Trump Davos Agenda: Greenland, Peace Board, Gaza, Ukraine (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hello, it's another day where the world's news has been dominated by one man, Donald Trump, in one place, Davos for the World Economic Forum. Although a slight twist today, three different geopolitical crises have come under his purview. We will untangle them all on this latest episode of newscast. Well, in Washington DC is our chief North America correspondent Gary O'Donoghue. Hello, Gary. Hi, Adam. Nice to see you. You too. And welcome back from The Economist, Shashank Joshi. Hello, Shashank. Hello, good afternoon. Thanks for having me back. Thanks for coming back. There's so much to discuss as we record this episode of newscast at 4.36pm on Thursday, the 22nd of January. So yeah, where should we start? Gary, let's start with where we left off in the last episode of newscast, which was we had just got the breaking news on Wednesday night that Trump had climbed down on his threat to use tariffs over Greenland, and that he was talking about this new framework for negotiations over the fate of Greenland. What have we learned about that situation since?

[00:01:01] Speaker 2: Not a lot, to be honest. He's still talking as he leaves Davos, which he did in the last few minutes, in very general terms about the agreement, there are no specifics. The Prime Minister of Greenland has just been speaking and saying that, you know, nothing can be agreed without the agreement of Greenland and Denmark as well, that they weren't the NATO wasn't negotiating on their behalf. So it is, it is bewildering. I mean, yesterday, to be honest, it was about it was like watching one of those political dramas on Netflix, where everything is compressed into an hour, and something happens every other scene. And it was it was like, it was so utterly confusing. And we're still no clearer, I think today, exactly what that's going to look like. I mean, I would guess if I was a betting person that there's something to do with sovereignty over bits of the island, potentially, but then you get that kind of thing. In diplomatic terms, don't you with embassies and maybe with military bases as well, you could see something like that. But as far as we know, there's no deal that certainly that Denmark or Greenland or, or signed up to at this point in time.

[00:02:15] Speaker 1: Yeah, and we could do a bit of a thought experiment about what could be in the deal when it ever appears. But one thing we do know, Shashank, is that Trump changed his position after a meeting with Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO, it sounds like he the former Dutch Prime Minister is the person that might have unlocked all of this.

[00:02:31] Speaker 3: There's huge criticism wasn't there of Mark Rutter, who famously called Trump daddy at last year's NATO summit and published, you know, the sycophantic letter was published online. And again, we saw this text message published yet again in the last week where he was really full of, you know, praising Donald Trump, this fulsome message. Now, on the one hand, yes, he seems to have talked Donald Trump around to some agreement. And by the way, Mark Rutter has said today, this morning, actually, this deal doesn't involve any change to Danish sovereignty. So that suggests to me, we're not looking at a kind of Cyprus sovereign base area solution, we may be looking at some kind of long term lease, maybe something even less than that. On the other hand, what I would say is to zoom out and this isn't just all about Rutter. Trump backed down, not just because Mark Rutter talked him round and sweet talked him, I have to say, we also must keep in view, he came round because Europeans held firm, had a united response. Trump saw the reaction in the markets that also spooked him. So I think this is a story both of Rutter's flattery, Rutter's Trump whispering, and a story of European resilience and strength and unity in a way that we haven't actually seen in a very, very long time.

[00:03:41] Speaker 1: And also 10 Downing Street was saying to journalists at lunchtime at their daily briefing that actually a lot of behind the scenes diplomacy had been done by the UK to get Donald Trump into this position as well. But because it's behind the scenes, and we'll never know. So we'll never be able to judge them on that with actual evidence. Gary, this is an impossible question to answer. But from your long experience of observing Donald Trump, do you think he's now got enough on Greenland and enough of a process wherever that ends up, that means he can now actually just sort of switch this one off for a little while and move on to his next thing?

[00:04:12] Speaker 2: I think the thing we've learned about the President is that stuff is never over. There's never a final conclusion. There's never an end point. He can reopen anything at any time. He can go back to things, he can lose interest, he can return, he can move the goalposts as the British government has found only to evidently recently over Diego Garcia, you know, randomly suddenly move the goalposts and things like that. So we'll see what happens. He will be conscious when all these sort of acres of print are published, suggesting that he climbed down that he was forced to back off. He'll be very conscious about that. He won't like that one bit once he starts to absorb that. And then who knows what we'll see, you know, once he's up in the air in the next few minutes on that seven little 757 that he had to take because of the problems with Air Force One, and he gets out the tablet, you know, and starts to tap away. Who knows what will come out at that point in time. I don't think this is done.

