- 6 hours ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00He's a bit like a cat with nine lives, Peter Mandelson.
00:03The psychodrama is going to continue because people are going to get more and more enraged.
00:08The strategy the Prime Minister and the government has chosen is this drip, drip of information.
00:13He's relying on a combination of cock-up and conspiracy.
00:16Well, the first tranche of the Mandelson files are out.
00:19And they're not pretty.
00:20No, they are not.
00:21They show us that despite damning advice,
00:24the Prime Minister went ahead and appointed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.
00:28Today, we'll be giving you the lowdown on the scandal.
00:30What happened, why it matters and who should be worried.
00:33We'll also reveal, I'm afraid from personal experience,
00:36what's it like being part of one of these investigations
00:38and how it is to see your own personal messages revealed to the world.
00:43Also not pretty.
00:44I'm Helen McNamara, the former Deputy Cabinet Secretary.
00:47And I'm Cleo Watson, a former Special Advisor to Theresa May and Boris Johnson.
00:51Welcome to In The Room.
00:55Cleo, here we are, week four of In The Room.
00:58And we're actually going back to something we've spoken about already on this podcast.
01:01And we will again, Helen, I'm sure.
01:03I'm sure we will.
01:03So this is all of the complications that have arisen as a result of Peter Mandelson
01:08being appointed as the ambassador to the US.
01:11Can you just talk us through the timeline of what particularly has happened with Peter Mandelson?
01:17Yes, the timeline is important here.
01:19So, in September 2025, Peter Mandelson is sacked as our US ambassador by Keir Starmer,
01:27having been in the role less than a year.
01:29And the allegation at the time is that the Prime Minister felt that the account
01:35Peter Mandelson gave of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted paedophile,
01:41late convicted paedophile, I should probably say,
01:44is materially different to how he made it sound, i.e. he knew the guy much better than he made
01:50it sound.
01:51So fast forward to February 2026, last month,
01:54when it becomes clear that as business secretary in the previous Labour government,
01:59Peter Mandelson allegedly passed on information to Jeffrey Epstein while he was in that role.
02:06And that has triggered a big call for further information because people don't know what's going on.
02:11And the government has now had its hand forced and has had to release information on Wednesday
02:17about how Peter Mandelson was made US ambassador in the first place.
02:22And that was in response to a humble address in Parliament,
02:24which was a mechanism used by the opposition, by the Conservative opposition,
02:28but actually passed Parliament with the votes of the Labour Party.
02:32Let's not forget that.
02:32So it was the Labour Party's own backbenchers who also forced the government to publish these documents
02:38explaining how on earth this had happened.
02:40Now I'm going to give you a very, very quick summary of some of the stuff in this first tranche,
02:44because it's only a first tranche, there'll be more to come.
02:47These include things like Mandelson's alleged request for a payout of more than £500,000 after being dismissed,
02:55that the Treasury eventually agreed on a settlement of £75,000, which is not bad by anyone's money,
03:01that the National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, said that he thought the appointment was, quote,
03:06weirdly rushed, and that there were big questions about Mandelson's conflicts of interest over his dealings with China and Russia,
03:14as well as the previous sackings he's had from governments before, because this is not his first rodeo, it's fair
03:20to say.
03:21One of the things I would really like to quickly do, because there were so, I mean, I found this
03:25confusing, Helen,
03:26there were so many different files, there were so many different scandals,
03:29there were so many different investigations happening at once.
03:33I just want to really clearly set out what is what, because it is a bit of a quagmire.
03:39There's a lot of ins and a lot of outs on this one, Clio.
03:41So let's just go back to what are the Epstein files.
03:44So this is an extraordinary set of documents that are being released in the United States,
03:49which are basically, seems like every single one of Jeffrey Epstein's emails, all of his documentation that he held.
03:57And the Department for Justice in the US has been releasing kind of significant kind of dumps of this information.
04:03We're on, I think, the third, perhaps.
04:05And it's these that have all of this information about, I mean, it's absolutely horrible stuff,
04:11about all of the ways in which Epstein was operating, who he was speaking to, who he was involved with.
04:16Peter Manilson features in 5,973 of the files, a fact that we know,
04:23thanks to the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has gone back to his journalism roots in the most magnificent
04:28way.
04:28I think a really important element to the Epstein files is that it does document quite carefully his links to
04:37basically the world's elites.
04:38There is a version of file releases going on all over the world for different governments.
04:43It's causing headaches everywhere.
04:45Geoffrey Epstein had a very, very wide web.
04:48He was up to truly revolting stuff involving underage girls.
04:53But he also had incredible control and kind of power pulling from some of the world's most important men.
05:02And you can't help think it's not an accident that he kept the receipt, as the kids say.
05:07I mean, that's, you know, probably related.
05:10That's the Epstein files.
05:11The Mandelson files are a different thing.
05:13These are internal UK government documents that purely relate to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as US ambassador to the
05:22United States and the information the Prime Minister was given and how that decision was made.
05:26And the first tranche of that was released to Parliament and the world after PMQs, in my view, quite a
05:35cowardly time on Wednesday when the Prime Minister wouldn't have to answer questions about it himself.
05:40So that's the files you've been hearing discussed.
05:42It's also worth noting that there is a third operation to all of this, which is the role of the
05:48Metropolitan Police.
05:49Helen, take it away.
05:51So to further complicate things, we've not just got the humble address in Parliament, which forced the government to publish
05:57these papers in tranches.
05:59The rogues word, tranches, but there we go.
06:01But we've also got an ongoing investigation by the Metropolitan Police.
06:05Now, the ongoing investigation by the Metropolitan Police is about misconduct in public office.
06:09So that's the crime that's been committed here or not, is about allegations of whether Peter Mandelson, when he was
06:15a holder of public office, committed misconduct.
06:19So the Metropolitan Police have asked the government, apparently, to not release some bits of information that otherwise would have
06:27been within the scope of this first set of documents released, because they are relevant to the case that they
06:33are building.
06:34And we should just say Peter Mandelson denies any wrongdoing.
06:37And from my understanding, the Met investigation has come off the back of the most recent release of the Epstein
06:44files,
06:44which has shown Mandelson's correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, whilst he was business minister in the Brown administration.
06:52So it's basically the domino effect from the time when he was in touch with Jeffrey Epstein, when he was
06:58alive, that is triggering the Met investigation, because it's about that period.
07:02OK, so that's the Met, Helen.
07:04Let's very, very quickly talk about Parliament's role in this and also the role of the government.
07:11So, last month, the Conservatives used a parliamentary procedure called An Humble Address, one of your pet peeves.
07:18Hang on, you said An Humble Address, and I really love that. Thank you.
07:22It's like music to my ears. An Humble Address, entirely right. It's not A, it's An.
07:27So this is essentially how the papers have come about, and it's going through Parliament.
07:30And there's a committee that is working with the government to release the first tranche that we've seen, and they'll
07:36be doing further ones.
07:37There's also the role of the government, obviously, whose chief role in this is to protect itself and to show
07:43it's not done anything wrong.
07:46We can now see a little clip from Darren Jones, a friend of ours of old, who does insist on
07:51bumbling into these things and making a bit of a horlicks of them, in my Humble Address opinion.
07:57So let's have a little look at Darren Jones in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
08:02I'd like to make a statement to update the House on the government's response to the Humble Address of the
08:074th of February.
