Adam Fleming (2:36)

Downing street let's go have a tour. Blimey hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio.

Chris Mason (2:42)

And it's Chris in the studio.

Alex Forsyth (2:43)

And it's Alex in the studio and.

Daniella Radice (2:45)

And it's Daniella in the studio.

Adam Fleming (2:46)

And it's interesting having you two sat opposite me because, Daniela, I feel you've been covering the fallout from the Epstein files for, well, like a decade or more now.

Alex Forsyth (2:55)

Almost feels like it, yeah.

Adam Fleming (2:56)

And it's come and gone in politics, but it's now really smashed into British politics. It's interesting to have the two of you here and you as well.

Daniella Radice (3:03)

Yeah.

Alex Forsyth (3:03)

I was just about to say Alex is really boring. He sat next to me.

Adam Fleming (3:06)

No, it's because they're in my. They're the visual representation of the two worlds.

Alex Forsyth (3:10)

I believe you, honestly.

Adam Fleming (3:12)

Right. Anyway, Alex.

Alex Forsyth (3:14)

So interesting.

Adam Fleming (3:17)

Give me a way of working out how much trouble Keir Starmer is in, but without sounding like somebody going on social media who's saying, oh, he's gonna have to resign by tomorrow lunchtime. Like, what's a. What's a. What's a good way of working out where he is?

Alex Forsyth (3:32)

All right, so let me just tell you one thing that happened today, which I think was a sign of just how seriously Keir Starmer and his team are taking this moment. They were due to do a big speech talking about pride and unity in local communities. And what happened, he had to rip up the top of that speech speech and totally rewrite it to address head on the questions that are swirling about his judgment and leadership. And that, to me, is a clear sign that aside from the million and one different perspectives you'll get either on social media or even talking to Labour mps, that within the number 10 operation themselves, they recognize that this is a real moment of vulnerability and they had to do something about it.

Adam Fleming (4:08)

And then, Chris, two things, because you were at that speech in Hastings. One, what was it like in the room when he did the apology? What was his demeanor like? And then what was it like when journalist after journalist after journalist was just really being quite forensic about what he knew when.

Chris Mason (4:22)

So the first thing was the room was full. The room was not really big enough for the number of journalists who were there because, you know, they hadn't anticipated it would be as newsworthy as it clearly was. I thought Keir Starmer was awkward today. I thought he was uncomfortable. And I don't say that as a criticism, as a human being. If you've decided as a result of a sequence of events that we can unpack the extent to which this is his fault or not. If you're Standing there in front of the cameras, as Alex says, at the start of what is meant to be a speech about something else. And you're apologizing to the victims of the most horrific abuse because you have concluded that your own actions and the actions of others have contributed to something that you feel you need to apologize for. That's quite a thing, isn't it? In the space of 15 seconds, I think he said sorry three times. You think of the number of times that we have conversations on newscast about politics, politicians, where there is a demand that they apologize for something, and. And for whatever reason, they're choosing not to. And there he was doing just that. Now he was making an argument in that speech. In contrast, as he sees it, to Lord Mandelson, about how he. And he said, most politicians of every political outlook are. Approach their job with integrity and. And do it. Do it as he would see it in the right way. And he saw today through that prism. But, yeah, it was really, really uncomfortable.

Adam Fleming (5:52)

Let's hear a little bit of it now.

Audio Clip (Keir Starmer) (5:55)

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, and sorry that even now, you're forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.

Adam Fleming (6:26)

And then, Chris, the questions from journalists like yourself was all about the timeline of who knew what, when, and what does that reveal about Keir Starmer's judgment.