[00:05:18] Speaker 1: But Shashank, on the substance of what could happen with Greenland and what this eventual deal might contain, we have got some more clues from Donald Trump about some of the things that he is obsessed about. And it's not just sovereignty. In other words, bits of Greenland being American territory in perpetuity, legally. It's also things like the Golden Dome, his missile defence system that he wants to build for the United States, and also an old tune played again, access to critical minerals.

[00:05:46] Speaker 3: Which, of course, in his Davos speech, he denied being interested in. He said this isn't about minerals. This is all about security. It's all about Golden Dome. But clearly the agreement seems to imply some kind of American first right of refusal on minerals, or at least some vetting of Chinese and Russian involvement, which seems to be entirely sensible. Of course, in practice, that's what we had back in 2018, 2019. When China was involved in building airports in Greenland, the Americans didn't like it. They went to the Danes and said, please stop this. And the Danes stopped it. So really, we may just be putting a new badge on what existed before. Same with Golden Dome. I was talking to missile defence experts, radar experts and said, look, is there anything beyond the early warning radar that is on Greenland, a version of which has been on Greenland for 50 plus years, that would be necessary for Golden Dome, which, of course, is designed to stop not just intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also drones, hypersonic cruise missiles. And the answer was really no. Technically, not really. But if it helps a deal to say to Trump, you can put new sensors on Greenland, new radars on Greenland for Golden Dome, if that's what it takes, I think the Danes would have said, fine, no problem. We can do that. But let's be clear, this isn't something technically necessary that the Danes were resisting until Trump threatened them. This was this was possible at any time in the last year or so.

[00:07:06] Speaker 1: Let's move on to something else Donald Trump's been doing in Davos, which is unveiling his Board of Peace, which I'm calling the BOP. But that does make it sound a bit too jaunty, although it does have odd elements. Gary, where do we think this? Where do you think that what has the BOP actually become?

[00:07:23] Speaker 2: A BOP till you drop, no doubt. The BOP seems to have become a sort of something that's no longer just focused on Gaza, which was the thing that in some ways was endorsed by the Security Council a few months ago, seems to become a sort of global rival to the United Nations itself, ironically. And the President paraded a whole bunch of countries that had signed up 19 countries, I think he had in the room. There are others that say they've signed up. Crucially, though, and this goes back to what we've just been saying about the European countries, you know, the only European country represented there was Hungary. And we know that there's a special relationship between Donald Trump and Viktor Orban. None of the Western European countries have chosen to sign up whatsoever. They say that they're particularly concerned about the invitation to Putin to be part of it and about the nature of this as an international treaty. In any case, you know, you dig down into some of the details of the board and it's an extraordinary kind of personal kind of fiefdom, if you like, I suppose, for the President. He seems to have a place on it until he dies and then can or can name his successor who can then name their successor. It's kind of, it's a kind of peerage type system, isn't it?

[00:08:44] Speaker 3: One of my colleagues commented that not only was this like the real estate world that he comes from, you know, this is a real estate focused enterprise with Gaza. But actually, what reminded him of was Miss Universe, the Miss Universe competition, which Trump was obviously very closely involved in this idea. He sat above this organisation, which was not just a professional organisation. It was his personal fiefdom. It was something he controlled. And I think that very much sort of resonates with what we saw today.

[00:09:09] Speaker 1: And also, Gary, is it true that people are having to stump up a billion dollars to be part of this that was that was doing the rounds at the start?

[00:09:16] Speaker 2: Yeah, apparently, if you want to be on it permanently, you have to you have to cough a billion. Otherwise, there's a sort of a peer sort of term period, you get to be on it, you know, invited to join it for we'll see whether you know who is prepared to do that, apparently, and I only saw this briefly before I came to talk to Putin, or one of his spokesmen suggested he's prepared to, to stomp up, but he wants that billion to come from the frozen assets.

[00:09:46] Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. So the Russian assets that are in America, but have been frozen because of the erosion of Ukraine, he's saying you could you could take that billion and then consider that my my entry fee. Shashank, I mean, it's it's it's difficult to take it seriously as a geopolitical force, the Board of Peace or the BOP. But is there I mean, is there a reason to take it seriously?