08:08The government committed to responding to that Humble Address, and today I can confirm that we are releasing a first
08:14tranche of documents,
08:16which have been laid in the House in advance of this statement and are now published on gov.uk for
08:21the public.
08:22There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the Humble Address's full scope.
08:28I mean, to be fair, I don't think he's just bumbling in. It is his job to turn up at
08:32the House of Commons and do these things.
08:34I think my problem is with some of the content later on, which I'm very happy to get into.
08:40But you're quite right. That was Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister in the House of Commons
08:46on Wednesday after PMQs.
08:48It wasn't just after PMQs. It was after PMQs and after a sort of made-up statement from the Home
08:54Secretary.
08:55And they only just published the documents 23 minutes before the statement.
08:59So it was quite kind of ramshackle.
09:02Yes. Convenient, I think, is what I'd call it, with my former special advisor hat on.
09:09But anyway, what we really want to talk about is what all this adds up to.
09:14We've sort of given you the picture of how we've got to here and what the different files are that
09:19are flying around.
09:20How these documents are actually put together and then released to the public.
09:24And frankly, what it's like to be part of one of these things when you know your own messages are
09:29about to be released to the world.
09:33OK, well, I think it's time to unveil Helen as a gigantic nerd because she has...
09:39Needs no unveiling. But yes, go on.
09:40Well, for people who are listening, not watching, she has come in with her ring binder.
09:44She's got her highlighter pen. She's got her sticky notes.
09:47She's got her tinfoil hat. Like, she's got everything here.
09:52And frankly, if you want to know how the sausage is made, she's about to tell you because it's kind
09:57of extraordinary.
09:58And is it fair to say that this sausage involves quite a lot of matter and sawdust and not actual
10:04meat?
10:05There's quite a lot of sawdust, I would say.
10:06So yes, unfortunately, you know, here we are in my happy place with a lot of stationery and flagging.
10:11And it's the first thing to say is that when it's described as this is the first tranche of documents
10:18that's released.
10:19I mean, it sounds really kind of formal and impressive.
10:22Like, there's some system where the documents have been all summoned and then they're going to be released in these
10:27set tranches.
10:29I mean, this thing is entirely made up, folks.
10:32Helen, but it sounds so transparent and reassuring.
10:35No, it's not, Cleo.
10:37Because basically, what you've done is, what should have happened is five weeks ago when the Humble Address comes in,
10:42you kind of do a big scope of, like, what is the information that is within a scope?
10:47And then let's gather all the information and then let's work out what can't we release, what can we release,
10:52and then why we need to release it in different ways.
10:54And as we've already explained, the Met Police is also, has a quite important walk-on role here to say,
11:00no, you can't do this or, yes, you can't do the other.
11:02The really amazing thing about the hundred and, well, so there's 137 pages, numbered pages of documents.
11:10Of actual content.
11:11There's 147 pages that were kind of published together because there's 10 pages of kind of contents and intro,
11:18and that tells you something about just how much padding there is in this document released from yesterday.
11:24So I counted, wait for it, because obviously I have a post-it, people.
11:28So there's 28 actual blank pages, actual blank pages.
11:32There's 17 pages which are, kind of should have something written on them,
11:37where there's a space for writing to be, and there is none.
11:40There are 30 pages of standard HR guidance, just like copy and paste HR guidance.
11:46So there's 19 pages of appointment to a new job guidance, which is just kind of stuck in here.
11:53So the notion that this is some kind of really juicy set of the actual decisions,
12:00the actual conversations that happened and the actual information involved,
12:05I mean, it's just not, there are some things and we're going to go on to talk about them,
12:08but there is very, very little here.
12:09There's an enormous amount of padding.
12:11Where I'd like to start is just how the government does release information generally.
12:15So I do recall, this was a key part of your job when we were in government,
12:21is looking at files before they are released to the public,
12:25and you can get into the different ones.
12:27And I do remember a couple of occasions where you'd have to quickly recall something,
12:30because something that shouldn't have come out had done.
12:32One of the weird things about this, it's one, yes, you're right,
12:35it's one of my teams had to do some,
12:37in fact, there's quite a lot of my old teams scattered through this,
12:41or at least in what they are now, scattered through this document.
12:44So one of the oddities of yesterday is that in and amongst the papers,
12:47some Prem papers were released.
12:49So those are the papers which are really historic to do with when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
12:54The humble address doesn't, in fact, call for the release of these papers.
12:57But again, slightly to the filler point of like,
13:01you've put in some papers you didn't really need to,
13:03and then also you've dragged Tony Blair into this conversation.
13:08I think there's some interesting choices.
13:09And I think that's the main, the kind of main point I want to make is,
13:12these are choices.
13:14So it might look like it's just kind of happening mysteriously by magic in a very proper way.
13:18Actually, somebody, bracket two,
13:21is choosing what is released to the public in what form.
13:25So there's a very good and clear explanation about what's redacted.
13:28But there is so much that is not in these papers that I've got some questions about that.
13:34Like, what are we not hearing?
13:36Where are the WhatsApp messages?
13:37How can there be no conversations at all happening on WhatsApp?
13:42We know that there are.
13:43We know that's how people speak to each other.
13:44But there's literally zero.
13:46Yes.
13:47And actually, there's a story out this morning, Thursday, in Politico,
13:50which is saying that there are various people who have been asked to provide their messages
13:56and are still waiting to follow up.
13:57And they don't know if it's direct messages with Peter Mandelson,
14:00whether it's groups,
14:01because we know a thing or two about WhatsApp groups being published, I'm afraid to say.
14:06A quick note on what prem papers are.
14:08These are the prime minister's kind of diaries and, let's say, personal meetings.
14:15It's a record of the prime minister.
14:16So, interesting enough, one of the things I think we will get to is the one person who's really missing,
14:23the one voice you don't hear at all in any of these conversations about the appointment of the ambassador
14:29is the prime minister himself.
14:31We have in this kind of dossier, tranche, whatever we're calling it,
14:36we've got a box note or two to the prime minister and nothing back.
14:42And there's just no way he would not have responded.
14:44I just don't, I mean, the many things I don't understand,
14:47I don't understand the kind of having the box note in and not the response back.
14:53Yeah.
14:53The response back is really, and to be super nerdy, I'm just going to own my nerdiness,
14:57that really matters because the point of record keeping in government is exactly,
15:02it's not for these, not always for purposes as grim as this,
15:05but it is to be able to see written down and recorded and properly captured
15:09how a decision was made, who was involved in that decision and the kind of rationale for it
15:15because that's useful for all sorts of reasons.
15:17It's not just about appointments.
15:17That's like, why did we decide to do this particular thing?
15:20Why did we decide to spend this money here?
15:22Why did we decide that this person was our ally and this person was our enemy?
15:25All of that stuff needs, the rationale really matters.
15:28And there is just, there is so much that's just not here.
15:31Yeah, and actually in episode two, when we talked about the humble address
15:36and the Mandelson files back in February,
15:39we said how the whole thing does come down to the prime minister's judgment
15:42and what is released will show us what he thought and how he felt about it.
15:46And you're absolutely right.
15:47We are none the wiser on his judgment on this stuff.
15:50And things like not responding to a box note,
15:54either for some reason that isn't being shown to us, very problematic,
15:59or he's just not doing his box work, very problematic.
