now plays in this scrutiny. [29:49] We should say that in that context, she did come out after the questioning of Sir Ollie Robbins to [29:53] say that in her view, the Prime Minister had come to the right judgment call in giving him the elbow. [30:00] And if I may just make a prediction, if Keir Starmer survives long enough to carry out a government [30:05] reshuffle in the weeks after the May elections, I think Emily Thornberry is going to find herself with [30:11] a ministerial red box after all. [30:13] The other thing about all of this though, whatever the ins and outs, and of course, [30:16] the processology, like Westminster loves nothing more than talking about itself and complicated process. [30:22] But this is also a proxy for the disastrous, [30:28] surrounding, shrouding mood around Keir Starmer's leadership. [30:32] And yes, of course, it has been a complete car crash and there's different accounts and clashing [30:36] verdicts and all sorts of other things. And the process does matter because fundamentally, [30:40] it comes down to who is telling the truth about all of this. [30:44] But it is a proxy for the many, many problems that Keir Starmer has had to grapple with. [30:48] And the fact that for many people in the Labour Party, they believe now that he's not up to the job. [30:52] And that's really why it's also hot. [30:54] And just on that point, I mean, there's already quite a lot of newspaper columns and newspaper articles [30:59] saying this is the group of ministers that will go to Keir Starmer and say, [31:02] do a timetable for your departure. Oh, hang on. It won't be a group of ministers. [31:06] It'll have to be a massive group of backbenchers. And this is the technique they will use to do it. [31:09] What is a useful sort of yardstick to have in mind when we read all those things over the weekend? [31:14] Well, I think the useful yardstick is that there are swirling conversations that add up to any [31:19] or all of these things all of the time at the moment. There has been for a while. [31:24] The way I've put it in the last few days is that the fundamentals that brought about the big, [31:28] big old wobble that the Prime Minister had where they, as Ed Miliband put it, [31:31] stared over the precipice back in February. The fundamentals that brought that about, [31:35] which is a deep seated sense from plenty of folk within the Labour Party that the government is [31:39] deeply unpopular and the Prime Minister is more so. That is what prompted the, perhaps it's time [31:44] for change. And then the fundamentals that stopped it happening, which was a disagreement about who [31:49] they might want, a lack of willingness, at least at that point, to go through a leadership race in [31:54] office, which is dangerous and difficult and hard to defend for any government, meant that nothing [31:59] changed then. Things eased off a little bit. The conversation was always still there because the [32:03] government remains very unpopular, but things eased off a little bit and they have roared back again [32:10] in the last week because for so many Labour MPs, what they've seen in the last week reminds them of [32:16] their concerns from a couple of months back. And then of course, this all happening from the [32:22] Prime Minister's perspective at the worst possible time with this huge set of elections, devolved elections [32:28] in Scotland and Wales, local elections in many parts of England, under a fortnight away. [32:33] And the minister has been on the doors a lot, told me yesterday, it is impossible for us to make an [32:40] argument when the news agenda is being so dominated by this story. So it's not that voters are answering [32:45] the door and going, oh, I'm terribly cross that Ian Collard isn't allowed to appear at the Foreign [32:50] Affairs Select Committee, but it makes it impossible to use that minister's phrase directly. It makes it [32:55] impossible for us to make an argument. And that's the problem. And I think also we talked about this [32:59] last week, didn't we? As someone else in the party said to me last weekend, when we were reporting on [33:04] all this, because it's going on and on and on and on and on. When it comes to the results in May, [33:10] people know what to expect, but they haven't yet felt it. [33:13] Yes, the emotional feeling. [33:15] And when MPs see their councillors, friends, fellow activists, people who they've stuffed [33:20] envelopes with, knocked on doors in the rain. If they see councillors across England lose their [33:25] seats, possibly in their thousands, some of the projections suggest. If they see Labour being [33:31] third again in Scotland, where they were so successful in the general election under Anna Sarwar. [33:36] If they see them losing in Wales for the first time in a century, in a hundred years, [33:42] none of those outcomes would be surprising, but I think don't underestimate what that sentiment [33:48] might provoke people to do, which is why I completely agree with you. No one knows when [33:52] or how it will happen, but we're back in that place where it feels like, uh-oh. [33:55] And two little points on top of that. The first one is that from the perspective of folk within the [34:01] Labour Party, with this Mandelson row continuing to run, in lots of situations where there are big [34:07] political rouse, there might be some sort of mitigating or counter-argument that you can make. [34:13] Particularly if it's, say, a policy dispute. With this, it is just, from their perspective, [34:17] unremittingly bad. And then on top of that, in the wash-up after the elections, if they are as [34:24] polls in various parts of the UK suggest they will be, Labour folk will return to Westminster, [34:29] those who are MPs, with every version of why things are bad. Because it might be bad because in [34:35] certain places they've come under pressure from the Green Party, or from Reform UK, [34:38] or from Plaid Cymru, or from the Scottish National Party, or from Independence. [34:42] Have I mentioned a full spectrum there? Lib Dems. Lib Dems, and indeed from the Conservatives in [34:47] some places. In other words, what's the solution to that? And that will then, in no doubt, [34:53] coalesce around a conversation, at least, around the Prime Minister's future, and then who knows [34:57] how, you know, if that comes to a head in a significant way or not. Or not. And it is possible it [35:02] won't, right? Oh, absolutely. And they're in this sort of awful suspended animation, [35:06] and they're all miserable, and there's no clear way out of it. Right, so this is an episode of [35:10] Newscast that has been coming to you from CastFest, which is the event that we've been holding [35:14] in the BBC's famous Maida Vale Studios. We've been here, we've been joined by an audience of [35:19] newscasters who you've been hearing laughing, very little snoring, which is great. [35:24] It hasn't even been any heckling. No. And later on, they're going to get the chance to hear some of the [35:29] other podcasts that our colleagues make. So AmeriCast, Top Comment, The Global Story, [35:35] and Fame Under Fire. So why don't you make your own CastFest at home, and check out some of the [35:40] other podcasts that our colleagues make, if we've managed to whet your appetite. So thanks to you [35:45] guys. Thank you. Pleasure. Thank you very much to the newscasters who've joined us here in Maida Vale. [35:51] Thank you to all our BBC colleagues who've helped us actually make this event happen, because it's taken a [36:00] lot of setting up and plugging things in and setting things up, and we massively appreciate it. [36:05] And thank you to you for listening. Bye-bye. [36:07] Bye-bye. Bye. [36:08] Bye. Goodbye. [36:09] I thought you were going to do one final impression there, Paddy. [36:12] He was weighing it up, weighing it up. [36:14] He could do all of us.