[00:10:06] Speaker 3: Well, I think look, we know that Trump and his movement as a whole, have contempt for existing international organizations. And that's not just NATO, which was become apparently clear after this week, where he you know, he Trump posted a social media post saying NATO is the real enemy, but actually goes much beyond that. I think you've alluded to the United Nations. We know the US doesn't like the United Nations. And we know this isn't just Trump, Republicans of all stripes going back 30, 40 years have been very sceptical of the United Nations as a body, seeing it as something out of their control, curtailing American sovereignty. But I would go further, I'd say think about the clashes America has had under Trump, with Europe over welcoming Russia back into the G8, from which it was expelled, of course, after the invasion of Crimea in 2014. And Trump has said, I want Russia back in the G8. Europeans have said, no, it's a G7. Now we don't want Russia back. This looks to me, very much like an effort to sideline, bypass or just circumvent existing international institutions beyond the United Nations. But of course, if you look at the makeup of it, it still has this sort of weird, authoritarian Middle Eastern flavor. There are countries, you know, Bulgaria, Argentina, Vietnam, it isn't just Middle Eastern. But of course, it shows that the roots in the Gaza problem. But if you're asking, can this solve problems in the South China Sea? Is this going to solve problems, crises in Cuba? The answer is evidently not. It doesn't have the composition, it doesn't have the legitimacy. And members of the Global South, not just European countries, but India, you know, countries like that, are looking at this and thinking, well, we may not trust everything about the UN, but we certainly don't want to create a new institution that is just dominated by the United States. That's not what we signed up for here.

[00:11:53] Speaker 1: And of course, China have declined to participate so far. Although Shashank, I do just always think when I was in Brussels, diplomats said the important thing was getting an invite to be at the table. And that was a victory. And actually, things happen at tables. And so this gives a lot of countries access to Donald Trump. But then I suppose, everyone in the world has access to Donald Trump, because you can just phone him, as Gary O'Donoghue well knows.

[00:12:21] Speaker 3: Well, it's a bit like, it's a Mar-a-Lago model, isn't it? It's a membership club. It's a country club in which you pay for membership for access to the president. That is exactly what, as Gary will, I'm sure, tell us what happens at Mar-a-Lago, you know, foreign diplomats, lobbyists sign up for these huge membership fees in order to sit at the table across from the president, where they may get five minutes to lobby him on their pet peeve. So let me ask you, why is Pakistan on the board of peace? It's not because they have been integral to diplomacy around Gaza. It's because they think this is a great venue in which they can get a little bit of face time with the president. So you're right. I think that's absolutely what the calculation is for some of these countries.

[00:13:05] Speaker 2: Mongolia seems to have a seat at the table, as well as a bunch of the stands as well. And I think that point is absolutely right. This is about, in some ways, a sort of very old fashioned medieval idea of sort of paying tribute, isn't it? This is, this is countries coming and, you know, stomping up and paying their respects to the sort of the emperor or the king and that kind of thing. And we know that's how the president sees himself. The difficulty for it, of course, is that whatever you think about the UN, and my goodness, the UN has its critics, not just in the United States, but elsewhere. But the UN has structures, it has agencies, it has sort of arms through which it can operate. This thing is just a bunch of largely blokes sat around a table, albeit powerful blokes. But what are they? What are their mechanisms for getting anything done other than pressure and strong arming?

[00:14:01] Speaker 1: I've just been googling that word that I've never actually said out loud. So I would be grateful for advice about how to say it. Is it potentate? Potentate?

[00:14:09] Speaker 2: Yes.

[00:14:10] Speaker 1: Yeah. Potentate. Monarch or ruler, especially an autocratic one. I just actually never said potentate out loud. Although I feel like I've read it in many captions in museums over my time. It's not a word you need on a daily basis, is it? Well, unless you work at The Economist. Yeah, obviously. Also, Shashank, I'm sure at The Economist, from your perch at The Economist, you will have seen the slideshow that Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law, gave at Davos, which is his vision, and presumably Donald Trump's vision, for what Gaza looks like in an idealised future. Yeah.