16:03There are a few things that are really, really striking in them.
16:07And I wonder if we should start with the advice or lack of advice
16:12about who should be appointed into this job.
16:15So there's two documents.
16:17There's some advice from the cabinet secretary.
16:19The then cabinet secretary, Simon Case.
16:22Yes, advice from the then cabinet secretary about filling the role.
16:25And then a sort of almost the same advice on top of it
16:30from the prime minister's principal private secretary
16:33and foreign affairs private secretary asking the prime minister the same question.
16:37And it's really weird to see that the question they're asking is,
16:41should we appoint somebody via a political route
16:44or via a civil service route to this job?
16:46So the cabinet secretary's advice in particular, I find really puzzling.
16:51Having seen quite a lot of cabinet secretary advice
16:53or helps with quite a lot of cabinet secretary advice on appointments.
16:57There is just kind of nothing in it.
16:58There's no kind of, this is the context, this is the situation,
17:03this is what the role needs, this is on the one hand.
17:05On the other hand, you could think about the sort of person we might need,
17:10the skill set we might need, what the challenges they're going to face,
17:12and then how do we find the right person?
17:15None of that is there.
17:16I mean, honestly, one of my old teams used to do the rather marvellous job
17:20of giving advice to the prime minister about the appointment of bishops,
17:24which prime ministers for a long time haven't actually had a choice about.
17:27But I kid you not, the advice that a prime minister would get
17:31about the appointment of a bishop would have pages of very good,
17:35very sensible advice on this is the context of this diocese,
17:39this is what people are saying about what we need now,
17:42and some really thoughtful and measured advice.
17:46Where is that here? Absolutely none of it.
17:48And also, just a real weirdness about imagining that the only question is,
17:55are you going to appoint a civil servant, or diplomat actually in this case,
17:59or are you going to appoint one of your mates?
18:01Yeah, and there is some precedent for both,
18:03so we can kind of make it work, the choice is yours.
18:07It's almost like the then cabinet secretary knew he was off,
18:10and I'm just going to say half-arsed it.
18:13But I think also on that point, in terms of the context of the diocese in this situation,
18:19the departing British ambassador to the US, Dame Karen Pierce, who was excellent,
18:25was flagging that Epstein was going to be a problem in the US.
18:30She was saying, you know,
18:31although the White House have no particular issues with Peter Mandelson,
18:36Epstein is going to come a cropper here, like this is going to come up,
18:39files are going to be released, there is massive pressure.
18:42Almost as though she knew that there were, like, lines to draw between the two.
18:48But that's the other thing, isn't it, is that you can see in the advice,
18:51even though ostensibly, particularly the advice from the private secretaries,
18:54even though ostensibly it's, you know, do you want a political or official,
18:58you can see the shadow of Peter Mandelson in the background,
19:01because most of even the private secretaries' advice,
19:03which, by the way, it's pretty weird that it was private secretaries offering this advice,
19:07but leave that to one side, all of the advice is kind of about when it goes wrong.
19:12So their prior thing in their head, which is unusual for an appointment,
19:16isn't how do we get the best person in our national interest?
19:19It's a, well, you might want to appoint a civil servant to the job,
19:23because when you have to fire them, that's a bit easier for you,
19:27and you're a bit more protected, because if you appoint a political person to the job,
19:30when you have to fire them, that exposes you more.
19:32It's like, what, what is, why is that a question?
19:35Yeah, yeah, in first principles on hiring someone,
19:37you tend not to lead with, and these are the ways you could fire them,
19:41when there is inevitably trouble.
19:42It's unusual, I would say.
19:44So the other thing I should just say about the cabinet secretaries' advice
19:47that I'm still recovering from a day later,
19:50is he's written it in a sans-serif font.
19:52And it's riddled with spelling errors.
19:54And he's capitalised the wrong things.
19:56White House is lowercase one word.
19:58Civil servant's got a capital C and an S.
20:00Civil service has a capital C and an S.
20:02Civil servant never does.
20:03Bloody chat GBT.
20:05Non has a hyphen.
20:06It made me, like, made me slightly die inside, if I'm honest.
20:09Well, I bet that's not the worst thing he's had to have published of his.
20:13Well, you know what, that's why, you know, there's a lot to find funny in this,
20:15and there's a lot to find absolutely appalling.
20:16So turning to the next thing that I want to talk about,
20:20and we've been chatting ourselves.
20:22So there is some, there's this whole question about,
20:24did the Prime Minister know,
20:26did the Prime Minister know about the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
20:29when he appointed Peter Mandelson?
20:31And there's been a lot of chat about this due diligence report,
20:35which was produced by the team in the Cabinet Office,
20:38it's called Propriety and Ethics Team.
20:40That you used to lead?
20:41It was one of my teams, yes.
20:44So there's this, and we kind of,
20:46there's been a lot of reporting about what this was in advance.
20:48So it is two pages of basically stuff you can find from Google.
20:53I think this does contain the brilliant disclaimer at the top of it as well.
20:59It says something like,
21:00it says something like, she says reading it.
21:02Checks should not be considered exhaustive.
21:05I absolutely love that.
21:07There's some spectacular arse covering that goes on in these papers,
21:10and that is like, to put it at the front,
21:11at the top of the document, by the way,
21:13can't guarantee anything written down here.
21:15I've done like a really lame job.
21:17But there are a few things in this which are,
21:20I mean, I would say not just troubling,
21:22but really, really bothersome.
21:24I don't think it's an excellent piece of work.
21:27And the one thing that I don't think really,
21:30really kind of made me stop in my tracks
21:32is when you get to the section on Jeffrey Epstein,
21:37it describes his crime as procuring an underage girl,
21:45which I don't know what I do.
21:48It's actually wrong, for starters.
21:50It's not an accurate description of the crime.
21:54So somebody has taken the accurate description of the crime,
21:58which is soliciting a minor for prostitution,
22:01and has written it up as procuring an underage girl.
22:07And, you know, I know it's a truism,
22:09and everybody says, you know,
22:11why aren't we talking enough about the actual people
22:14who were really damaged, really damaged by all of this?
22:17And by the way, that is not Peter Mandelson.
22:19The people who are actually really damaged,
22:21not people, the girls who are really damaged.
22:22But this is just another sign of how kind of casual
22:27and it's horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible to read that.
22:32And I don't really understand.
22:34And maybe there is.
22:35Maybe anybody who read that had the same reaction
22:38that I did and you did and has gone,
22:40what the hell?
22:41What on earth do you mean?
22:42Well, and also, you know,
22:44as a former criminal barrister
22:45and director of public prosecutions,
22:48you would think the prime minister might say,
22:50what does procuring a young girl mean?
22:54Procuring?
22:55It's just not accurate.
22:56And it's so weird to speak in these kinds of euphemisms
23:01as though to be delicate about it.
23:05And particularly combined with what we now know
23:08was coming from the Washington embassy
23:11about everything he was going to kick off vis-a-vis Epstein.
23:16You can just put the two together.
23:18How can you miss something like that?
23:20And so you get to all of this kind of,
23:22and people have said, like, come on, hang on a second.
23:24If you read this, how would you possibly think it was okay?
23:28You know, how did the prime minister read all of this stuff
23:31and then go, yeah, that seems fine to me.
23:32But there is also kind of who is advising properly here?