Chris Mason (6:34)

Yeah, and this is where, you know, politics is a rough old game, because a lot of this we asked six or seven months ago, back in September, when Lord Mandelson was sacked as ambassador. The curiosity with this news story through the Westminster prism of the last few days is that there's been all of these revelations relating to Lord Mandelson that, you know, rightly are subject to a huge amount of scrutiny. But actually, we've now got to the place politically where the question is about the Prime Minister's judgment and the Prime Minister's judgment at the time in hiring Lord Mandelson. In other words, what could he have reasonably found out that was in the public domain at the time? What reason? Reasonably, Via a vetting process that they're now pretty critical of, both publicly and privately. Could that have turned up? Could it realistically have got even close to the kind of information we've got now? And then they are obviously being incredibly blunt about what they accuse Lord Mandelson of, as they describe it, lies. And we should say that, you know, Lord Mandelson's had plenty of opportunities, comment publicly and has chosen not to. But we understand that he's of the. Of the view that he answered the questions in front of the vetting process accurately and that he'll cooperate with the, with the, with the police.

Adam Fleming (7:47)

We'll come back to the political implications in a second. But, Daniela, there's been more claims over the last couple of days in the royal space and a big story that the BBC has been covering that we've not done so much on newscast because we've been looking at the politics. But that infamous photo of then Prince Andrew and Virginia giuffre More than 20 years ago, a photo that he said might not even be real. The emails released by the Epstein from the Epstein releases suggest that it is real.

Daniella Radice (8:17)

Yeah, that photo I think everyone will remember. And in my mind, it really does symbolize the start of the real public downfall of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. It's that one of him standing with Virginia Giuffre, who of course accused him of sexual abuse. There's Ghislaine Maxwell in the background. He appears to have his arm around Virginia Giuffre's waist. Now, in the Newsnight interview, he said he had no recollection, of course, of meeting Virginia Giuffre, no recollection of that photo, and seemed in his answers to cast doubt on whether it was genuine. Perhaps it had been doctored, was the phrase he used. But in the latest drop of Epstein files, there's an email in there from 2015 from Ghislaine Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein. And in it she seems to suggest that that photo is true. It was 2001, it was her home in London, and that that photo was definitely true, it was real, it wasn't doctored. It did happen. She was there.

Adam Fleming (9:06)

And it appears to be from her.

Alex Forsyth (9:08)

Email address, it appears to be.

Daniella Radice (9:09)

You know, I mean, the problem, as ever, with all of these files, is totally verifying and checking that all the addresses and they are correct. But it comes from a Ghislaine Maxwell to an Epstein in the names that are in the to and the received bit at the top of the email.

Adam Fleming (9:23)

Yeah. And then there's another area where our worlds have crossed over, which is we're used to doing the doorstep, which is like shouting the question at the politician who's under fire. And they sometimes answer, sometimes they don't. And their demeanor can tell you the whole story. But royal reporters tend to not have done that in the past, but now they are.

Daniella Radice (9:41)

Can I slightly defend the royal reporter Here, please. I think sometimes we get a bit of a.

Adam Fleming (9:47)

Actually, I'm now remembering, yeah, people saying to Prince William, is your family racist after the Meghan?

Daniella Radice (9:51)

I mean, that wasn't actually a royal correspondent who asked him in that moment. But, you know, the idea that we, you know, I am a member of the Royal pool, so, you know, I see the, you know, travel with them a lot, go around with them a lot. The idea that we don't question and don't ask and don't try and get guidance and find the right people, I think we get.

Adam Fleming (10:08)

That's not what I was suggesting.

Daniella Radice (10:09)

No, I'm not saying you were, but there is an implication, I think, that somehow we are all raging monarchists and we daren't ask anybody anything if it's difficult. I mean, that isn't the case. I mean, you know, we have seen today the King out and about, which is, I think it's probably a bit like the royal equivalent of you seeing Kirstama today. You know, he, he is. It's the first time we've seen him this week properly out and about in, you know, in any kind of public space. And, you know, he was shouted out and asked some questions by journalists in the kind of old fashioned doorstep way. You know, have you got any message from, for the victims? What did, you know, those kind of questions and you know, okay, it rarely happens, but it does happen sometimes. And this is clearly the moments where people are going to ask and people want to see if he's going to say something. He's never going to reply in that moment, he just isn't. But it is, I think it's important to ask. There were a few hecklers around as well. Nothing particularly significant, actually. I think the police were perhaps thinking that today in Essex, on this engagement the King was on, there might be a few more hecklers out there. There weren't. I think the thing to remember with it, talking to a few people today about it, is that the King is well aware of what is going on here. The idea, just because they're not saying anything publicly, they're not across the kind of pain and the anguish and the difficulty that this is causing. He's not going to answer anything when he's being shouted at. But I think they don't also perhaps want to feel like they're hiding away either. They want to be out there and if that means exposing them to being shouted at, that's what happens. And the other thing just to remember briefly is he is used to being shouted at and Perhaps people protesting. You know, I stood, you know, a couple of years ago, I was standing next to him and someone threw an egg at him in York and landed literally off. He, you know, he understands that's part of his sort of being out there in the public. It's important for him to be out there and be seen. And he understands that.