[00:14:41] Speaker 3: Well, I mean, this is a sort of echo of that bizarre AI-generated video we saw, was it last year, of Gaza Riviera, of Trump Tower emerging in Gaza? And of course, you know, look, it's perfectly legitimate to say you want to see Gaza redeveloped, turned into a prosperous, thriving place from its really dire state at present. Of course, everyone understands that. The problem is we're so far from that, the board of peace and these visions of real estate are such a distraction from the short-term tasks you have of questions like how will you demilitarise Hamas? How do you get the Israelis to withdraw from the bits of Gaza that they control? How do you develop a peacekeeping force to Gaza that can enforce a peace that will have legitimacy on the ground? Having slide decks of skyscrapers in Gaza is completely meaningless unless you solve those first order problems. And we are very, very far away from doing that still.

[00:15:39] Speaker 1: Isn't it a posher version of what Tony Blair used to do when he was the envoy for Middle East peace, where he would do things like trying to get better mobile phone coverage in Gaza? Isn't it just a more glamorous version of that more prosaic thing, which is economics helps you solve political violence? Shashank?

[00:16:00] Speaker 3: Well, I think, yes, that's right.

[00:16:02] Speaker 1: A bit of a challenge. A Trump style challenge to that.

[00:16:05] Speaker 3: No, well, of course, that's true. First of all, Blair, of course, was a representative of the Quartet. So that included the EU, it included other bodies. He had proper institutional backing behind him. So that was a slightly different thing. But also, I think, you know, day-to-day improvements in economic life are one thing. When Blair was operating, you had flare-ups between Israel and the armed factions. But what's happened in Gaza in the last three years is so much more destructive. This has been so much more calamitous. You know, improving economics here and there is not the order of the day. You can't envisage large scale redevelopment of Gaza without solving the serious, serious problems that you need in those subsequent phases of the peace deal.

[00:16:46] Speaker 2: Gary, you wanted to make a point. Yeah, no, I was just saying that the map is intriguing, because it has little markers for things like, you know, data centres that they think are going to be. And it has little green spaces for parks and things like that. Now, I've not been to Gaza, and I don't know how, you know, practically speaking, it is to have green spaces in Gaza. But, you know, it does make you wonder, okay, maybe we should feed people first before we worry about the data centres.

[00:17:13] Speaker 3: I mean, I'll give you an example of what I'm trying to get across with these short term issues, right? You've got something called the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. It's meant to be this kind of technocratic government that will look over Gaza. It's meant to take control of civilian affairs. It's got 15 members. So far, Israel has not allowed its 15 members into the Gaza Strip. The meeting had to be held in Cairo. And so, you know, Hamas still has a really strong grip on the ground. I think the estimate that my colleagues give me is that it controls nearly half the Strip. So the skyscrapers, I'm sorry, this is just pie in the sky until we solve those problems.

[00:17:50] Speaker 1: Literally, in the case of skyscrapers. Gary, last thing on our agenda, Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president was in Davos as well, meeting Donald Trump as well. And I don't want to say that Zelensky sounded bored, because this is a man fighting for his country's survival. But he certainly sounded frustrated about just the process, the constant grind his country is under.

[00:18:14] Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean, amidst everything else, of course, and the focus has been slightly off of Ukraine recently, they have been under an enormous bombardment this winter. It's an incredibly harsh winter, as we know, in Ukraine. Russia has been doing everything to turn the lights out and to turn the heating off in Ukraine. And, you know, it's having some long term effects when certainly when I was there last autumn, if there was damage to, to, you know, the power in one point, they would repair it pretty quickly. And they're now struggling to do that much, you know, much more sort of systematic way because of the targeting of the energy grid and everything like that. So it's not surprising he's, he's in he's feeling that, however, he is still sounding reasonably optimistic about this potential deal, the one that I can't remember if he said it was 90% there, or Donald Trump said 95. One of them said 91 said 95 in December. And they do seem to be edging towards some sort of agreement on security guarantees. But and it's the huge but, and this is something you know, whether these trilateral talks in the UAE, the next couple of days will change in this, that the core issue is territory. And there's no agreement on territories, no agreement about Ukraine giving up its positions in in the Donbass, which it still holds these so called fortress cities that the Russians want. There's no agreement about Zaporizhia and the nuclear plant there, which is under Russian control. At the moment, no agreement about potential, you know, free economic zone, that was one of the things the Ukrainians had, Ukrainians had floated in that sort of contact area. So the actual key part reason for the war is really unresolved. And so we'll see what comes in the next few days. I someone was saying these are the first time of trilateral talks. I think they were in Istanbul, all together at one point, maybe they weren't in the same room together. But the implication is that they may be in the same room together in the next two days.

