Starmer’s China trip meets security doubts at home (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast studio.

[00:00:02] Speaker 2: And it's Alex also in the studio.

[00:00:03] Speaker 3: And Sarah Montague.

[00:00:05] Speaker 1: And James Landell also here in the studio. Oh, so you went for surnames over this half of the studio.

[00:00:10] Speaker 3: We weren't so presumptuous. OK, sure. Well, you're an old, I call you old-timey. I'm a veteran podcaster.

[00:00:17] Speaker 1: I was very tickled to see that Keir Starmer got exactly 18 minutes of coverage on the Chinese news last night, Laura Bicker was telling me from Beijing. So I'm thinking we could maybe give his trip to China about, maybe for 13 and a half.

[00:00:31] Speaker 2: What, is that some sort of proportional calculation?

[00:00:33] Speaker 1: Well, no, just I think it's just a bit of a target to aim for, isn't it? A nice little challenge. That's a lot. I mean, you've been on a podcast before, James. No, I know what you mean in China. No, I mean for Starmer to get on.

[00:00:44] Speaker 2: Yes. Is that a half an hour programme?

[00:00:47] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's half an hour. And it's the main, like, state-sponsored news.

[00:00:50] Speaker 3: And it sounds like it was more than either Mark Carney or Emmanuel Macron got when they went. That's interesting. It's quite hard, obviously, to be a judge on that.

[00:00:59] Speaker 1: Intriguing. James, you must have been to China as a journalist a few times. I have a few times, yes. Any memorable tales? Do you have a burner phone?

[00:01:09] Speaker 4: Yes, we all took the burner phones. You know, there's nothing new about that. And there are always problems with comms, getting your VPN to work and things like that. I mean, the first time I ever went to China was a very, very long time ago. And I can remember, you know, even then, you know, if you were thirsty, you would say to your friend in the hotel room, I'm really thirsty. Would you like cup tea? Yes, I'd really love cup tea. Yes, cup tea, right, and everything. And five minutes later, a nice person would turn up at the door with a freshly boiled cappuccino. Because they'd been listening. And so you could always, and quite often, you can go in and there would be some sort of air duct or something. And then literally there would be a, you know, sort of 1970s style microphone with a little tripod that sort of sticks with a very long, thick cable. That's exactly what it would be. And, you know, so the surveillance. Surveillance, you know, is certainly not new.

[00:01:58] Speaker 1: Well, Chris Mason used his burner phone to send us this little message from Beijing.

[00:02:03] Speaker 5: Hello, newscasters from a rather parky Beijing. You know, when I'm doing the television news, they don't like things like hats. But flipping heck, I'm putting it back on because it is cold. I'd have the snood on as well if I could, but it would get in the way of the microphone. So day two of the prime minister's trip to China. This was the big day, really, meeting the president, meeting the premier, the second in charge. Politically, all of the talk about warming up the relationship between the UK and China and a couple of case studies the government would point to in doing that. So this idea of visa free travel for trips of under 30 days coming soon. We don't have a date yet, but the government hopes it will be signed off as soon as possible and then halving the tariff. The import taxes on whiskey that is sold from the UK into China from 10% to 5%. What else? Can I tell? Can I tell you, newscasters, what would you like to hear about a trip that goes a little beyond what you might hear on the main television news or radio news or whatever? Ah, yes, food. So we've had some fantastic food here. It's a wonderful kind of privilege, really lucky to get to go on trips like this. We've just been in a great restaurant down the road. However, one of the things on the spinning Susan thing, lazy Susan, that's the phrase, in the middle of the table was duck head. Duck head. You've actually got to say that quite carefully, haven't you? You've got to eat it quite carefully as well, because it's incredibly chewy and is something of an acquired taste. The rest of the dish was absolutely fantastic. I'll talk to you soon.

