Starmer apology deepens questions over Mandelson vetting (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast studio. It's Henry in Westminster. And here in the studio with me is Alva Ray from The New Statesman. Hello, Alva.

[00:00:07] Speaker 2: Hello.

[00:00:07] Speaker 1: Very widely read cover story on this week's magazine.

[00:00:11] Speaker 2: Oh, thank you.

[00:00:12] Speaker 1: Is it true that Labour MPs were sending each other the PDF of it?

[00:00:15] Speaker 2: Yeah, which I'm very sad about. It's two quid for two months at the moment, so they've got no excuse.

[00:00:23] Speaker 1: There are political magazines that maybe their price points are available. And also coming back to Newscast, it's Luke Sullivan, who was an advisor to Keir Starmer recently. Hello, Luke. Hello. Thanks for having me back. Well, actually, look, first of all, before we dig into what's happening today, I remember you used to work in the Whip's office for Labour. I did. Making sure everybody was voting in the right way. How did it go so wrong in Parliament yesterday when the government proposed that amendment to the Tory motion to release all the Mandelson files, and it took Angela Rayner to stand up and say, no, we need an alternative here. This is a dreadful idea. What went wrong?

[00:00:58] Speaker 3: I think speed of events. I mean, from the conversations I've had with people in government, and it's exactly what you would imagine, the Tories tabled the motion sort of seven o'clock at night on Tuesday. The government had, I think, about 20 minutes to work out what to do. And I think their intention was, I do actually think that making sure things that raise the issue of national security shouldn't be released. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think it was a slightly clumsy amendment. They were working at speed, and I think they hadn't quite grasped it. And I remember waking up, I saw the amendment when it went down, and I did say to a couple of people, look, I think you're going to have a problem. Why aren't you referring this to the ISC or Foreign Affairs Select Committee? They got there in the end, and actually, I think it was the right position they've got. I don't actually think people have quite grasped how wide-ranging that motion was.

[00:01:56] Speaker 1: Because the Tories asked for so much stuff, including WhatsApp messages.

[00:02:00] Speaker 3: I mean, me and a number of other people were, during Brexit, used this with Keir Starmer and other government ministers. The humble address. The humble address, and we became pretty good at it. And I've never seen one as far-ranging as that pass. We tried with Windrush to do one with Diane Abbott when she was Shadow Home Secretary, and I think it basically said all WhatsApps, all messages. The government defeated it, even though it was quite tricky. The actually compiling with this ruling, I think it's going to be really difficult. It asked for every piece of electronic communication between government ministers, cabinet ministers, special advisers and Peter Mandelson.

[00:02:42] Speaker 1: I think the irony being that it might mean it takes ages to see anything, because there's such a huge trove of documents. Alva, Lucas put a very brave face on it there, and he may be totally right about how that's how it all happened. But this will go down in history as one of the big parliamentary missteps, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm exaggerating it.

[00:03:02] Speaker 2: I think, I mean, this could be shaped by the fact that I was really in a bit of a Peter Mandelson appointment tunnel for the past few days. But I feel like it's less about the parliamentary shenanigans and just these questions around the initial appointment. I think probably people will forget about the events yesterday. It's the wider scandal.

[00:03:22] Speaker 1: I'm realising maybe my head is stuck in 2.51pm on Wednesday, the 4th of February, rather than 2.51pm on Thursday, the 5th of February. Right, Henry, bring us up to date. So Keir Starmer went to East Sussex to do his big speech today, which was meant to be about this Pride in Place initiative, which is a huge pot of money for towns, villages, high streets to spruce themselves up. But of course, it was dominated by the fallout from the Mandelson affair. Just kind of paint a picture of how it all went.