[00:20:14] Speaker 1: But yeah, Shashank, what's your take on the fact that these talks are going to be trilateral or tripartite? In other words, they're going to be Ukraine, Russia and the US seemingly together as opposed to shuttling from room to room to room with the whole gang never meeting at the same time.

[00:20:29] Speaker 3: I'm, I'm very sceptical. You know, I think there's so far, we've seen really no indication from the Russian side, that they're receptive to the proposals that have been hatched out between the Americans and Europeans and the Ukrainians. I'm not sure having the Russians in the same room makes an awful lot of difference. I think the fact that Zelensky and Trump, you know, have kind of come away from the meeting today with without signing an agreement on any of the economics on the guarantees is a bad omen for those trilateral talks should they happen. Fundamentally, you can do all the talking you want. I think you can have the Russians in the room, out the room, as long as the Russians feel that the trajectory is better for them than for the Ukrainians, and that they can still wait Trump out. They have very little incentive to really give much at the table. And for now, I think everything we see coming out of Trump, everything we see out of these meetings, will give the Russians a cause to cling on to drag out the timeline and hope that Trump loses interest as he has done before.

[00:21:28] Speaker 1: Well, Shashank, thank you very much for contributing to our newscast timeline today.

[00:21:33] Speaker 3: Thank you.

[00:21:33] Speaker 1: And Gary, great to catch up with you as well. Thanks, Adam. Joe Pike is here. Hello, Joe. Hi, Adam. How you doing? Not in Westminster. We're in the same place. We are in the same place. Except it's not the newscast studio. It's a different studio. We're in a different place. We're in the same place. This is Nicky Campbell's studio normally on Five Live. Wow. Yeah. So normally the phones would be ringing off the hook with people phoning in going, what's happening with Andrew Gwynne MP? Or soon to be not MP. Exactly.

[00:21:55] Speaker 4: Oh, you're asking me that? Yeah.

[00:21:56] Speaker 1: That was my way of asking you.

[00:21:58] Speaker 4: Remind us who Andrew Gwynne is. He's a veteran Labour MP, was quite prominent under Jeremy Corbyn. You may remember that moment where him and Boris Johnson in the spin room of one of the leadership debates years back had this weird tussle because they were going sort of head to head. More recently, he was a public health minister and then was suspended from the Labour Party, had the Labour whip removed because of reports of offensive messages that he posted in a WhatsApp group. Now, Andrew Gwynne for many years... About constituents. About constituents and about colleagues. I remember when the story broke being in a car park and being handed a USB by a source with these WhatsApps on it. So it's a complicated and contested sort of reason and series of events that led to him being suspended. But it always seemed difficult for him to return to the Labour fold, certainly the next election. He's also long been very open about his mental health struggles. And today he has confirmed that he'll be standing down as the MP for Gorton and Denton. And a by-election will happen soon.

[00:23:09] Speaker 1: Just as we were recording this bit of newscast just before four o'clock on Thursday, we've had confirmation from Andrew Gwynne. He's put out a statement and he's gone into quite a lot of detail, including a paragraph from his GP.

[00:23:21] Speaker 4: Exactly. I think because he wants to explain to his constituents and maybe because this, as we'll talk about this, this may become quite a big national story, why he's made this difficult, difficult decision. And he talks about the most difficult mental health challenges he's faced over his life. He talks about the advice from his GP, which he has quoted the GP saying, despite the treatment and support he has received since February, this is last February, I think when everything really kicked off about this WhatsApp group and the allegations around it. I worry that there is still a marked dissociation between the reality of his difficulties and the quotes front that he shows to the world. He remains on a very high dose of medication based on my knowledge of him over the past 10 years and 30 years as a GP with an interest in mental health. I do not think it likely that he will be able to return to his previous quotes normal from the pattern of his illness since 2014 and the records we have since 2010. I think that he will remain extremely vulnerable and further stress will cause rapid deterioration as it did in February. I do not think that he will be able to safely return to work as an MP. And what we think has also happened, although we don't have confirmation from this yet, is that the trustees of Parliament's pension scheme have approved, or in the process of approving, basically a medical retirement, that he will get money for a retirement, a pension on medical grounds.