[00:03:36] Speaker 1: It's like MasterChef Beijing edition. Sarah, there's been a lot of focus today on this bit of the prime minister's trip about the business deals and this huge bus of CEOs that the prime minister took with them. Obviously, they went on a plane first and then a bus around Beijing. And you were speaking to some of them on The World at One.

[00:03:53] Speaker 3: Well, we've done and we've done quite a lot of it through the weekend. But today, having spoken to business people yesterday, today, we sort of thought we should speak to some of these cultural figures, because actually about a third of the 60 or 50, 60 delegates are people from culture and sport. The head of what you call it, table tennis, England, the RSC. There's a whole some museums visit Britain. And we were just trying to get a sense of what they were doing and kind of what the idea. And I guess it's sort of soft power as well. And it sounds they're all clearly having a blast. I mean, you know, to hear Chris there sounding quite excited about the jolly. I know it's never a jolly. We've all been on those trips where you people cause it a jolly and you think it's not. It's a hard work. But it does sound like they're having a complete laugh, such that I almost said I said, are you? I said, so what are you singing at the back of the bus? And she couldn't reply. This is the head of table tennis. And I said, and I said, basically suggesting, yes, yes, they've been singing at the back of the bus. That's what it sounded like.

[00:04:54] Speaker 1: But Alex, isn't that interesting? That the fact that there can be a British trip to China where there's some levity, some jollity, which suggests it's not that China is a massive security challenge or a massive security risk or a big problem for Britain. Yeah.

[00:05:08] Speaker 2: It's an opportunity. I think that number 10 will be quite aware of the potential optics around that, because if you listen to the messaging that's come from Downing Street, Kirsten, everybody else, of course, that they are talking quite openly about their desire to warm up the relationship or to improve the links that might lead to better trading relationships or economic benefits or whatever. But they are also caveating that quite carefully with the notion of being clear eyed and aware of the security implications and some of the challenges in the relationship with China, not least around the things that we're familiar with about human rights. Kirsten says he's raised those in his discussions with the Chinese premier. So I think number 10 maybe won't want the pictures of them singing on the back of the bus to be the ones that come out, because while they're being honest about their intention to improve the relationship with Beijing, they are also trying to be cautious about how that might be perceived when there are quite, a lot of people here in the domestic political scene in the UK who are sounding great big warning bells about potential ramifications of getting too close to China.

[00:06:03] Speaker 3: But that trying to reconcile the two between you want to do business and yet you have to have this cautious is something we've been trying to get on top of. And I spoke to Greg Jackson, the boss of Octopus, a huge energy company. And I sort of said to him, so are you on a burner phone? He said, I'm on a burner phone on a VPN with an eSIM. But they have huge business dealings in China. And he was incredibly excited about the innovation in sort of green tech that he wants to do more work. And I find it quite hard to imagine how you can sign off sort of multi-million pound deals with somebody when you can't, you can't even have your own home phone there because of the lack of trust.

[00:06:44] Speaker 2: And the thing about that, the sort of dilemma around this and what we don't know, what we haven't really heard spelled out clearly from government, and there might be reasonable reasons for that, is what that means in practical terms, how you improve the trade links, but also be conscious of the security risks. Because think about some of the previous decisions about Chinese roles in British infrastructure or Huawei, or, you know, they're the tangibles. Are we happy with this or not? And I think that's still a question.

[00:07:08] Speaker 4: That's absolutely right. The issue here is not should the British government have a relationship with Beijing? Of course it should. Should it go on visits? Yes, of course it should. Should it have...

[00:07:14] Speaker 1: Oh, Kevin Badenoch says no.