[00:03:50] Speaker 4: Well, the Prime Minister had a big speech prepared long before this, and by long before this, I mean last week, about this Pride in Place scheme, which is part of the government's and the Labour Party's political attempts more generally to kind of combat Reform UK and the rise of cynicism with politics as normal. It would have been ridiculous for him to just give that speech with no nod to what happened yesterday and what's happened this week. And clearly, he realised that. And he began the speech with, I think it was probably about 10 minutes, talking about Lord Mandelson, or Mandelson, as he keeps referring to him, with no title, even though they haven't yet stripped him of that title. And he said, well, firstly, and I think this is the sort of big news, he apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for having believed Peter Mandelson and having given him the job as ambassador to the US. But then, and I think this really showed his recognition of the political peril he now finds himself in, he said that he acknowledged and understood the anger and frustration of Labour MPs. Now, in a sort of general sense, I think we'd all agree, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein are more important than Labour MPs. But in a very specific sense, how does the Prime Minister keep his job? He needs to win back the support and the confidence and the trust of Labour MPs. And I think today was an attempt to just start doing so. But it's going to be a real climb.

[00:05:22] Speaker 1: And here's how some of that sounded in the PM's own words.

[00:05:26] Speaker 5: The victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. And they've had to relive it again and again. They have seen accountability delayed and too often denied. To them, I want to say this. I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies and appointed him.

[00:06:06] Speaker 1: Luke, I don't know if you were watching that speech in real time as it was broadcast on all the news channels. What did you think of the apology?

[00:06:13] Speaker 3: I think it came across very heartfelt. And I think you could, for a Prime Minister who's often accused of not being very emotional, people seeing how he feels, I think it did come across for me. And newscast listeners and viewers may have a different view. I thought it came across very strongly. But it's a sign, I think, as Henry's just said, of the political peril and position that the Prime Minister finds himself in. And there is no denying how bad that position is. And I also think for... How bad would you say it is? I'll put that into words. Look, I don't think you can understate how serious the situation and the peril is that the Prime Minister finds himself in. And I think through the Q&A, although he didn't explicitly say it, I think you can get that sense from talking to people in Number 10, government ministers, they get the stakes incredibly, incredibly high. And that's why you saw him fighting for his political premiership. And he's going to... I think he had a strong day today. I think he, in many ways, has done all the steps you would try to do to contain what is a deeply damaging political aspect. And I think the other point that I think does come through with Keir is this will that cuts him to the core, that an issue where a man has supported another man who's abused all his positions. And for somebody who has got, I would say, an unblemished record on prosecuting violence against women and girls and trafficking to his very core, I think he will be very, very hurt.

[00:08:04] Speaker 1: We'll come back to that in a second. But Alva, just explain why this is so hard to contain, to use Luke's words, just the momentum that's building behind the scenes and actually in public amongst Keir Starmer's backbenchers.

[00:08:17] Speaker 2: Well, maybe you want to come on to this later. But really, it comes just back to these questions of what Keir Starmer knew and when. So he gave his apology and the phrase was, you know, that he's sorry for believing Mandelson's lies, as he put it. But really, for all the journalists listening and members of the public who've been following this closely, but certainly for Labour MPs and ministers, I think it just raises questions about what actually he did know and whether it was just a case of believing Peter Mandelson's lies. Because what we know, and I set this out in the cover story, and lots of other journalists have set this out as well. What we know is that before appointing Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office did its due diligence on the six people who were under consideration for the role. And it compiled this report, which was basically like a Google exercise. It was just sort of what was easily Googleable about a person. They couldn't do any of the sort of deep vetting that would come later. But my understanding is that this report, so this is from people familiar with what was in it, and also civil servants have said some of this on the record to Parliament. And that detailed Mandelson's business links to Russia and China, and the details of the last two times he resigned from government. And it had a section on Jeffrey Epstein, and it included a link to slash the details of a report that we're all aware of from 2023 by the Financial Times, which said that Mandelson had stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's flat after his conviction, or while he was in prison for child sex offences. And there were also links to photographs of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein together. So we know that Keir Starmer saw that report and his chief of staff. And that was already in the public domain, but there is no doubt that he saw that that was sent to him and he confirmed it in PMQs yesterday. And so we're told by number 10 that when he received that report, Keir Starmer asked Morgan McSweeney to follow it up with Peter Mandelson.

[00:10:23] Speaker 1: His chief of staff.