Adam Fleming (11:54)

And you gave me another amazing insight into how the royals, or former royals in particular, communicate. When we did newscast on Monday and you were pointing out those pictures of Andrew, the paparazzi pictures of him out riding his horse, and you were saying, that's effectively him making a statement without saying anything.

Alex Forsyth (12:11)

Yeah.

Daniella Radice (12:11)

When I was speaking to you on Monday, I mean, I didn't quite realise at that point how significant those photos were gonna be. We had two photos basically, on Monday, which was him on horseback riding through Windsor Great park and then that drive down the long walk in Windsor where he was sort of smiling and, you know, waving at people. I think those were the two photos that did it for him, really, in terms of Royal Lodge. And I just don't think there was anybody in the Royal household that could stomach it for a moment longer. And that night he was moved up to Norfolk or was told he had to go. You know, talking to a few people today about it. They say that they can't. Somebody said to me they couldn't quite understand whether that was arrogance on his part or whether he lives in such a bubble. He didn't actually really understand the gravity of what was happening on Monday. They couldn't give me an answer one way or the other, but it shows you how difficult the situation is to manage.

Adam Fleming (13:03)

And then if we go back to the politics and we talk about today's episode of Newscast that is available now on BBC Sounds, I had a chat with Luke Sullivan, who used to be an advisor to Keir Starmer, also used to work in the Labour Whips office, so knows all about how to supposedly get your MPs to do what you want them to do, which didn't quite work out this week with the current whips. And he was quite candid about the situation that Keir Starmer finds himself in. And the pressure's coming from the Labour back benches. So have a listen to this.

Luke Sullivan (13:30)

I don't think you can understate how serious the situation, the peril is that the Prime Minister finds himself in. And I think through the Q and A, although he didn't explicitly say, 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, you know, fighting for his political premiership.

Adam Fleming (13:59)

Alex, what is the mood like amongst Labour mps?

Daniella Radice (14:01)

Grim.

Alex Forsyth (14:01)

Pretty bleak. That's absolutely fair to say. There's an awful lot of anger. And I think that there is sometimes there can be a tendency in some quarters of the media, including ourselves, to get a bit sort of, you know, hyperbolic when you have prime ministers or people in power in a bad situation. I genuinely don't think that the reporting of this has been overstated. There is a really grim mood. It has, I think, more than I realized, kind of consolidated in the last 24 hours or so after the moment at Prime Minister's questions and then all everything that followed with this whole wrangle in Parliament over how they were going to release the information surrounding the Mandelson appointment, etc. Etc. And then even through today with the Prime Minister saying what he did, some people saying right thing to do to apologize to the victims. But there are still lots and lots of questions here. And here's the thing. There is something really strange about politics and momentum can be the magic thing or it can be the absolute killer. And I think what's happening here with Keir Starmer is that over a period of time there have been a series of things which, in and of themselves, MPs might have kind of shrugged off, got over the government could have picked up and moved on from. But I think there's sort of been now a series of these things which have left MPs with quite low resilience when they feel like something is going wrong from the center. And this has been one of those things. And along with all of the obvious questions about the people at the heart of this, the victims, and why that makes this such a salient, important issue. But it's sort of another thing that has just really made people feel bleak. Having said all of that, I am not suggesting that that means the Prime Minister is going to imminently be ousted because there's a range of views in the parliamentary Labour Party. Some are absolutely saying don't even think about that right now as much as others are saying the time has come. And more importantly, there's no real plan. There's, there's no real successor. And Keir Starmer right now is saying he's not going anywhere. So the next few weeks and months, I got no idea. But in terms of just mood, I'd say it's pretty, pretty dismal.