23:36Because you've got this absolute charge sheet
23:39of horribleness.
23:41And then there's the civil service document
23:43and it says, to note, general reputational risk.
23:47That's not like a to note situation, I would say.
23:50It's the note.
23:51Well, it's also like, is this it?
23:54Is this all that the prime minister...
23:56You know, I would never have got away with it.
23:59I wouldn't have done any of this.
24:01But your job is not just to kind of,
24:04here you go, have a little bit of a look at that.
24:06What do you think?
24:07Your job is to kind of muscularly
24:09and aggressively protect the state
24:11and protect propriety
24:12and to actually kind of say,
24:15this is not okay.
24:17And another missing document,
24:19thinking about one of the many things
24:21that you and I occasionally had to do together
24:23when the situation was...
24:25And, you know, I should be honest about this.
24:26Very little of this I actually did myself, obviously.
24:29It was like teams that worked for me that did things.
24:31And then sometimes when there was
24:33a very, very tricky situation,
24:34you and I would have the unenviable task
24:36of agreeing the Q&A.
24:38So that is basically,
24:40how on earth are we going to,
24:41if we decided to do this thing,
24:42how are we going to defend it?
24:44And producing the Q&A...
24:45Sorry, to the media, to the lobby.
24:47To the media, to Parliament,
24:48to ourselves afterwards.
24:50Yeah, yeah.
24:50Producing the Q&A,
24:51and you and I got quite canny about,
24:53like, the production of the Q&A
24:54was often a mechanism by which
24:56we could stop things from happening.
24:58Because it's like,
24:59do you want to give the A to this particular Q?
25:02Yeah, exactly.
25:02Well, we talked about this again in episode two
25:06about, you know,
25:07dealing with some of these appointments,
25:09a prime minister might say,
25:10I want to go ahead with this.
25:12And you'd say, all right,
25:13well, let's pretend that
25:14you're doing an interview on the radio tomorrow.
25:17Let's roll off a couple of questions.
25:19Do you think this is acceptable?
25:21How do you classify procuring a young girl?
25:24Is that a crime?
25:25You know, it is kind of painful.
25:28And the other thing I think to note
25:29with this advice and these box submissions
25:31is it goes to the prime minister,
25:34but he is not alone in receiving this advice.
25:36This will precipitate a discussion.
25:39A glaring admission from this tranche
25:42is we don't actually know,
25:44we don't have any meeting notes.
25:47Well, that's the other thing that is really odd.
25:49So as you go through the papers,
25:51you see this advice
25:53and then not very much,
25:55all the kind of HR gubbins
25:57for months and months and months.
25:58And then right at the end,
25:59when there's a crisis point,
26:01you suddenly get,
26:02there's a note about his sacking
26:05and the conversations that were had then.
26:07We might come back to that in a second.
26:09But then after that,
26:10there appears that there's been
26:12a fact finding.
26:14I don't really know
26:15because it's not,
26:16there's no clarity
26:17about what was commissioned where,
26:18but popping up in this tranche
26:20or bundle,
26:22as Darren Brown Jones referred to it
26:24as a bundle,
26:25which is another one of those words
26:27that you use.
26:28So popping up,
26:29there's a couple of notes
26:30where somebody exotically referred to
26:33as the prime minister's general council.
26:35And when I saw that,
26:36I thought, oh, crikey.
26:37Wow.
26:37Who's this?
26:38Oh, it's the West Wing.
26:38I was like, wow,
26:40a general council.
26:41That's an innovation.
26:42Actually, no,
26:43it's a very junior
26:44government legal department lawyer
26:46who's really gone to town
26:47on the old title there.
26:50So there's a couple of notes
26:51of conversations that he had
26:53post Peter Mannerson's sacking,
26:56where obviously he was asked
26:57to do something.
26:58And it looks like there's
26:59a redacted report
27:01or a report that hasn't been published,
27:02which is his fact finding.
27:04I mean, you know,
27:05spare my kind of like,
27:06why on earth,
27:07if you as the prime minister
27:08want to know
27:08what the hell happened here,
27:10then the person you ask
27:12is the cabinet secretary,
27:13not a junior lawyer
27:14who works for you.
27:14But let's not worry
27:16about that for now.
27:17The weird thing about these notes
27:18is that he had two conversations.
27:20So he had a conversation
27:21with the prime minister's
27:22director of communications
27:24and he had a conversation
27:25with the national security advisor,
27:27Jonathan Powell.
27:28I should also just clarify,
27:30because this is going
27:31to come up later,
27:32Jonathan Powell still serves
27:33as national security advisor.
27:34Matthew Doyle
27:36no longer serves
27:37as director of communications.
27:38So there's a kind of
27:38in and out of government element,
27:40but he was in
27:41when this fact finding interview
27:44took place.
27:45And one of the things
27:46that I have really,
27:47you know, again,
27:48you find what you want
27:49in these things.
27:50There's a mastery
27:51of some individuals
27:52whose notes appear
27:53in this file
27:54and Jonathan Powell
27:54is definitely,
27:55this is...
27:56He's looking good.
27:57He's looking good.
27:58As are the senior people
28:00in the foreign office,
28:01actually.
28:02So Jonathan Powell,
28:04basically,
28:05in this note,
28:06this note,
28:06of this conversation,
28:07he says,
28:07I thought the whole thing
28:08was weirdly rushed.
28:09I was surprised
28:10that the principal
28:11private secretary
28:12in the foreign...
28:13was holding the pen
28:14or he's surprised
28:15that the private office
28:16in number 10
28:17was holding the pen on this
28:17and that he had
28:19significant...
28:20significant reservation.
28:21He's the permanent secretary
28:23of the foreign office
28:24had significant reservations.
28:25And then it's been briefed
28:27that actually Jonathan Powell,
28:28even stronger than that,
28:29thought it was
28:30a disastrous idea.
28:32Although this has only
28:33come to light
28:33post-Madison sacking.
28:35So in the nine months
28:37leading up to it
28:38while he was doing the job,
28:39it's unclear
28:39how Jonathan Powell felt.
28:40And in both
28:41the write-up of his conversation
28:43and the write-up
28:44of the conversation
28:45with the director
28:46of communications,
28:46who was a close personal friend
28:48of Peter Mandelson,
28:49it's very clear
28:50that there were
28:50a whole bunch
28:52of political...
28:52They're described
28:53as political conversations
28:54about the appointment
28:56where there are no minutes,
28:58there's no record
28:59of anything,
29:00not seeing any messages.
29:02So it's very...
29:03I'll tell you, Helen,
29:03there'll be a WhatsApp group.
29:05There's bound to be a WhatsApp group,
29:06but also there's like
29:07a failure to understand
29:08that if you are talking
29:09about government business,
29:10that's not a political conversation.
29:12It might be people
29:13that you know,
29:13but actually these are...
29:15This is the business
29:16of the state.
29:17And I think there is
29:17a kind of profound
29:19like prior,
29:19like what are you doing?
29:21Why are you having
29:21political...
29:22Political conversations
29:23are how do we cope
29:24with this terrible backbencher?
29:25What do we do
29:26about the by-election
29:27and whatever?
29:28This is really good
29:28for our positioning.
29:30The focus group says this.
29:31That's all like proper
29:32P politics.
29:32Get away from the civil service.