[00:07:16] Speaker 4: Yeah, I know. But the vast majority of this sort of, you know, the analytical world says, yes, you know, it makes sense to have a relationship. Where we have a problem, with the British policy, and this is one that has been throughout successive governments, is they all have a version of an acronym. The current acronym is, you know, is you cooperate on some things, you compete on others, and you challenge on others. And the problem with that is that that's not a policy. That's a description of the status quo. Because what it doesn't tell you is, right, when a Chinese company says, I want to invest in a massive wind farm project in the UK, does the British government give it the green light or not? Do we consider that the economic benefit outweighs the security impact? Because although, yes, we're getting, you know, a nice new wind farm that can create lots of energy for us, the fact that these things require constant updates, that means that gives the Chinese control over whether or not they should be renewed if there were a conflict in the future. The same thing is about the investment decisions about a massive electric vehicle plant to be built in the UK or not. And that's where the sort of, you know, the decisions are really going to come, not the sort of the jolly in Beijing.

[00:08:31] Speaker 3: Richard Delove, who we spoke to, former head of MI6, he raises this idea that at some point in the future, China could switch off your electric car if you have, just as the tractor makers John Deere did when tractors in Ukraine were taken by Russia, and they were able to just effectively flick the switch on them so that they couldn't work. And his argument was, you've just got to be aware, and you've got to be aware of what you're doing. And that's where the sort of, you know, the decisions are really going to come, and you've got to be aware of this. But Greg Jackson at Octopus said another thing, which, and I'm thinking, how do they do this? He talked about, we are trying to work out ways to separate the firmware from the software so that we can buy, you know, the equipment from them, but our software will allow us to prevent sort of, or to limit the control. And that's, you know, that's where he says, I'm sitting in meetings across from, you know, my Chinese sort of business partners trying to work this out.

[00:09:24] Speaker 1: But what's been interesting today, is working out how much of that, the deal stuff is rhetoric and how much of it is genuine deals. So, for example, on the political level, visa-free travel for British tourists to China fairly soon, that sounds like a big opening.

[00:09:39] Speaker 2: Although we don't know when or how, you know, what that means, or how many visas.

[00:09:42] Speaker 1: And also many other countries have had it before us. But then there's going to be, what, exploratory talks about doing a feasibility study about maybe in a future year doing a trade deal for services. That, to me, that's just words, isn't it?

[00:09:55] Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is exactly to James's point and the point that I was trying to make about, there is a big difference between setting out an approach and how you put that approach into action and the decisions that you make around that. And I think that is the bit that we're still unsure of. Now, it may be that Keir Starmer argues, you know, this is the first time that a prime minister has been in eight years. This is the beginning of a dialogue. These things are going to be bottomed out and still to come, but it's a clear sign of intention, despite the fact there is some opposition to the fact that he's even signifying what he is by this visit in the UK from some quarters. But there are still lots of substantial questions. And if you think, about the one tangible decision they have taken recently, which was around the Chinese embassy in London, where there was the decision to allow them to open it, that did attract a lot of controversy. And we have yet to see how that plays out and, you know, what that then means in the future. So I think we're very clear on what Keir Starmer says he's trying to achieve. We don't yet know how he's actually going to put that into action and what some of the implications of that may or may not be.

[00:10:47] Speaker 4: Alex, I've got a question, you know, with your sort of political hat on. What is the current state of the sort of what I call the hawkish, element of the debate in Parliament at the moment? Because there always used to be a mixture of kind of, you know, the securitate, sort of security-focused people, the kind of economic nationalist group, and then plus the sort of more human rights concerned group. And together, across parties, that made, with a sprinkling of kind of, you know, ex-Brexiteers, you've now made China their new focus. And of course, some of those people are sanctioned by China. Correct. But that was actually quite a large number of people. Do they operate as a sort of collective?

[00:11:28] Speaker 2: I wouldn't say a kind of solid block. I mean, there is certainly a block within a block of people that you talk about, the people that have been sanctioned, who've been highly vocal and characterised largely as China hawks for some time. They absolutely still exist and are there. But I think what is interesting now is if you look back at past governments and the relationship they've chosen to pursue with China from the kind of golden era under David Cameron and George Osborne and then Boris Johnson, who was slightly more circumspect in some ways around that Huawei decision and the kind of infrastructure investment, from China, now you've got a Conservative Party. So if you just take it from that perspective under Kemmy Badenoch, who is coming out very strongly and said, I don't think this is the right time to be having that kind of dialogue with China. And that's quite an interesting shift in the political dynamic within Parliament right now.