[00:10:24] Speaker 2: Asked him some. He asked Peter Mandelson some questions. Downing Street is now saying Peter Mandelson lied. And Peter Mandelson is saying he was asked three questions and he replied truthfully. And that's kind of what this all hinges on. But really, but then it comes down to, does this mean that Keir Starmer believed the word of Peter Mandelson over the reporting in the Financial Times and what he could see before his own eyes in terms of those photographs? You know, he's saying, oh, I believe Peter Mandelson's lies. But I think a lot of people still have questions around that when they know what he knew at that point.

[00:11:02] Speaker 1: And that's very important context when we then listen to the question that Chris Mason put to the prime minister after this speech. And we can listen to that now.

[00:11:09] Speaker 6: Prime Minister, why was it that a man who had already twice resigned from government and crucially had a publicly known ongoing friendship with a convicted paedophile was appointed by you as ambassador to Washington? And given all of this, what do you say to those in the country and those in your own party who say, frankly, that you have run out of steam?

[00:11:34] Speaker 5: Well, Chris, let me just address that head on and perhaps clarify something I said at Prime Minister's questions yesterday about the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein. Because what I meant was it has been known publicly for some time that they knew each other. And that is precisely why, when we were going through the appointment process for the ambassador role, we asked questions about the nature and extent of that relationship. And what I didn't say yesterday, partly inhibited by the approach of the police, is that that is precisely why those questions were asked. Questions about the nature and extent of the relationship, whether Mandelson had stayed, as was suggested, at Epstein's premises. And the answers given to those questions were intentionally intended to create the impression that Mandelson barely knew Epstein. Deliberately to create that impression. I had no reason at that stage to think that was anything other than the truth. And therefore, we proceeded. What I learned in September was that it was not the truth when further emails came to light, I think, Bloomberg. And having asked some further questions, including questions about whether Mandelson received gifts, benefits and hospitality, and the nature of the relationship, I sacked Mandelson from the role.

[00:13:20] Speaker 1: Yeah, Henry, so just tie up together what Alva was saying about what we've learned from the new statesman about Peter Mandelson's appointment and the Prime Minister's version of that that we heard today.

[00:13:31] Speaker 4: Well, fundamentally, this is all now a question of the Prime Minister's judgment. And there will be more to come out on what precise facts and what precise documents the Prime Minister had at his disposal when he made that judgment. But we know that at least to some degree, Sir Keir Starmer knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted in a Florida court for trafficking and appointed him as the UK ambassador to the US anyway. Now, nothing that has happened this week has actually changed that. I mean, I think that's quite an important point. The crucial moment at PMQs yesterday, which seems to have kind of emotionally charged so many Labour MPs, was the Prime Minister admitting more clearly than ever that he had known that when he appointed Peter Mandelson to an ambassadorial position. He tried to sort of clarify what he'd said today, but essentially, he's still admitting he knew that there was an ongoing relationship, even though he was convicted. He knew that there was an ongoing relationship, even if he then took Peter Mandelson's word that it was less meaningful than some people thought. That has been implicit in the government's position since they sacked Peter Mandelson in September. I mean, it's basically been available to anyone to sort of work out that that's the government's position, given Peter Mandelson's links to Jeffrey Epstein were a matter of public record since he was appointed. And look, I think you could make, if you were in Downing Street, you can make a quite understandable case that the failure and the blindness go so much wider than Keir Starmer here. I mean, Kemi Bainock has essentially transformed her leadership of the Conservative Party through the arc of this story. She demolished Keir Starmer's position on having full confidence in Peter Mandelson at PMQs back in September, and he was sat the next day, and she had an extremely successful PMQs yesterday. But as people have been pointing out, she did not criticise the appointment at the time. Journalists, with a few exceptions, did not press this point at the time of Peter Mandelson's appointment. So there is kind of a plague on loads of houses here, but Keir Starmer is the one who appointed him to this ambassadorial position, and Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister when the music has stopped.

[00:15:40] Speaker 1: And Alva, tell us a bit more about what you've learned about how Keir Starmer was, and it sounds like he was swayed into supporting Mandelson as the candidate for the ambassador, because it wasn't his starting position that it should be him.