29:35Who are we appointing
29:36as our ambassador
29:36to Washington
29:38and how are we managing
29:38the risks?
29:39That is the business
29:40of the state.
29:41So what are these
29:42political conversations?
29:43Where were they happening?
29:45Why are there no notes?
29:47Yeah, I mean,
29:47speaking from
29:49the political conversation side,
29:52obviously...
29:52Hello, political conversation.
29:54You do...
29:54Often over a pizza
29:55or something,
29:56you do talk about
29:56these things.
29:57Quite often,
29:58they're places
29:58like the Prime Minister's flat,
29:59which you don't have
30:01to keep a record of chats
30:02and it's very interesting
30:05the conversations
30:06that do go on up there
30:07and who's invited up there.
30:08Obviously,
30:09you can end up
30:10talking about anything.
30:11They're deliberately
30:11political conversations
30:12because no officials
30:13are present.
30:14You don't have to take notes.
30:15You can talk about
30:16all kinds of risks
30:17and rewards
30:18and so forth.
30:20The astonishing thing
30:21to me, though,
30:22is in this tranche
30:23or bundle
30:24or whatever we're going
30:25to be calling it.
30:26Dump.
30:27There was no sense,
30:29therefore,
30:31based off the back
30:32of these political conversations
30:33still,
30:33what the Prime Minister thinks
30:34or what any of the
30:35political team thought.
30:37There's no word on
30:37what Morgan McSweeney,
30:39the Chief of Staff,
30:40thought.
30:40The idea
30:41that we're completely blind,
30:44really,
30:45to what any of those
30:46conversations
30:46will have been
30:48is just for the birds.
30:50I do not understand
30:52why they've been
30:54so incredibly coy
30:55just putting a bit
30:57out there
30:58because it's raising
30:58so many more questions
31:00than it's answered,
31:01this initial dump,
31:03shall we say.
31:04We've now renamed it.
31:05It's not a tranche.
31:06It's going to dump
31:07back on them.
31:07That's for sure.
31:08I mean,
31:09there will be another thing
31:09about who is protected
31:10and who is not protected
31:11as these documents
31:13and this information
31:13is released.
31:14So,
31:15as far as Morgan McSweeney,
31:16I'd be a bit worried
31:17because he definitely
31:18will be more protected
31:19if he was still in this job.
31:20It's not probably an accident
31:22that the very good
31:23former Principal Private Secretary
31:24has been slightly stiffed
31:26on this release.
31:28It's,
31:28you know,
31:28if you're not there,
31:29if you're not in plain sight,
31:30then quite often,
31:31I mean,
31:32Tony Blair,
31:32who's not at the scene
31:33of any of these crimes,
31:34is suddenly dragged
31:36into the net on this one.
31:37It's not a fun place to be
31:38if you're outside
31:39and you can easily
31:40pile in.
31:41I think it's interesting
31:42that the only person's
31:43WhatsApps we've actually
31:44seen so far
31:45are Wes Streetings
31:46because he opted
31:47to just publish them
31:49himself
31:49and we can see
31:50his direct messages
31:51with Peter Mandelson.
31:53He's sitting pretty
31:54because he,
31:55you know,
31:56unless there's some group
31:57that he's forgotten about,
31:58he's got nothing to hide.
32:01I don't know
32:02if you recall this,
32:02but we obviously
32:03have had quite a few messages
32:04released into the public domain.
32:06There were the Matt Hancock
32:07WhatsApps
32:08that Isabel Oakeshott
32:09released
32:10with the Telegraph,
32:11which was not,
32:13and this is really
32:14saying something,
32:15not Matt Hancock's
32:16most sensible hour
32:18to have just handed
32:19all his stuff
32:20over to her
32:21and so there were
32:22many tranches
32:23of that
32:23and then of course
32:24there was
32:25the COVID inquiry
32:26itself
32:27and it is,
32:30obviously you can't
32:32necessarily control
32:33what's going out
32:33into the public domain.
32:34It depends what groups
32:35people want to hand in.
32:36My memory of
32:38the COVID inquiry
32:38in particular
32:39was that
32:39a lot of people's phones
32:41got a contract upgrade
32:43or went missing
32:44or slightly
32:46Rebecca Vardy style
32:47fell into the sea.
32:48Yeah, David James.
32:49The Cabinet Office
32:50deleted my phone
32:51remarkably.
32:52It wasn't even,
32:52I handed over
32:53all of my stuff
32:54from my own personal phone.
32:55The Cabinet Office
32:56deleted my phone.
32:57It is definitely
32:58a thing where
33:01it's mysterious
33:02that there are no,
33:03given the way
33:04that all humans
33:05now communicate,
33:06never mind
33:07how government operates,
33:08like,
33:09why are there
33:10no WhatsApp messages
33:11in here?
33:11Was there no,
33:12surely there was
33:13a group called
33:13Appointing Peter Mandelson
33:15or something
33:16or there's a group
33:17somewhere
33:18which people are
33:19talking about
33:19this stuff on?
33:20There is a bang slap
33:21in the middle
33:22of the scope
33:22of this humble address.
33:23So either
33:24what people have learnt
33:25from the COVID inquiry
33:26is it's not just about
33:27having to pretend
33:28that your phone
33:28died in a ditch
33:29but you
33:31just have
33:31deleting messages,
33:32disappearing messages
33:33set to,
33:34you know,
33:35one day
33:36and there we go.
33:37Well, it's also
33:38really telling,
33:40you know,
33:40cards on the table,
33:41I was not contacted
33:42by the COVID inquiry
33:43at all to give evidence
33:44which frankly
33:46in terms of stress levels
33:47has been fine for me
33:49but I am surprised
33:50I was not asked
33:51to provide
33:51any information
33:53at all
33:53and
33:55it will be
33:56interesting to see
33:57who is actually
33:58asked to give
33:59information
34:00for this inquiry too
34:01and frankly
34:02who agrees to it.
34:04I mean,
34:04there are occasions
34:06where people have been
34:07in contempt of parliament
34:08for just refusing
34:09to hand stuff over
34:10and it's not
34:11a criminal investigation
34:13that they don't have to.
34:15So it's genuinely mysterious
34:16why there isn't
34:17any of these messaging
34:18because apart from anything else
34:19you cannot see
34:20a single thing
34:21in these files
34:22up until the date
34:23at which Peter Manilson
34:24is sacked
34:24where it's obvious
34:25what the Prime Minister
34:26thinks about anything.
34:27There's nothing,
34:27there's no record
34:29of what the Prime Minister
34:29thinks.
34:30There is not a smoking gun
34:32in this immediate
34:33tranche
34:34but you have to assume
34:36there is one
34:36coming up
34:37because
34:38I just don't see
34:39how at some point
34:41he's not going to have
34:41to give an account
34:42of how he felt
34:44upon reading
34:44the advice
34:45that we can now see.
34:47Totally.
34:48I mean,
34:48the other thing
34:48there's been lots of speculation
34:49and comment about
34:50since this is all published
34:51is about the payment.
34:53Yes.
34:54So we should touch
34:54on that a little bit.
34:55So one of the things
34:57and again,
34:57you know,
34:58forgive my former
34:59civil servants
35:00self
35:00but
35:02you know,
35:02you get this
35:03slightly depressed
35:04advice at the beginning
35:04of the process
35:05from the civil service
35:06saying,
35:06well,
35:07okay,
35:07yeah,
35:07you can either
35:08appoint a civil servant
35:09through a proper process
35:10or you can have
35:11a political appointment
35:12and then,
35:12you know,
35:13whatever.