[00:24:50] Speaker 1: So that then opens the way for a by-election in that part of Greater Manchester. Why, and we know the answer to this question, why has instantly everybody linked it to Andy Burnham coming back to Parliament?

[00:25:01] Speaker 4: Because it's in his patch and because the signs suggest he would like to go for it and the timing would be perfect, especially if Keir Starmer faces some form of leadership challenge after the May local Scottish and Welsh elections. Now after this week where Keir Starmer is seen as performing well at PMQs, well on the world stage amidst this Trump-related unrest, maybe, as some MPs have suggested to me, that leadership challenge is left less likely in May. But the only way Andy Burnham can stand as Labour leader is if he is an MP. He can't be both an MP and the Mayor of Greater Manchester because as the Mayor he has Police and Crime Commissioner powers and legally you can't be an MP and be a PCC. Therefore he'd have to get a seat and this is a seat at a perfect time, Adam.

[00:25:49] Speaker 1: And in his backyard. So if Andy Burnham did want to be the Labour candidate in this upcoming by-election, who would decide that he gets to be the candidate? Because there's the competition for these things.

[00:26:00] Speaker 4: Absolutely. We don't know exactly who will have a say but the key body is Labour's ruling National Executive Committee. They usually shortlist candidates. They also have a power to make a decision over whether people who are already in significant posts can sort of resign those significant posts, like for example a Regional Mayor, to go for a Westminster seat. Now Keir Starmer's grip on this key committee in the inside of the party is slightly loosened in recent months but he still really does have a majority there. So effectively Keir Starmer and his hench people could control who at least is on the short list and then maybe the members will decide. But really we're interested in not the composition of a short list but whether or not they'd block Andy Burnham. And from conversations I've had today with lots of different people in the Labour Party, there do seem to be some who think Andy Burnham, if he goes for it, should be blocked.

[00:27:00] Speaker 1: Right, so you would say the majority of people think that or there's enough people to mean that it's a possibility or he's got some opponents and they're talking to you? It's impossible to know but I'm just trying to gauge how likely it is that he would be blocked basically.

[00:27:18] Speaker 4: I think it depends on what your view of Keir Starmer is and where you are in the spectrum of the Labour Party and because there are a lot on the soft left and left of the party who think Andy Burnham is very skilled and very talented and polls suggest he's very popular with members and therefore could be a real threat to Keir Starmer. Amongst those who are more pro-Starmer there are a couple of arguments they are already making about why it wouldn't be mad to block him. Now one is about money. If they had to, because he was only elected to Greater Manchester Mayor or re-elected in 2024, they want every single metropolitan borough in Greater Manchester, that would be very costly not just for the taxpayers in that part of the North West but also for the Labour Party. It would cost one person, estimated to me today, half a million pounds to put on that campaign because it is a big area with millions of people. That's not the doorbell, that's Joe's phone ringing. That's my phone, someone else ringing. Does that not confuse you when you're at home? My doorbell doesn't sound like that. And this person was making the argument that if you are to take money to put in an Andy Burnham, and people have told me if you are to put money behind a Greater Manchester Mayor or campaign again, they would argue unnecessarily, that is money that you're taking away from candidates in Scotland and in Wales. So Andy Burnham is causing, they would argue, a situation where it's going to be harder for the Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour parties to campaign. So money is the one argument. And the second argument, I think this is harder to believe but maybe Polls will suggest it's correct. They say, what about reform, the threat of reform and reform winning not just potentially this seat, Andrew Gwynne's old constituency in Westminster and the momentum that would bring, but also what about them winning the Greater Manchester Mayoral seat. Now, if you look at the results from last time, that does look far fetched. But of course, it is a really diverse place. It's not just about Manchester, the City Council in the centre, it's about Bolton and Bury and Wigan and Stockport and Thameside.

[00:29:31] Speaker 1: And it wouldn't be a normal election because it'd be taking place in the context where people would be making accusations of what is it called, carpetbagging, where Andy Burnham was just trying to get himself into a position that benefited him, as opposed to doing something that was just normal politics.