Chris Mason (16:01)

And just to go from the macro, if you like, to the micro around the last couple of days at Westminster. So two things. One, a fair element of what the Prime Minister had to do today in the news conference in Hastings, over and above the profound nature of that apology was effectively tacitly acknowledged. He made a bit of a mess of things yesterday at Prime Minister's questions. Now, he wasn't helped by the fact that he was told very late by the police, please be careful about what you say because we don't want to jeopardize any potential future legal proceedings involving Lord Mandelson. So the script was rewritten very late. But he did tie himself in a bit of a knot around the whole question of what he knew and when which I think heightened at least in the in the first instance that anxiety that was already pretty high amongst Labour and Peter because of so many other things that have happened over the last couple of months. In addition to that, the lack of discipline that there currently is and the lack of grip that the center have on this gargantuan parliamentary labor party of 400 plus MPs means that they were staring at a defeat in the face in the Commons yesterday. That this whole business of them having to effectively move on the whole mechanism around what the document who's scrutinizing which documents get published around the appointment of Lord Mandelson, et cetera, et cetera. The net consequence of which they are staring at a huge amount of information, some of which might be useful to their argument about Lord Mandelson. Quite a lot of it might not be remotely helpful to them or indeed to the UK's relationship with America. Faces the prospect of being published and speaking to people at the upper echelons of government. They have just got their head in their hands about that. That the consequence of what happened in the Commons over and above this is separate from the whole question of the Prime Minister's future. Although the two could clearly overl LAP is really is also really quite something.

Adam Fleming (17:53)

And is that because the the Conservative motion which MPS were voting on on Wednesday was written so widely to not just be like official emails or the facts from Washington. It was actually the whatsapps that people were sending around the conversations about this they could be very revealing. Quite so they also the fact it's now in the hands of a parliamentary committee to decide what goes out there.

Alex Forsyth (18:14)

Completely some degree.

Chris Mason (18:15)

Yeah, to some degree. But yes in answer to all of that and obviously there is a difference between what might be legitimately something that would be a national security concern to publish or even where a collection of cross party MPs who, yes, have their own partisan interests, but regularly look at what it is legitimate to be released with a serious head on and with the right kind of security clearance. There's clearly a big difference between stuff that is, as I say, a national security concern and stuff that's just politically really, really damaging or embarrassing or jeopardizes the relationship between the US and the, and the uk. And maybe the committee would have some, as the government might see it, have some savvy around that, around a national interest question as well as a political interest for a current government question.

Alex Forsyth (19:05)

And they've already said the chair of the committee's made clear that he's not going to hold stuff back just because it might be embarrassing, you know, to have to be quite a clear line about whether or not this might damage international relations or national security. But it's interesting, I was talking to somebody who is quite a. With how these things work. And while the Conservative Party is, you know, Kemi Badenok is, they are clearly quite pleased with what they've achieved yesterday in the Commons, there are those who think that maybe if they'd done a sort of slightly more narrow approach, then it also might have just sort of sped up the process. This is the other question is how long will this now take? But there was an interesting, a note from the, the isc, the Intelligence and Security Committee that came out on Thursday evening that was basically saying, my reading of it was, look, you know, we only are going to make a judgment on the material that might be deemed to be prejudicial to the national interest or to national security or diplomatic relations. We have an expectation the other stuff will be put out. It's just that kind of narrower field that we're going to make a judgment on, but we don't know how the mechanism of that. We know Downing street are talking to the isc, this committee, to try and work it all out and we're told they're going to come to the Commons and update us all about it before it happens. But, you know, there's this sort of. And what is interesting as well is as much as there is this potential jeopardy around the release of some of this material, I thought it's so interesting that Keir Starmer both yesterday and today was making the argument that he wanted this material out there. You know, he was sort of even said, I share this frustration that we can't publish because the police have got in touch and said, be careful with what you put out because you don't want it to.