[00:12:08] Speaker 1: And James, just going back to our little quip about, oh, Keir Starmer got 18 minutes on the Chinese news last night. When you watch it, it looks like the red carpet has literally been rolled out. Tour of the Forbidden City, big long banquet, bilateral with Xi Jinping that goes on for long. Longer than was billed. Is that Keir Starmer getting an especially warm welcome compared to other people? And if so, what's in it for Xi Jinping to do that for the little Britain?

[00:12:33] Speaker 4: No, it's not that unusual. You know, the red carpet, the soldiers, the trip to the Forbidden City, you know, that is, that's the tour. You know, that's what you get. That's what I'd get if I went on holiday with no visa. Exactly.

[00:12:44] Speaker 2: You get that anyway.

[00:12:46] Speaker 4: Look, but it's an interesting question. What do the Chinese get out of it? First of all, you know, they love normalization. They love this idea that China is not an outcast, that it is not somehow on the outer reaches of the international system. So anything that says, you know, his is just normal relations, you know, tick for them. Secondly, the UK, the reason it gets a fair sort of, you know, whack is not because we're massively economically important to the Chinese. We're not. But we are seen as a key ally of the United States. And China has an absolute interest, in peeling us and others further away from the United States. So anything that furthers the narrative that somehow America is this new unreliable, wobbly ally compared to those solid, stable, reliable, predictable. Chinese is a message that the Chinese are very, very keen to promote if at all possible. And then thirdly, there are specific things that they, the Chinese would like to get from the UK. A lot of the, the education, the life sciences, you know, there's some of the technical stuff in services, which they will, as they do, they, they welcome, they engage with, they trade with, they copy, and then they squeeze out. Because the, the thing to remember is the overwhelming Chinese strategy here, and they're very open about it, is that they want to be more economically reliant. So they, they openly say, we do not want more exports from the UK or from other countries. Ultimately, China's long-term game. Is to be self-reliant. And the way you do that is by looking for all the areas where you have got gaps, go in there, engage, trade, copy, and then do it all yourself.

[00:14:32] Speaker 1: Right, James, you're going to do a lot of talking in this episode, because now we're going to look at Iran and I'll let you have a gulp of water. But while I read out a Donald Trump Truth social post, which is quite long, I might not read out the whole thing. It says, a massive Armada is heading to Iran. It is moving quickly with great power, enthusiasm and purpose. Now, when I first saw that, I thought, oh, is that the help he promised to the pro-democracy protesters who he was supporting last week? And then you read on and you're like, no, it's about Iran's nuclear weapons program. So how is it that last week Donald Trump is offering help to the protesters? And then this week he's trying to clamp down on the regime's nuclear ambitions. What's going on?

[00:15:10] Speaker 4: Well, with your usual acuity, you've put your finger on the key issue.

[00:15:14] Speaker 1: You've rolled out the red carpet for me, thanks.