[00:15:53] Speaker 2: Well, yeah, this is some of the interesting stuff I uncovered in reporting this really quite serious story. Sue Gray, the original Chief of Staff in Number 10 for not very long, she drew up a shortlist for the Washington ambassador role, and it had two names, and they were Karen Pierce, who was the then ambassador doing that job. And very popular. And very popular, and David Miliband, former Foreign Secretary, of course. And Peter Mandelson, there were lots of reports at that time that he was in the running for the job, but he was not on the shortlist. So that's a sort of, you know, I think it's, I mean, this is such a serious story, it maybe feels wrong to say it's an amusing detail, but I think that that is a little sign of how Peter Mandelson operates and operated, that his name was conveniently appearing in the papers in line for this role, when at that point he wasn't in contention. He wasn't on the shortlist. Then the Chief of Staff changed to Number 10, but probably more importantly, the US election took place and Donald Trump was elected. So the process for appointing the ambassador began again, and they drew up a new shortlist. There were four diplomats on the list and two politicians, and they were George Osborne and Peter Mandelson. And I'm told by someone very close to this, that initially Keir Starmer favoured George Osborne. He was sort of persuaded that because of the delicacy of the Trump relationship, that he probably, he needed someone a bit more special and with a bit more political know-how than a sort of conventional career diplomat. He was leaning towards George Osborne. And that is the context in which these reports by the cabinet office are being done. So not only did Keir Starmer change his mind, basically from George Osborne to Peter Mandelson, he did it while also being presented with these details about Mandelson staying in Epstein's flat and checking those details with Peter Mandelson, which I think is, I think a lot of people would say is even more curious.

[00:17:51] Speaker 4: Adam, I think one of the risks for Keir Starmer that comes from Alpha's brilliant reporting is that it just emphasises this concern that some Labour MPs already had, which is that he's kind of a passenger in his own premiership. I mean, that's what's so interesting. Obviously, there is the judgment call to appoint Peter Mandelson, but this suggestion that's kind of always been there with Keir Starmer right back to when he began his leadership campaign, really, which is that this is a man who doesn't feel politics deeply, who has sort of thoughts and decisions supplied to him by advisers, and obviously there's particular concerns that Labour MPs raise about Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff in that context. And so I think a risk for Keir Starmer right now is that this very specific story about Peter Mandelson and Geoffrey Epstein just emphasises concerns that were already there among Labour MPs, which is, hang on, what does this man actually stand for? What are the things that he personally and individually will actually press through? And one of the things that Labour MPs would have said was standards in public life and probity, but that gets to Luke's point, which is that so much of that, so much of the basis on which Keir Starmer defined himself in opposition against Boris Johnson appears to be undermined by this story.

[00:19:08] Speaker 1: I mean, Luke, I don't want to ask you questions that you can't answer or don't want to answer because we want to get as much out of you as possible.

[00:19:14] Speaker 3: I'll avoid them.

[00:19:15] Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I mean, you've trained many politicians to do that, I'm sure. Is Keir Starmer sort of temperamentally, politically and ethically, kind of not the sort of person who would plump for Peter Mandelson for a job like this? Is this sort of out of character to start with for him choosing him?

[00:19:36] Speaker 3: I think those of us who, from the outside, were following this appointment, I'd left at the general election, but like everyone else, I was following this, watching the newspaper reports, and my instinct was that, and I think your report sort of says this as well, and other journalists have done this, I think he sucked with a long spoon with Peter Mandelson. I don't think intrinsically Peter Mandelson was somebody that Keir Starmer would spend time with. I think we'd had a period, I think in opposition, where on a rival news channel's podcast, Peter Mandelson had been quite derogatory about Keir Starmer's weight, and I seem to remember the Prime Minister, the now Prime Minister was not best pleased by that. I don't think he would have ordinarily gone of his own sort of, you know, if he'd had a blank piece of paper, but I think this also goes to the nature of how Keir works. He will take advice, he will engage in the discussion around the different thinkings, and look, he will, I'm sure, say, yes, I did take advice, but ultimately it was my decision, and I think that's what the reporting shows. There was obviously people who pointed people in the direction and tried to influence it. That happens in all appointments. The other thing I'll just say, which I think is worth putting on the record, there's a little-known journalist called Laura Koonsberg, who I think in September wrote what the actual questions were asked of Peter Mandelson, and they're contained in a blog on the BBC website. It's worth reading. So we do know what the questions that were asked of Peter Mandelson. I think the government's position, and it's understandable, it's what they have to get through the position. I've been reflecting long and hard on this. I'm not sure. I don't think there'll be a smoking gun in the due diligence in the reports, but what I think is the problem, and this comes back to the question that Kemi Badenoch asked, and I think what finally got through to MPs, what the actual position was, because I think, as Henry said...