Chris Mason (20:42)

Will Prove the claim that they're currently making that Lord Mandelson, as they say, lied, lied and lied against.

Adam Fleming (20:50)

There's two different streams here, though. There's the Downing street stream, which is Lord Mandelson told us lots of lies, so this was never gonna come out no matter how hard we asked the question. And then there's the other stream, which you hear from lots of Labour backbenchers going, yeah, but hang on, you were prepared to appoint him even when you knew a little bit of this. And to them, that's the problem. And the two streams actually don't jo up. One doesn't cancel out the other.

Chris Mason (21:12)

Exactly.

Daniella Radice (21:12)

It strikes me, just listening to you both as well, that we're effectively at the heart of this if we're dealing with the same story, which is the Epstein fallout. I am dealing with a silence, actually, officially around this. Largely. You two are dealing with so much noise from all sorts of angles and all sorts of strands. And it does make me wonder whether the silence from Buckingham palace can hold. And as you say, how contrite and sorry Keir Starmer was today. Do we need to hear that from the King? Maybe. I just wonder. We had those statements back in October, but I wonder whether in this moment, as more stuff drops, as we see more, does there need to be some kind of other victim centered? A sorry from the King and Queen. I just wonder whether. Just saying nothing and not stepping into the conversation at this point for the Royal family beyond. We had Prince Edward, I know, earlier in the week. Yeah, fascinating.

Adam Fleming (22:04)

And people have got very differing interpretations.

Daniella Radice (22:06)

Yeah. I've had loads of arguments in the newsroom about quite how that was picked.

Chris Mason (22:10)

How would that have come about?

Daniella Radice (22:12)

Well, he was planning to go to that government, you know, government summit, as it was, as it was called in Dubai, and he was talking about education, you know, his Duke of Edinburgh award, all sorts of bits and pieces around that. I mean, my sense is he knew there was potential for a question to be asked. He would have wanted his answer to be about victims. He is not a sort of savvy media performer, Prince Edwards. It's not a comfortable space for him. And I think that really showed at first when he answered the question and sort of initially said, I don't know anyone here is going to be interested in this. And you're thinking, I think they will be, actually, whoever they are. And then he just, you know, switched into, you know, there are a lot of victims here.

Chris Mason (22:50)

It's really important always to remember the victims and. And who are the victims in all this Absolutely. A lot of victims in this.

Daniella Radice (22:58)

I mean, I think he perhaps knew it was coming, but hadn't quite thought through exactly what he was going to say.

Adam Fleming (23:02)

He felt like he kind of mucked up the side by. Because you were left with questions about who he. Was he actually feeling sorry for the royal family rather than.

Daniella Radice (23:09)

Exactly. Was he talking about him itself and the wider family, or was it just the victims?

Alex Forsyth (23:12)

That's interesting.

Chris Mason (23:13)

So it sounds like it was a bit more makeshift, I think so, than you. I might have assumed.

Daniella Radice (23:18)

Or he'd thought about the fact he might be asked something and knew he was going to have to say something, but he didn't kind of come out right because he's not perhaps as accustomed in those spaces and under that pressure to say something. But I think generally people like to hear something from a member of the royal family and just hearing, you know, everything swirling in the politics. Do we need to hear something from the royal.

Chris Mason (23:41)

So interesting. There's a dynamic there because the last couple of days, in a way that I've not seen for ages, because Downing street feel. I mean, aggrieved is an understatement. Boiling with anger. They have been leaping on every possible moment to interject themselves into this in a way that sometimes you're trying to squeeze things out of whatever government department might be or whatever they've been. They've been desperate to get out there and make that case because they. Because they feel so angry about it. But that dynamic and how that might be then interpreted in the palace or whatever is fascinating.

Daniella Radice (24:12)

And also think of the anger is there in the royal family, but their choice is silent.