[00:15:17] Speaker 4: You're absolutely right. The American line has changed at the height of the protests. Donald Trump said, you know, the US is locked and loaded and help is on its way. And then announced that because the Iranians had allegedly agreed not to hang hundreds of protesters, that the Americans stayed their hand. The fact that the vast majority of America's allies in the Gulf were going, don't do it. You cannot use our airspace, amongst other things, you know, played a role as well. But anyway, you're right. The line has changed. Because now the Americans are arguing to the Iranians, right, we want a deal. We want to, we want to, let's, let's talk again about enriching uranium. We want you to, you know, new curbs on that. We want you to hand over that. Or do you remember all that highly enriched uranium that went missing last June during the bombing? Well, the Americans still want to get their hands on that, as does the rest of the world. The Americans are also saying, we want you to impose new curbs on your ballistic missiles. They're also saying, we want you to make new commitments to stop funding militias in the region, either. The truth is the Hamas and Hezbollah, et cetera, et cetera. At which point, kind of, sort of, you know, they're always going, oh, okay, where do we get to that? And so then people are saying, okay, is that all just cover? Is it cover in the same way that with Venezuela, you know, the drugs thing was cover for actually taking control of the oil? Is this discussion about nuclear, which, as you say, has suddenly come out of nowhere again, is that cover for finding some way of supporting regime change without being explicit about it? Now, the problem with that is, as we know, regime attempts at regime change through bombing 50,000 feet doesn't have a great track record in military history. So you're absolutely right to put your finger on the fact that there is uncertainty about American intentions here. And that's causing quite a lot of uncertainty in the region.

[00:17:14] Speaker 1: I mean, Trump is giving himself options, isn't he? That's what he's doing. That's the point about sending the aircraft carrier. It's not to use it now. It's in case the situation changes. He doesn't feel constrained.

[00:17:24] Speaker 4: This morning he said, look, I hear all the cautionary notes, but they said you don't deploy that amount of hardware without at some point using it.

[00:17:34] Speaker 1: And it brings some momentum as well.

[00:17:36] Speaker 4: Absolutely. And, you know, if suddenly somebody starts going taco, taco, taco, and Trump responds to that. You mean the whole thing? Yeah, Trump's all chicken and steak. We're offering a seat in there. But, you know, what is absolutely true is that. Is that there's an awful lot of diplomacy going on. There are an awful lot of countries in the region talking to the Americans.

[00:17:58] Speaker 3: Saying don't do it.

[00:17:59] Speaker 4: Don't do it. Don't do it. A, because they fear a wider conflagration. B, because they think that the Americans might have enough hardware in the region to protect American assets, but won't have enough to protect Gulf assets.

[00:18:12] Speaker 2: I.e. Iran could respond to neighboring countries. Correct.

[00:18:15] Speaker 4: Iran could hit Saudi, as it did, remember, in 2019. It could hit the military base. And Jordan, if it accuses Jordan of taking part, you know, the Saudis have been very, very clear, telling telling the Iranians directly, you know, no, our airspace is not going to be used because the Iranians have said very explicitly that if America attacks, they are going to hit back against the Americans, not just against the Americans, but also anybody who facilitates them as well. Now, that's part of the heightened tension. And then there's all the commercial shipping going up to the.

[00:18:45] Speaker 2: I mean, I'm just totally fascinated. I don't know if you know the answer to this. But of course, there are all of the immediate. And very real concerns of potential ramifications for the region. But on the American domestic political front, you know, you've got a U.S. president who is all about kind of America first. And some might argue this is still an America first policy. But with the recent memory of U.S. interventions and all of the things that came as a consequence, I think most people would argue not always successful. Like, is the American domestic public going? This is what we want our president to be focused on. Whether it is the real motivation of regime change, whether or not there is a genuine concern about nuclear, whether or not. It was always about trying to support those who are protesting against the regime is, you know, I mean, it's where's the sort of motivation from the political domestic perspective from.

[00:19:29] Speaker 4: I think that's a very valid question. And as we saw with Greenland, the when the polling in the U.S. over any military adventurism in Greenland, you know, was pretty, pretty low. I think with Trump that, you know, in the American political sphere, there's been some discussion about, you know, distraction from other issues, Minneapolis and things like that. There's also, I think, you know. If there's any sense of threat to U.S. national assets in the region. I mean, Marco Rubio was very clear last night when he was giving evidence to Congress that there are, you know, and he said 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops in the region. And that, you know, their core priority of the deployment that was being made was to protect those assets, those air bases and what's already there.