35:14Right at the end,
35:14in the end days,
35:15Peter Manilson is claiming
35:16to be a civil servant.
35:18Literally,
35:18literally claiming
35:19to be a civil servant.
35:20So none of the kind of
35:22thing on the way in
35:23that you've been appointed
35:24because you spent
35:24this much time
35:25and you're part
35:25of this system
35:26and you've done
35:26all these things
35:27and all of the years
35:28of whatever you've done
35:29beforehand,
35:30no civil servicing there,
35:31thanks very much.
35:31When it comes to
35:33can I get a payout
35:34for my long service
35:35and a pension
35:36and also I should be
35:38looked after
35:38because I'm a civil servant,
35:39it's like,
35:40hang on a second,
35:41sunshine,
35:41you're one thing
35:42or the other.
35:42You can't suddenly,
35:43just because you've been
35:44slightly brought
35:45into the system,
35:45that doth not make you
35:46a civil servant.
35:47Yeah,
35:48I mean,
35:48particularly because
35:49based on his
35:51previous periods
35:51in government
35:52and his sackings then,
35:54there's no way
35:55you could appoint
35:55the man as a civil servant.
35:57He would never
35:57make the grade.
35:58I could be quite
35:58the ready reckoner there
35:59for how much
35:59that's cost us
36:02over time.
36:03Yeah.
36:03I mean,
36:03it's not a...
36:04But the point is
36:05that his contract
36:06should not entitle him
36:07to a payout
36:08as I understand it.
36:09So the 500 grand
36:11he's asked for
36:11is obviously
36:12pie in the sky.
36:14Where has this
36:1575,000,
36:16thank you very much,
36:17figure come from?
36:18I mean,
36:19not a small amount
36:19of money
36:19but that's also
36:21the boldness.
36:22I mean,
36:22part of me is wow,
36:23the chutzpah
36:24of those people
36:25sometimes is really...
36:26It's squeeze every penny
36:27out right at the end.
36:28I mean,
36:29he's a bit like
36:29a cat with nine lives,
36:31Peter Mannerson,
36:32isn't he?
36:32I mean,
36:33kind of extraordinary.
36:34It's not surprising
36:34when they were thinking
36:35about appointing him
36:37that what they were
36:38really thinking about
36:39was the end,
36:40not the beginning
36:40or even the middle.
36:41Yeah.
36:42I mean,
36:43my experience
36:44of working in politics
36:45and some media
36:47is that you do have people
36:48who are able
36:49to spectacularly
36:51reinvent themselves.
36:52A few other
36:53notable new Labour figures
36:55may include
36:56Alistair Campbell,
36:58Piers Walken.
36:59Later on,
37:00we've got,
37:00you know,
37:01Quasi Quotang
37:02is now in charge
37:03of a Bitcoin empire.
37:04Isn't he Bitcoin?
37:05Wowzers.
37:05Like,
37:06people can rely
37:07on the public
37:07sort of forgetting
37:09who they were
37:11and being able
37:11to reinvent themselves
37:12and,
37:13you know,
37:13Mandelson was already
37:14at it
37:15in January this year.
37:16He did this big
37:17BBC interview
37:20where he just denied
37:21that he'd done
37:22anything wrong.
37:22He did kind of
37:23a pity party,
37:24woe is me.
37:25And then,
37:25worse than that,
37:2624 hours later,
37:27he had to issue
37:27an apology
37:28because he'd been
37:29so sort of dismissive
37:30of the idea of Epstein
37:32having any victims.
37:33It was extraordinary.
37:34There is something
37:34about this world,
37:35though,
37:36isn't there,
37:36both in politics
37:37and,
37:38dare we say,
37:38even in media
37:39and other kind of
37:40prominent professions
37:41where there's a sort
37:43of individual
37:43that somehow
37:44can manage
37:45to just be
37:46so thick-skinned
37:48and so confident
37:49that they're able
37:50to firstly
37:51absolve themselves
37:53from any wrongdoing
37:53and it's all,
37:54you know,
37:54a series of
37:55unfortunate events
37:56that have led
37:57yet again
37:58to them having
37:59to forego
38:00a job that they
38:01are,
38:01you know,
38:01destined for.
38:03But there's
38:03something quite,
38:04as well as the,
38:04you know,
38:04should people be
38:05appointed,
38:06should they be
38:06given another chance,
38:07all of those things,
38:07there's something
38:08about the kind of
38:09mindset of the person,
38:10isn't there?
38:10It's like that kind
38:11of risk-taking.
38:12It's like the one
38:13person who absolutely,
38:15absolutely knew
38:16about his relationship
38:17with Peter Mandelson
38:18was step forward,
38:20take a bow,
38:21Peter Mandelson.
38:22So,
38:22and why he didn't
38:23think,
38:24hang on a second,
38:25I'm a smart
38:26political operator,
38:27I can put two
38:28and two together
38:28and see where
38:29this is going,
38:30there is like just a,
38:32I think I can get
38:32away with it.
38:33It's amazing.
38:34Yeah,
38:34and I want it.
38:35I want it.
38:35In the same way
38:36that I want half
38:37a million pound
38:37severance.
38:38Because why shouldn't
38:39I?
38:39It's probably quite
38:40bad to ask,
38:40but you know,
38:41it's cheap at the price.
38:42When I think of
38:42someone thinking,
38:43oh gosh,
38:43should I ask that
38:43pay rise?
38:44Should I go for
38:44that job?
38:45I don't feel
38:45I'm quite qualified.
38:47Read the Mandelson
38:48files and then
38:49just go for it
38:50because it turns
38:51out having this
38:53kind of absurd
38:54level of self
38:55assurance and
38:56self belief and
38:57just assuming that
38:59other people agree
39:00with you on this
39:00gets you places,
39:02that's for sure.
39:03And for him,
39:03potentially not a
39:04good place because
39:05that could be prison.
39:08Oh,
39:09this is very
39:09exciting.
39:10Whilst we've
39:10been recording,
39:11this is not live
39:13everybody.
39:13So this is
39:14Thursday morning,
39:16Kemi Badenoch has
39:17been out on the
39:17airwaves making
39:18some comments and
39:19her reactions to
39:20this first
39:21tranche documents.
39:22And she's talking
39:23about cover-up and
39:26obviously how the
39:27Prime Minister has
39:27been captured by
39:28his Labour MPs.
39:30And there is in
39:30fact talk amongst
39:31back benches on
39:33the government side
39:34of a vote of no
39:36confidence in the
39:38Prime Minister.
39:38Now these are,
39:39to my view,
39:40quite obvious
39:41political attacks
39:41you'd make.
39:42I mean,
39:43the government should
39:43have seen this one
39:44coming a mile off
39:44because he does
39:46look quite cover-uppy.
39:47We can't see what
39:47the Prime Minister
39:48thinks and we
39:50don't really see a
39:51way through for him
39:52that doesn't involve
39:53getting it on all
39:54sides from all
39:55political parties,
39:56including his own.
39:58Yeah,
39:58and his own are
39:58particularly expert at
39:59that.