Adam Fleming (24:15)

And also, there's another juxtaposition here, to use a very pretentious word in that. What did the King do a few days ago he had a premiere for his documentary, which is on Amazon prime, so he's happy to go out and sell that. But then that makes the silence on Epstein seem even more deafening. Yeah, I am just. What was that quote from Donald Rumsfeld about known unknowns? There are so many actual known unknowns here because what, there's another 2 million Epstein documents on the hard drives in the Department of justice in the U.S. now, the lawyers there say they're never going to see the light of day, but people have said that about the 3 million that we've already seen. Then the idea of the Clintons going and testifying and Hillary Clinton wants that to be in public and who knows what sort of hairs that sets running. And then, Alex, as you were saying, it's very unclear what we'll get from the. The vetting files.

Alex Forsyth (25:07)

Totally.

Adam Fleming (25:07)

Which will take on a life.

Alex Forsyth (25:09)

And you don't know if that might help or harm K. You just don't know. You just don't know what's going to happen in them. And I also would add that huge caveat that while quite rightly we can assess what is the current mood among a group of mps floating around Westminster. I have no idea what is going to happen from here on in. It feels quite unpredictable in many ways.

Chris Mason (25:27)

Both the content of those and then the timing. Do they. Do they come in dribs and drabs? In what order do they come and that. Because that can then affect the extent to it, you know, how they're absorbed. There's a by election coming up in a handful of weeks. You know, where, where does the current situation that is. That has placed the Prime Minister in his most vulnerable spot ever. How is that refracted through the prism of that by election result? Depending on what then happens? It's. Yeah. I mean, who knows?

Adam Fleming (25:58)

Chris, can I put two names to you and then you can say whatever you want to say about them. Number one, it's like a party game.

MIDI Health Advertiser (26:04)

Yeah.

Adam Fleming (26:04)

It's like guess who first one. Like a New Year's Eve party game which when I played it, everyone put Laura Kuenssberg in for me for some reason. First name? Angela Rayner.

Audio Clip (Keir Starmer) (26:17)

Yeah.

Adam Fleming (26:18)

And the reason I bring up her name is she was very high profile, leading the charge from the Labour backbenches in that debate on Wednesday about releasing the vetting files to say actually the way the government wanted to do it was wrong, hinting that it was a bit of a cover up. Is that. How do we interpret that? Is that her back?

Chris Mason (26:36)

Yes. Is the. Is the short answer to your question with a caveat? It was politically significant. Of course it is. When a recently departed deputy Prime Minister with their own power base within the Labour movement, very, very well liked by lots of people within the Labour Party, courted by some of those who have ambitions to be Prime Minister. And then others will say, and she has them herself. And then others say, well, maybe that, maybe she doesn't. You know, yesterday, that Prime Minister's question, that moment after Prime Minister's questions, which was best personified, I think with Angela Rayner's intervention, just felt like one of those moments where you can, you can feel it's not even dripping. You can feel. And it can be temporary, but a flooding away of power from the center because they had gone in Downing street with a proposition which is that these files would be examined by the Cabinet Secretary, the most senior civil servant and other kind of legal figures within the barrels of government. And you had Angela Rayner and plenty of others basically saying, it doesn't wash, we're not willing to back it. And then. So. So that mattered and matters. The twist is Angela Rayner is still. She's still got to sort out various things with the tax authorities around the whole business that cost her a job in the first place. And that is a twist were there to be a vacancy anytime soon, unless we were to suddenly hear out of, you know, out of the blue, because that's how these things happen with the tax authorities, that, you know, there's a resolution or, or. Or whatever. But, yeah, that was a. That was a politically significant moment.

Adam Fleming (28:14)

And Alex, you can do the second name, although this one's slightly harder because it's not quite so public. Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister.