[00:21:55] Speaker 1: Well, yeah, because Mandelson was tempted by his association with Epstein, irrespective of what we've learned now, tainted enough in most people's eyes in Westminster for him to never have been given the job. That's the key problem.

[00:22:12] Speaker 3: And I think for the government, I think it's understandable they want the due diligence out and they want the documents out as quickly as possible, partly because they want it out in one go, not drip, drip, drip. They want to try and find a way of exploding this story and having everything out there. But it will come back to this question of knowing everything you knew, did you think it was appropriate? And I think the prime minister really genuinely made a really strong apology and recognition of it. I suspect he will end up going quite considerably further in that because I think... Really? How so? Well, I think fundamentally, I think the lying part only gets you so far on, as Alva said quite correctly, the FT report from 2023, not only said what the ongoing relationship was, it also raises questions of Peter Mandelson's truthfulness. So it was in there in black and white. And I think at the heart of that, that is going to be the question that is very difficult to answer. And the prime minister is a very truthful person and he answered the question to Kemi Badenoch in a very unpolitical but honest way. And it's very difficult without putting your hands up and saying, I think I got this wrong.

[00:23:30] Speaker 1: Alva, I think I've only just clocked this now, now that we're talking this through collectively. So from watching the prime minister's speech this morning, bang, he's straight out of the blocks with the apology. But then he falls back on this argument that Peter Mandelson lied to him. Now, if you're going to make an apology for hiring him in the first place, why wasn't that the starting point? It now seems that that's been retrofitted to the lying defence.

[00:23:54] Speaker 2: Yes, and this is the problem. And I think that's really interesting from Luke that you feel like he needs to just go further because this is what so many people in the Labour Party are so upset about. Fundamentally, if you know that there was some sort of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein beyond his conviction, why take that risk? Why do that? What does that say about what you're thinking or not thinking about Jeffrey Epstein's victims and the standards that you want to hold people taking on these big jobs to? I mean, I think it's sort of just worth reflecting for just a second, because I've had so many conversations about it, just how upset so many women in Westminster are about this, that even people, I have to say- You could see that in the debate yesterday. Yeah, but even I have to say, people who have probably worked with you, Luke, definitely have worked very closely with Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer, who are really upset and furious and just have nothing more to say, really, and who feel like this is just such a terrible error of judgement on their part. But that it also speaks to something, as someone was saying to me earlier, it speaks to something sort of a bit more rotten in Westminster and in their view in the Labour Party, that people turn a blind eye to problems when it's their friends or it's their faction. And I just, I know that we're giving this a lot of coverage and attention and asking the questions, but some of these people who are really upset aren't really saying so publicly because, you know, for their various reasons and the jobs that they hold. But it's sort of just worth, I think, reflecting that, you know, Keir Starmer leads a government that in theory has a mission of tackling violence against women and girls. That's a value that's so important to parts of the Labour Party. And just this idea that you would appoint a paedophile's friend to a job, even if, you know, you're told, oh, he didn't, it wasn't that close a relationship, even if Peter Mandelson was lying about parts of it, you could see the photographs. And I think it's what we haven't heard from the prime minister is an apology saying, I got that wrong, given what I knew, I should have made a different decision. And then just on Henry and Luke's points around the advice that he was being given, I think this is an interesting one. People will just reach their own conclusions on it because it's, you know, it's this line, you know, advisors advise, ministers decide. There's really no denial from Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's chief of staff or the people around him or number 10, that he really pushed for this appointment. He thought it was a good idea that Peter Mandelson would be good at the job, basically for the tricky role of managing the relationship with Donald Trump. Not really any denial around that. This was the advice he gave the prime minister. Who do you hold responsible for the ultimate decision? Morgan McSweeney doesn't have a public platform. He can't defend himself publicly. He gives the advice. It is ultimately Keir Starmer who makes the decision. There are lots of people, as Henry says, who want Morgan McSweeney to go, who blame him for that, who see the prime minister as kind of passive in that relationship, too often doing what Morgan McSweeney tells him to do. But is that fair? You know, in Luke's view, it isn't. Look, I get the argument. And it's just, this is, I think, just the question dividing the Labour Party at the moment.