[00:20:13] Speaker 1: Right. Let's bring things straight back to home now. And Alex, this week's British politics is a tale of two Andes. I'm going to.

[00:20:20] Speaker 2: I've got one in my mind. Oh, hold on. Street and Burnham. Yes. Is that who you mean? Yes. Crikey, you tested my. Let's do Andy Burnham first.

[00:20:27] Speaker 1: So after he got blocked by the subcommittee of the NEC from even running to be the candidate in Gorton and Denton, he put out some quite good natured tweets over the weekend. Then there was a third one that was a bit. And then there was a fourth one, which was even more. And then he was on BBC Radio Manchester today and didn't hold back.

[00:20:45] Speaker 6: Some people just think they can say what they like to the media. And why do they do? It you're asking me. They do it to denigrate the character, impugn the integrity of elected politicians. They did it to West West Streeting not so long ago. And it's almost like the stock in trade of Westminster. But the thing I would want to get over today and I give great credit to the prime minister for backing the Hillsborough law that I brought to Parliament. And obviously that brings in a duty of candor on on public servants. Some of these people are paid by the public purse. But in my view, anybody paid by the public purse does not get licensed. It's to lie. And in the aftermath of all of this, I'm not going to be sort of bitter and I'm going to be out there campaigning in the by-election. But I am going to call that one thing out.

[00:21:28] Speaker 1: So Andy Byrne, I'm saying he's not being bitter, but sounding quite bitter and saying he's not going to call out the prime minister, but calling out the prime minister's.

[00:21:34] Speaker 2: Well, he's calling out the people who brief. That's what he was having a pop out there is the people who do lots of briefings. And we know that there has been a particularly active briefing scene in recent months. And the most recent kind of iteration of that was a bit of a fallout from that decision by the NEC. When they were. There was this thing going around about was Andy Byrne told in advance that if you put your name forward, then you're not going to get through. So was he kind of chucking his hat in the ring, knowing he wasn't going to have to follow through? He firmly denied that, came out and said, absolutely rubbish. That's just not true. But this is, I think, what led to this thing about all of the briefs that have been going around about it and his fairly passionate criticism of that bit. I mean, it's interesting, isn't it? Because Andy Byrne is now very much trying to say and he does this regular phone in on Radio Manchester every week. I think today's was the first time that he had really addressed in full what had happened about all of this. And he was very much trying to say I'm a team player, that this was never about personal ambition. I thought it was the right thing to do for the party to put my hat in the ring because I would have stood the best chance of winning. We know the argument from Keir Starmer and the other people on the NEC who thought he shouldn't stand, which is a costly mayoral by-election. Labour Party doesn't need that right now. All got to pull together. Behind the scenes, despite all that message of unity, you can just get the sense that isn't quite the case, is it? I mean, I think there is still quite a lot. There's still frustration, anger and a bit of bad blood bubbling around the place as a consequence of everything that's happened over this.

[00:22:55] Speaker 1: It does seem to me, though, this idea that was doing the rounds at the end of last year, that actually if somebody was going to strike against Starmer, they might actually do it before the elections in May.

[00:23:04] Speaker 2: Well, some people who are up for election who aren't fans of Keir Starmer were hoping for that. They thought they might increase their chances at the election. That's only one faction.

[00:23:12] Speaker 1: Yeah, that seems to have gone away. That would have been horrendous.

[00:23:16] Speaker 2: I think honestly, I mean, it's always a bit of a hard unscientific. Measure, but I think if you take the conversations we were having in the run up to Christmas, when it really felt that things were kind of boiling about Keir Starmer's leadership, it does feel that since then that things have calmed a bit. And for all of the people who do express frustration at Keir Starmer's leadership within the Labour Party, this is and the people that will point to the polling and the people that will say he, according to the polls, is unpopular with the public. There are other people who are advancing the argument and quite loudly in some quarters that it would be madness. To indulge in a kind of leadership contest at this point, point to what we've seen from other parties who did that and what they would say was the electoral damage that it did to them. So I think, you know, and certainly at this point when they are still only 18 months or so in after a kind of hefty election win. So those voices are pretty loud and clear as well that want the introspection to stop. Whether or not that means it actually will is another question.