Alex Forsyth (28:22)

So. So Morgan McSweeney is the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. And right now he has become a bit of a lightning rod for a lot of the ire and anger within the Parliamentary Labour Party because it is sort of broadly accepted. And number 10 haven't challenged this notion that he was quite instrumental in the appointment of Peter manderson as the U.S. amb. Because the two have a bit of a history and through the prism of the Labour Party, have known each other for some time and worked together fairly closely in one capacity or another. So there is, he has become, for some, a bit of a symbol of what some, but not all in the Labour Party would see some of the problems in Downing street because he is a very instrumental figure. He's very close to Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer, I think even yesterday said he sort of credits Morgan McSweeney with winning the election or helping him win the election. He's been around for a long time and Keir Starmer would be loathe to depart from that and said yesterday he's got his full confidence. Confidence. Downing street reiterated that position today. But you have got some MPS publicly calling for Morgan McSweeney to go. You do get a bit of that in any of these situations. And there's no sign from Downing street that that's going to be a move yet, but it's clearly one to watch. And I would also say, you know, things can change and I don't want to fall into the trap of sort of, you know, overstating where things are, because it is unpredictable in the way that we've said because there's quite a lot we don't know about how things might play out. And people have been known to pull things in difficult or perilous positions before because that is always the nature of power and how quickly dynamics can shift. Entirely possible all of that can happen. But I think coming back to my first point, the problem for Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer is this isn't the first time that those two people and their judgment in any various situation has been openly and actively questioned within the Parliamentary Labour Party. Which is why those two figures, obviously Keir Starmer, but also Morgan McSweeney, have become quite key.

Chris Mason (30:12)

And the human undercurrent under all of this, if you're a Labour MP, for lots of Labour MPs, irrespective of their pre existing views about Keir Starmer or Morgan McSweeney or anyone else in the heart of government is they're just really disappointed. They just can't quite believe that this fairly rare, if you look at the history books moment where Labour actually win a general election and they've got a really, really solid majority, albeit on a small share of the vote for a winning party, that there's just that deep sense of despondency that they've from their perspective, that this government of theirs, whether they're actually a member of the government or not, has in their view wildly underperformed and they're desperate to see it succeed.

Alex Forsyth (30:54)

Even the ones that wish Keir Starmer well, share that disappointment, would love to.

Chris Mason (30:58)

See him be successful, would love to see Labour in a better position in the opinion polls. And a lot of this is an articulation of that, that frustration. As Alex was saying earlier. This is then the latest case study on top of all the things we've talked about on newscast for the last 18 months, that makes them think, oh, just maybe, you know, even though I've had Labor people say to me they don't bear him any ill will, the Prime Minister, they'd love to see him succeed. They recognize that he was central to them winning their seat. They will be the first to say that Morgan McSweeney, in the eyes of many was the genius who turned the Labour Party around from a crushing defeat, the biggest since 1935, to winning a big majority. And yet, and yet, and yet, and.

Alex Forsyth (31:42)

Yet there are also those that caution, caution against thinking a new leader or a change of leader is going to be the solution. Problems could just make everything a lot worse. You could have a painful and protracted process and there are lots of people saying, and they wouldn't have a mandate. The answer to all of this is to deliver. We got to get our heads down, crack on and deliver. Let's see.

Adam Fleming (32:01)

And no one, no matter how great the art politics, can go back in time and unhire Peter Mandelson from being the ambassador.

Alex Forsyth (32:08)

No. But you get the sense from Keir Starmer that he genuinely wishes that he could.

Daniella Radice (32:11)

And I think it's a thing that the king and the royal household, probably a few sentiments shared with the parliamentary Labour Party at the time where they feel that they are totally tainted by the Epstein and Andrew situation. The king, four years into his reign, a large amount of it, when he looks back, will have been dealing with this crisis and how that has played out. And that will be an enormous frustration within the royal household.

Adam Fleming (32:34)

Daniela, thank you.

Daniella Radice (32:35)

Thanks, Adam.

Adam Fleming (32:36)

Alex, thanks to you too.

Alex Forsyth (32:37)

Pleasure as ever.

Adam Fleming (32:37)

And Chris, lovely to see you as well.

Daniella Radice (32:40)

Newscast, newscast from the BBC.

Newscast Outro Host (32:42)

From one newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Tell everyone you know and don't forget, you can email us anytime@newscastbc.co.uk or if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp on 33123 9480. Be assured, I promise we listen to everyone.