40:00I mean,
40:00there's either,
40:01to Kemi Badenoch's
40:01criticism,
40:03there's either a
40:03cover-up,
40:04which,
40:04you know,
40:05there's either
40:06information that
40:06exists which would
40:07help us to
40:08understand the
40:08Prime Minister's
40:09decision-making
40:09that for reasons
40:10unknown has not been
40:12published or shared
40:13yet,
40:14heavy use of yet,
40:15or there's not a
40:16cover-up,
40:17and even worse,
40:18there's nothing
40:19written down about
40:20why the Prime Minister
40:21made the decisions
40:21he did,
40:22who said what to him.
40:23There's, like,
40:24obvious evidence in
40:25this set of documents
40:26that there were all
40:27sorts of political
40:29conversations that
40:30were gone on.
40:31I've never really
40:31talked about political,
40:32doesn't really mean
40:33political,
40:35and that's the thing.
40:36Either he's going to
40:37be damned either way.
40:38He's damned if there's
40:38information they're
40:39holding back.
40:40I would say he's
40:41more damned if there
40:43isn't, in fact,
40:44any record of what
40:45our Prime Minister
40:46thinks or does,
40:47or any response to
40:49these documents that
40:50he's been given.
40:51Like, where is he?
40:52Yeah, to say that
40:53you're neutral on the
40:54question of someone's
40:55links to a convicted
40:56paedophile isn't great.
40:57Also, just how are you
40:59responding to box notes?
41:00Yeah.
41:01Are you, you know?
41:02Is it, like you say,
41:03is it vibes-based?
41:04Is it just an
41:06interpretive dance?
41:07Giving someone a ring?
41:08Even if you give someone
41:08a ring, that's written
41:09down.
41:10Like, the thing,
41:10one of the many bad
41:12things about being the
41:13Prime Minister is the
41:13entirety of your life,
41:15there's somebody with a
41:15pen going, the Prime
41:16Minister has just said
41:17a gab of D.
41:19The Prime Minister, you
41:19know, it's basically
41:20heavily documented
41:21because of the seriousness
41:23of the role.
41:24So, aside from the very
41:25important questions around
41:27box notes, do you think
41:28he's toast?
41:29I mean, obviously, my
41:30very useful first bit of
41:31advice is to build a time
41:33machine and go back
41:35because just that, aside
41:36from appointing Peter
41:37Manderson at all, the
41:38handling of these
41:41particular files is just
41:43hopeless and has left
41:44Keir Starmer incredibly
41:45exposed.
41:45It sort of separates
41:46into a few different
41:47categories, I suppose.
41:48There's always just the
41:49context in which you live.
41:51I don't think it's
41:51immediately terminal for
41:52him.
41:53I don't think there is
41:53something here that says
41:54he read this advice and
41:56he was perfectly happy
41:57with it because we still
41:58don't know what he
41:59thought because it's not
42:00written down anywhere.
42:01And there was a sort of
42:03background context of
42:04what's going on
42:04internationally.
42:05It's just not a good
42:07time for him to be
42:08unseated within the
42:10Labour Party leadership.
42:12So, for Keir Starmer
42:14for the next few days,
42:15he's off the hook, but
42:16more tranches are coming
42:17and we're going to get
42:18into those.
42:19But what we do know is
42:22he was forewarned, fair
42:24and square, about Peter
42:26Manderson's history and
42:29pretty much the nature
42:31of his relationship with
42:33Jeffrey Epstein, that he
42:34was staying in Epstein's
42:35New York house while
42:36Epstein was in prison.
42:37I mean, that isn't just
42:39like, oh, I kind of know
42:40him as a passing
42:41equation.
42:41You've got access to his
42:43house.
42:43You're using his dressing
42:44gown.
42:45Come on.
42:46In terms of Keir Starmer,
42:48he is all right for now
42:50because there is not
42:51something that immediately
42:52shows what he thought.
42:54Once WhatsApp and so on
42:55start coming out, I think
42:56it's so much worse for him
42:58because no one does
43:00really know him as a
43:01personality.
43:02You know, I was thinking
43:04about this missing, empty
43:06box submission.
43:08You can get a good sense
43:10of a prime minister's
43:10personality to that and
43:11what they are thinking.
43:13And, you know, there are
43:14plenty of choice,
43:15colourful quotes and
43:16Boris Johnson calling,
43:17you know, David Cameron a
43:19big girl's blouse.
43:20To be fair to, not just,
43:22but it's one of the joys of
43:23if you're interested in
43:24history or political life
43:25at all, actually being
43:27able to read what the
43:28prime minister at, you
43:30know, one o'clock in the
43:30morning writes on their
43:31box notes is really, it's
43:33very educative about what's
43:34in their mind.
43:34It's also quite, it's
43:35quite fun.
43:36Yeah.
43:36Box notes matter.
43:37But it's getting us to a
43:38point with his future
43:41where he's relying on a
43:42combination of cock up
43:44and conspiracy, both of
43:46which that can work
43:47against him because we
43:48still don't know what he
43:49thinks, but anyone else
43:51can look at this stuff and
43:52know what they think.
43:53Like, any normal person
43:55can read a summary of
43:57what has come out in this
43:57first tranche of the
43:58Madison files and have a
44:00very good idea of how they
44:01would judge the situation.
44:03And I think most people
44:05would think, on balance,
44:07Peter Madison, risky
44:08appointment as US
44:10ambassador.
44:10It's just bad all round,
44:12isn't it?
44:12Because basically, in one
44:14version of life, it's
44:15taking them five weeks to
44:16produce the square root of
44:17not very much.
44:18And in five weeks time or
44:20unidentifiable time period
44:21ahead, it might be that
44:22they then publish a whole
44:23load of information which
44:24actually reveals what the
44:26prime minister was thinking,
44:27what his chief of staff was
44:28advising, and maybe that is
44:30all to come.
44:31I still don't really
44:32understand why it's taken
44:33five weeks to produce
44:34nothing.
44:35But, you know, here we go.
44:37Maybe that's the thing.
44:38Probably much worse.
44:39Maybe there isn't anything.
44:41So actually, if what we're
44:42seeing is this is like a
44:44glimpse into how governing is
44:46being done and recorded.
44:48Yeah.
44:48And there is no way of being
44:50able to see why a decision
44:51was taken, who was
44:53involved, what was actually
44:54happening.
44:55That's actually really
44:56alarming because if that is
44:57how they are governing on
44:58this, goodness alone knows
45:00what's going on and
45:01everything else.
45:02I think that's certainly
45:03true for the official side.
45:04On the political side as
45:05well, he's not being served
45:07well either.
45:08A lot of the key individuals
45:10who are part of these
45:10conversations are now no
45:11longer in government.
45:13That is a big problem for
45:14Keir Starmer too.
45:15I don't know the terms on
45:16which he sort of left
45:18working with these people.
45:19He hasn't got a director
45:21of communications at all
45:22and he's lost two who were
45:25linked to Peter Mandelson,
45:27which isn't a great sign.
45:28Morgan Mitswini, his chief
45:29of staff, is gone and he's
45:30got two new chiefs of staff
45:31who sort of stepped up and
45:33taken over from there.
45:34Who knows if they were
45:35involved in any of this to
45:36begin with.
45:37And to be honest, in my
45:40experience of these kinds of
45:42document releases, it is a
45:44negotiation.