[00:24:13] Speaker 1: I mean, Sarah, it's just worth noting how strange it is in British politics to be less than two years into. A prime ministership that was won by a landslide to be talking about his imminent replacement. We're so used to it now that it just is like water off a duck head's back. It is odd, actually.

[00:24:34] Speaker 3: I mean, it really is. But they were quite lucky this week, weren't they? Because then on Monday, when everybody might have been talking about it, suddenly the Tories take over or at least Reform UK do.

[00:24:44] Speaker 1: Yeah. And also in the Tories, it was split down the middle or not down the middle, split somewhere. Because you had Suella Braverman defecting to Reform. And then you had the other Andy, Andy Street, former mayor of the West Midlands, setting up his new group, trying to move Kemi Badenoch to the centre. Yeah. Even though Kemi Badenoch seems to want to move in a more Reform-ish direction.

[00:25:02] Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean, so it was Andy Street, former West Midlands mayor, and Ruth Davidson, former Scottish Conservative leader who did this, setting up this new group, Prosper UK, which they say was about trying to win back to the Conservative Party, the politically homeless, as they see it, more centrist voters. So the kind of people, for example, and it is an example, who might live around the south or southeast of England, that perhaps look towards the Liberal Democrats rather than the Conservative Party. And this was their argument that we need to not abandon that cohort and find a way to win them back. Kemi Badenoch then gave a speech in the wake of the defection of Suella Braverman to Reform and all of the other defections. And my reading of that speech from Kemi Badenoch was this was her trying to sort of assert her authority over the party after this run of defections of senior figures. Yeah. Sort of shrugging her shoulders about the defection and saying, look, if you don't like it, leave. You know, this is what I'm about. If you don't want to be part of my club, off you trot. That was sort of the message. But what was interesting was that when I and others put to her, what therefore are you saying about this sort of Ruth Davidson, Andy Street movement when they're saying, hang on, be careful not to go far too, you know, not to go too far in one direction that you alienate this group of voters. Kemi Badenoch was pretty clear. She said, we're a party of the right. You know, she said, I welcome what they're saying. Ruth Davidson. Andy Street. They're being supportive. But she was very clear. I'm the leader of the party. We're a party of the right. This is the direction that we're headed.

[00:26:25] Speaker 3: And it's very bitter, isn't it? That's what really struck me this week, because we did Tim Montgomery off the back of Suella Braverman's defection, who had when Robert Jenrick defected, he had owned up to the fact that he had been in conversation with Robert Jenrick. And he said that when that came out, the messages that he was getting from friends or former friends in the Conservative Party, were clearly just, I mean, very, very sort of angry, bitter messages, which and so he suggested that, you know, and people, you know, there are plenty in the party who would sort of think you look at the numbers, you look at the stats, the voting possibilities. These are two parties that probably if one of them wants to get into government, they need to be talking to each other. And from the conversation we had with him, it sounded like this is going to be really hard. And so nasty. Robert Jenrick.

[00:27:14] Speaker 2: What happened with Robert Jenrick? Robert Jenrick was the sort of point at which the notion of any sort of alliance was scuppered because of the way that the Robert Jenrick defection played out. I just would have the one caveat. I know that politics feels, you know, kind of constant. And we are clearly in a period of huge political flux and have been arguably for a bit of time. But we are still three years away from the next general election. As things stand.

[00:27:41] Speaker 1: Well, all we've got time for is me to say, Sarah, thank you. Thank you very much. James, thanks to you. Thank you very much. Absolutely. And thanks to you too, Alex.

[00:27:48] Speaker 2: Pleasure as ever.

[00:27:49] Speaker 1: Thank you, Sarah.