[00:29:46] Speaker 4: Yeah. And I mean, the people on that side of the party, Adam, argue that you stood for an election to a very important and highly paid role 18 months ago, like why would you jump and there are various MPs who are against Burnham and one who I asked today, why are you so against them, sent me a list. I wish I can go through. Yeah. How long is it? Not that long. Okay. So I said, why not Andy Burnham? Why are you so against him? Bad blood after leaving in 2017, leaving Westminster, no relationship with the 2024 intake of MPs. The bond markets nonsense of this person described it. You can't deny the financial gravity of that, these comments he made at the time of the last Labour Party conference last September. A condescending attitude that none of the 404 Labour MPs could do the job of Labour leader and PM. A failure to deliver in Greater Manchester on tackling homelessness. We should say Andy Burnham, I'm sure, would contest all of these claims. Undermining Westminster from afar for years and now wanting to come back. The circus he performed at conference last year and to change some of the wording here, the mess that was the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone. He has a lot of opponents in Westminster, Adam, but that's perhaps because they also realise he's popular with a lot of Labour members. If he gets into Parliament, that is one big hurdle for him. And look, he's a very experienced, talented, skilled communicator. He's run for the Labour leadership twice before and failed and maybe it could be third time lucky for him.

[00:31:21] Speaker 1: Has he himself said anything about all of this today?

[00:31:24] Speaker 4: No, his aides, people close to him, have said he had no awareness of any of this Andrew Gwynne speculation. That was speculation Andrew Gwynne might stand down before we had the confirmation in the last 20 minutes or so. And I think that their messaging has been that he's been focused on his full-time job.

[00:31:46] Speaker 1: And Keir Starmer has been on a visit today, so he's been in front of the cameras. Did he get asked about this?

[00:31:51] Speaker 4: He certainly did. And he would not say whether he supported Andy Burnham standing as an MP. This was before Andrew Gwynne's announcement. We all sort of knew what was coming. He said, it is a very early stage and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party will set out the process in the usual way, as it always does for by-elections. Andy Burnham is doing an excellent job as Mayor of Manchester. He means Greater Manchester, of course. We work very closely together. I would suggest that is... Stay where you are. Stay where you are, perhaps for now. But it is early days and there are people who think, and not just to the left of Labour, there are people who think if Keir Starmer were to block, or his apparatchiks on the NEC were to block Burnham, it would look weak. It would look like he was running scared. Why not face up the leadership challenge and show that you have, especially after this great week on the world stage, that you can show him down instead of using the Labour Party rule book to stymie him returning to Parliament?

[00:32:53] Speaker 1: You talked about Starmer having a good week on the world stage and also a good week at Prime Minister's Questions. Just expand a bit on why that's the kind of the review of Starmer's week this week.

[00:33:03] Speaker 4: I think because in the context of the last few months, he's had a really difficult time. And if you talk to a lot of Labour MPs, they are... They don't necessarily have a plan if they're against him, but they are... So many of them, I would say, are pretty negative about some of the decisions that have been made in the government and some of the interventions that Keir Starmer has made in front of the cameras. But I think a lot of them believe that at Prime Minister's Questions, the language, the tone of his response in this week of real uncertainty and turbulence on the world stage was impressive and reassuring. I was talking to one MP this morning who was saying... I don't think he's, at the moment, a huge fan of Keir Starmer, but was saying maybe there won't be a challenge in May, maybe he'll last longer, because voters at this time of turbulence might want someone they know is seemingly, arguably, a safe pair of hands. And a lot of things he's done or not done, I think, are also significant. There was a lot of pressure on Keir Starmer to go to Davos, but actually not going, not engaging with Donald Trump face to face, and actually... It meant he didn't get caught up in the drama. Exactly. Which reinforced his position at the start of the week, which was, let's not have a drama about this. He could have put on some aviators, like Emmanuel Macron, and seemingly been quite critical, or not worn aviators, but done a Mark Carney, and also been seemingly quite critical of Donald Trump. Instead, he did something different, but addressed Parliament in a clear way. And certainly some of the more worried, concerned, jittish Labour MPs seemed reassured by that. And I think that it shows you many things. Maybe it shows that, God, how short term are the outlooks of Labour MPs. They completely change. And also, I should say, even though there's lots of negativity on the Labour benches, a lot of the potential rebels admit they don't really have a plan or an idea. So it doesn't, nothing seems hugely imminent or well coordinated anyway. Joe, thank you. Thanks, Adam.