45:45It is a negotiation on what
45:47is put out there and, you
45:50know, having been involved
45:51in it from outside
45:52government, it's a pretty
45:54brutal negotiation because
45:55you don't get as much
45:57control over things as you'd
45:58like about what goes out
45:59and frankly, what gets
46:00leaked afterwards or before,
46:02which is some of the most
46:04damaging bits.
46:05And it just doesn't feel to
46:07me looking at these pages
46:10that there is someone with a
46:12really astute political hat
46:13on thinking, right, what is
46:17the message that I want to
46:18come out of these documents?
46:19What do I want to be able to
46:20say?
46:21It's a bit like you were
46:21saying about us putting our
46:22Q&A together for when these
46:25kinds of things are released
46:26or when these decisions are
46:27made.
46:28What is the story I want to be
46:29able to tell about the
46:30prime minister vis-a-vis this
46:32document dump?
46:33The story is terrible.
46:35It's like, it's an absolute
46:36nothing.
46:37It's terrible and it's also
46:38weak.
46:38And I really don't like, and
46:40you would expect me to say
46:41this, I don't like that what
46:42they've done is sort of hang
46:44the officials in the foreign
46:47office out to dry on this
46:48payment thing.
46:49It's like, hang on.
46:51Any of this was a political
46:52appointment.
46:53This is one of your guys.
46:55It's so interesting to me that
46:57before Keir Starmer became
46:59prime minister, there was this
47:00constant briefing coming out of
47:01the Labour Party to, I guess,
47:04reassure the public perhaps that
47:06Keir Starmer's team were in
47:08touch with lots of former
47:10Blair people.
47:11They brought lots of people
47:11back into the fold.
47:13Jonathan Powell, who's now
47:14national security advisor, who
47:15was Tony Blair's chief of
47:17staff in Downing Street.
47:20Liz Lloyd and obviously Peter
47:23Mandelson and there were all
47:24these cosy kitchen suppers going
47:26on.
47:26Getting the band back
47:27together.
47:27Yeah, preparing for
47:28government.
47:29Good job.
47:30And it's so interesting that
47:32it's having this big kind of
47:34pushback now because everyone
47:36is saying, you know,
47:37incidentally, this includes
47:38many, many members of the
47:40media who said this was a
47:41brilliant, if risky
47:42appointment at the time and
47:43are now rowing back quite
47:44firmly on that.
47:45It's amazing to see, yet
47:47again, the Labour Party
47:48tearing themselves apart on
47:50a personal question.
47:51But isn't that the point?
47:51So here we are again,
47:53living inside the
47:54psychodrama of the Labour
47:55Party in the last 30 years.
47:57And I know psychodramas.
47:58I was in the Conservative
47:59Party.
48:00Yeah, we're not unfamiliar
48:01with psychodramas.
48:02But this time also, we are
48:04now creating like an
48:05absolutely labyrinthine
48:07new set of internal
48:08bureaucracy, process,
48:09standards, nonsense, but
48:11which can then be blamed
48:12for failing the next time
48:13they don't do the
48:15bleeding obvious and
48:16just say no.
48:17Yeah, it definitely feels
48:19like the interesting
48:22crash also with the
48:24new Labour era is
48:27the subsequent release of
48:29the Epstein files, which
48:30is linked to Peter
48:31Mandelson's business
48:32secretary role then in the
48:34Brown administration.
48:35And obviously that's what
48:36the Met's going to be
48:37looking at.
48:38But that is only going to
48:39drive Keir Starmer's MPs
48:41more wild and more
48:43furious because it's also
48:45directly linked to cost of
48:46living.
48:46I mean, it is the fallout
48:48of the 2008 crash.
48:49It's what their
48:49constituency mind about
48:50most.
48:51Fuel prices are going up
48:52and in fact all
48:54household prices are
48:55going up.
48:56And I think the
48:57psychodrama is going to
48:59continue because people
49:00are going to get more
49:01and more enraged.
49:02The strategy the Prime
49:04Minister and the
49:05government has chosen is
49:06this drip, drip of
49:07information that is going
49:08to go alongside what is
49:11going on internationally,
49:12what's going on with
49:12energy prices and so on.
49:13So like the sense of
49:15everything is terrible and
49:16I'm furious with the
49:17people at the top.
49:18It's just going to get
49:19worse and worse and
49:20worse.
49:21Yeah.
49:21So it's kind of should
49:22have done more, should
49:24have done it sooner.
49:25Well, from where you are
49:26now, can you just I mean,
49:28we can't find a flux
49:29capacitor to go back and
49:30build a time machine,
49:31sadly.
49:32But what we can say is
49:34like, just do this
49:35faster.
49:35Get as much as you can
49:37out as soon as you can.
49:38And by the way, you're
49:39going to have one sort of
49:40problem if you reveal in
49:42those documents things
49:43that people are going to
49:44say, well, hang on a
49:45second, this is awful
49:46because X said to Y and
49:48the Prime Minister did
49:48this.
49:49So we might hear a bit
49:50more of the Prime
49:50Minister's voice.
49:51Kind of worse, we might
49:53not.
49:54In which case there's some
49:55much bigger questions, I
49:56would say, to ask and
49:58answer about how the
49:59hell are they actually
50:00running, how are they
50:01governing, what is being
50:03written down, what is
50:04being recorded.
50:05There's some really basic
50:06stuff here which go to
50:07the kind of principles
50:08and the foundation and
50:09we can spend hours
50:10talking about whether
50:11the centre of government
50:12is set up to operate
50:13properly, etc, etc, etc.
50:15But there is some really
50:16basic thing here is that
50:17the Prime Minister needs
50:18to be prime ministering
50:20and that needs to be
50:21visible, not just
50:22actually to us outside
50:23the building, but like
50:24inside number 10, where
50:26is the evidence of his
50:28decision making because
50:29this stuff really
50:29matters.
50:30Well, if you enjoyed
50:31this episode, I'd highly
50:33recommend taking a listen
50:34back to episode 2, where
50:36we discuss Starmer's wider
50:37hiring and firing
50:38problems.
50:39And spoiler alert, I
50:41doubt this will be the
50:42last time we'll be
50:43discussing this matter.
50:44Thanks again for joining
50:45us for this episode.
50:46As Helen says, there'll be
50:47many more to come.
50:48Remember, if you enjoy the
50:50podcast and want to hear
50:51more from us, follow the
50:52show on your podcast player
50:53and leave us a five-star
50:55review.
50:55And even if you don't
50:56really like it that much,
50:57do it anyway.
50:58You can keep up to date
50:59with all the best bits from
51:01our podcasts on Instagram.
51:02Follow us at intheroom.pod.
51:05And don't forget, you can
51:06also find the show on
51:07YouTube as well.
51:08Our channel is In The Room
51:10Politics.
51:11Oh yes, it's us in full
51:12Technicolor.
51:12Glorious Technicolor.
51:13This podcast is part of the
51:15Independent Podcast Network
51:16and is produced in
51:17association with Next
51:19Chapter Studios.
51:20The executive producers are
51:22Carrie Rose and Olivia
51:23Foster.
51:23The producer is Sam Durham
51:25and the video editor is
51:26Vali Raza.
51:27We should also thank
51:28Maya Anoushka.
51:30Thank you for listening in.
51:31See you next week.
Comments