[00:27:16] Speaker 3: Look, I get, and you've expressed it perfectly. There's a lot of different emotions at play. And look, Morgan McSweeney is a, you know, to some people is a, you know, electoral genius and guru. To others, he's a sort of, you know, figure of, you know, who sort of, they oppose on political, no, but who they oppose on political grounds. And there is also, as ever with the Labour Party and any political party in a crisis, there are people trying to settle scores. Now, I understand why people are going after Morgan McSweeney. Morgan will be the first to recognise why people are going after him. I'm not sure it helps the Labour Party or the prime minister. And I actually think in the grand scheme of things, it's a sideshow from what is a political crisis as we started the show and fundamentally have to deal with the problem. And yes, I'm sure the Labour Party will try and go down, you know, different avenues and try and, you know, take revenge on their political enemies in different parts of the party, but it's not going to help the prime minister.

[00:28:25] Speaker 1: Henry, I want to ask you a kind of theoretical question about how this might play out within Labour, because all we've really got to go on at the moment is a few MPs putting their head above the parapet publicly and saying they don't have confidence in the prime minister anymore and his position is untenable. And that's just, that's a small handful at the moment, although you can feel the vibes going that way from a lot more of them. And actually, the only other thing we've got to go on is the opposition parties saying there should be some kind of vote in his leadership. But of course, opposition parties would say that because they want to capitalise on it. Yeah, they would.

[00:28:57] Speaker 4: And it's a bit confusing what they want. I mean, they seem to be sort of calling for Labour MPs to have a confidence vote. I mean, actually, Kemi Bainock, if she wanted, has the power to call for a no confidence motion in the House of Commons. Which would be in the whole government, wouldn't it? Exactly, but I'm sure she's not going to reach for that. I mean, that would unite the Labour Party at a moment at which they're divided. But look, I mean, clearly opposition parties have their tails up and you can see why. In terms of where it goes next, I think you are right to emphasise that it is still a small handful of MPs who've called for Starmer to go publicly. I mean, there actually aren't even that many MPs who've called for Morgan McSweeney to go publicly, which is obviously a less kind of significant thing for an MP to do because he's an advisor rather than the prime minister and their leader. That tells me, I think, that the prime minister's position isn't under imminent threat. But things have... I mean, this is going to sound like fence sitting, but it's true. Things have moved so fast this week that I don't think you can discount completely things continuing to move fast. I actually think a lot will hinge on what MPs experience as they go back to their constituencies today and over the weekend. Is this some sort of Dominic Cummings, Barnard Castle moment in their inboxes and on their doorsteps? Or is it not? That, I think, will govern how many MPs behave. But look, at the very least, this has soured the mood among Labour MPs before the Gorton and Denton by-election, which is three weeks today, and where Keir Starmer made a big call not to let Andy Burnham be the Labour candidate. And then, of course, before the elections in May, which we've talked about so much.

[00:30:32] Speaker 2: So we've talked a lot about the really serious feelings behind this and the really, really serious questions that Keir Starmer is facing. But in terms of, you know, that last point from Henry, I think some of it is also about raw politics rather than just how upset people feel and disappointed they feel. Basically, it's not really clear who could replace Keir Starmer at this point. You know, Wes Streeting also knew Peter Mandelson well. He hasn't really been in the news stories, but, you know, I think that there's maybe a sense that this doesn't really help him in any way. And then Angela Rayner is still, you know, undergoing an investigation into her tax affairs. That's not quite settled. That sounds so peripheral to everything we've been talking about, but I think it does inform what Labour MPs call for and ask for. So there's this sort of paradoxical feeling where people really want to scalp and want to see change and accountability, but they also sort of know that if Keir Starmer left at this moment, they might not get their preferred person for leader. And I think that's holding the Labour party. I could be wrong, but it's holding them in a sort of strange stasis at the moment.

[00:31:40] Speaker 3: Yeah, I completely agree with that. I just wanted to make just a point, just zooming out from the immediate interest in Peter Mandelson and the prime minister's appointment as ambassador. I cut my teeth in politics in the dying days of the last Labour government. I was a very genius special advisor. And for the last two years of that government, the issue that drove everything other than the financial crash was expenses. Expenses was one of these scandals, I think, that politics and those in public life in many ways have never recovered in terms of how they're viewed by the public. I think just looking at the different strands in this story, I think Peter Mandelson is clearly the first political casualty of this, but I think there will be more. And I think it's very unclear to Westminster and to those in politics, where does this go and where does it end up?

[00:32:40] Speaker 1: Well, the only other potential casualties could be Morgan McSweeney or the prime minister.

[00:32:44] Speaker 3: I'm no... Just looking at, you know, there was a debate yesterday where there were more recent government interactions and contracts the Conservatives were going after, different contracts in the modern, you know, in this Labour government. We don't know where this is going to end up. But, you know, this goes to a bigger point, which is we've spent a lot of time about the appointment. What Peter Mandelson was doing allegedly, and there's a criminal investigation, so I'll be very careful what I say. The problem is we in the bubble know and recognise this is so outrageous and, you know, beyond the pale. I do fear for the political class that for the British public, it just reconfirms their view that all politicians are rotten for themselves. And I do think the... I think this is going to go for a very long time, especially if it ends up in court. And I think for the danger for public life, there's a real crisis here.

[00:33:43] Speaker 1: Henry, I'm going to give you the absolute last word. And it's a bit of ancient history, but Luke did take us back to the dying days of Gordon Brown's government. And I just remember as a very junior reporter there, okay, Gordon Brown, you could debate till the cows come home if he was a good or bad prime minister. What he was good at doing was surviving and snuffing out threats to his leadership. Keir Starmer does not have that reputation at all, does he?

[00:34:07] Speaker 4: Well, look, I mean, it's a funny thing with Keir Starmer. He has been at times really underestimated as a politician. He had an astonishingly fast rise. He played the Corbyn years to perfection in terms of setting himself up as the natural front runner, even though natural front runners succeed him, even though they weren't sort of completely ideologically aligned, even when he was in his shadow cabinet. He then transformed himself and depending on where you stand, that was either a good or bad thing. And for many people on both sides of the argument, a dishonest thing, but he transformed himself as leader into quite a different political personality. But look, this is the biggest test of his mettle yet. He's in government now. He's essentially, I think it's fair to say objectively, and I think, you know, Labour MPs who continue to support him would admit he's essentially never found a way to make a success of government in his 18 months or so that he's been in. His task now is to just earn the right to try.

[00:35:05] Speaker 1: And what happens next, we shall see. Henry, thank you very much. Thank you. Luke, thanks to you too. Thank you. And Alva, thanks for all your hard work on The New Statesman and Newscast this week.

[00:35:14] Speaker 2: Well, thanks for having me.

[00:35:15] Speaker 1: And just a reminder that the BBC is continuing to approach Lord Mandelson to put these allegations to him. He's not responded to repeated requests for comment, but the BBC understands his position is that he has not acted in any way criminally, and he was not motivated by financial gain. And he has apologised in several different forms for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And since we recorded this episode of Newscast, one more development to bring you a letter from the Intelligence and Security Committee to Downing Street. The ISC are the ones who are going to scrutinise the documents related to Lord Mandelson's vetting to see if they can be released with redactions, bits crossed out, if they're sensitive to national security. This letter from the ISC says they expect the government to publish the vast majority of the documents which are not sensitive or related to national security as soon as possible. And they're expecting only quite a small number of documents to head their way. They want to see them completely unredacted. And then the committee says they will decide in what form they should be made public. And they've also asked the government to give them a date for when they will receive that paperwork. So a little bit more on the process which was so hotly debated in Parliament on Wednesday. And that is all for this episode of Newscast. We'll be back again for our TV show on BBC One after Question Time. See you then.