Henry Zeffman (1:54)

Classroom doing our violin lessons.

Faisal Islam (1:56)

I was the tattletail in the class.

Paddy O'Connell (1:57)

Can I have an apology, please? I trust almost nobody that daddy has to sometimes use strong language.

Henry Zeffman (2:03)

Next time in Moscow.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:05)

I feel Delulu with no Salulu.

Kate Ferguson (2:06)

Take me down to Downing Street.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:08)

Let's go have a tour.

Paddy O'Connell (2:10)

Blimey.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:11)

Hello, it's Laura actually here in the studio.

Paddy O'Connell (2:13)

It's Paddy in the studio.

Henry Zeffman (2:15)

It's Henry in the studio in real life. In real life.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:18)

And our mystery guest.

Kate Ferguson (2:20)

Drum roll, please. Kate Ferguson from the sun on Sunday.

Paddy O'Connell (2:23)

Political editor. Put yourself down. Think of all the rivals who wanted that job and you beat them to it.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:28)

Oh, a rival in journalism. Close me.

Paddy O'Connell (2:31)

Plus, one of the things we will need to get to is the. The Trump whisperer. Kmer and how much the whisper, how good the whispering looks.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:39)

Yes, I think the whispering doesn't look that smart this morning, but if you've been under a rock, let's just tell people what Donald Trump has actually threatened. So he, in classic Trump style, posted on his own truth social platform yesterday that because of the UK and other European allies playing what he described as a dangerous game, he has threatened from 1 February that Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Finland will be charged a 10% tariff on any and all goods being sent to the US and raising that tariff to 25% in June, unless he is allowed to do the complete purchase of Greenland. Henry, test of the special relationship.

Henry Zeffman (3:23)

Just a little bit, I think. I mean, not just because of the tariffs, though, obviously the tariff that Donald Trump is threatening to impose, particularly the 25% one, if that comes to pass in six months time, is a very big deal, especially because Sakir Starmer sees the great triumph of his approach to Donald Trump over the past year being the deal he secured to mitigate the impact of Donald Trump's global tariffs that he unleashed almost a year ago. So it's a test of the special relationship economically, but it is also a massive test of the special relationship because Sir Keir Starmer for the last couple of weeks has drawn a line when it comes to Greenland and he has said very clearly that the UK simply does not believe that the US's ambitions as regards Greenland should fly, that the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland and for the Kingdom of Denmark. And this is Donald Trump saying quite clearly that he disagrees and that he is willing to take quite strong action against the UK unless the UK drops its objections.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:27)

It's a big threat and for many people, I think, quite a gobsmacking threat. Kate?

Kate Ferguson (4:33)

Yeah, I mean, it's a nightmare thing to happen to this Labour government on a Saturday night. I think it's. To say the least. There's three things politically I think are interesting. Number one, I mean, if these tariffs go ahead, it's gonna wipe billions off the economy. Our economy already growing so sluggish, we'll be on recession watch again. Nightmare for Rachel Reeves. Could that even push us into recession? Secondly, you're so right, Hen. You know, yes, we've got this big thing called the special relationship. But Keir Starmer's whole MO now is that he's meant to be Europe's Trump whisperer. So if we don't get a carve out, where does that leave him? And interestingly, we've seen this kind of civil war and labor bubble up again over the weekend, all this talk of leadership plots. So if Keir Starmer isn't the Trump whisperer, then what is his MO as pm?

Paddy O'Connell (5:19)

You had the culture secretary. You wouldn't normally turn to the culture secretary, but she's a senior leader figure, labor figure. So how is she trying to triangulate?

Laura Kuenssberg (5:28)

Well, what was interesting is that Lisa Nandi did two things, is one, she did all the kinds of rhetorical things that you would expect. She said, we want to negotiate. We've got a great relationship. The whole point of having a good relationship is that you can negotiate and you can persuade and you can control and you can argue. She also had, I think, in the most strident terms we've seen in the last 24 hours that this government has ever really said anything about the American administration. They've said Trump is completely wrong to do this. And she said on several occasions, very firmly, that the government does not in any way, shape or form believe that they should back down over the position of Greenland, believe that Greenland and Denmark and other European allies should back down. The question then, of course comes, well, do you think Donald Trump's going to back down? But she was very resolute and this is what she had to say.

Lisa Nandy (6:15)

I appreciate that it would be tempting to come on here and give you a range of things that the government will do, but actually, the one thing that we won't do is, is compromise on our position, which is that the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland and the people of the Kingdom of Denmark. That is non negotiable. That is the starting point for the conversation. What happens next is a result of the conversations that we're going to be about.

Laura Kuenssberg (6:40)

But you will not negotiate on that. You will never allow Donald Trump to take Greenland if you can possibly help it.

Lisa Nandy (6:47)

Well, we would never allow any changes to be made to the future of Greenland without the consent of the people of Greenland and the people of the Kingdom of Denmark. It's their country. They have a right to decide how the future of their own country. And we'll work with them to support them on that. We're not alone in that. But it's right that we're absolutely, crystal clear about it.

Laura Kuenssberg (7:09)

I mean, just to underline, Henry, how extraordinary this is These countries are all formal allies who have very real, deep historic links with each other in terms of helping each other's security situation, sharing intelligence, sharing, military decision making, structures, weaponry, all these kinds of things. And here we have America threatening NATO allies.

Henry Zeffman (7:34)

Yeah. And I think the fairly even tone in which Lisa Nandi gave that answer perhaps slightly obscures what a huge moment this is. I mean, this is such a profound rupture happening in plain sight between the UK and various other major European and NATO allies, and the US between the US's traditional allies on the European continent in the world, frankly. Now, what I think is interesting is that over the next few days, I think you will have people say, people who have long been critics of the relationship between the UK and the US and this notion, they would say delusion that it's special, who will say, look, Donald Trump is actually just reflecting reality here. The power dynamics of these relationships are actually that the US does hold the cards, that NATO is nothing, but without the US getting what it wants out of it, that the us, UK relationship is not special. The UK actually is just a subservient partner to the us, which is willing to host various bases and so on, because the UK is a lesser country and less powerful. Now, that is very much not Keir Starmer's view. That is very much not the mainstream view of the Labour leadership, but it is a view of a part of Keir Starmer's parliamentary party and a part of Keir Starmer's electoral coalition. And he has suppressed that, that tendency for a year. But I think it's going to get harder, not least because he himself is going to have to criticize Donald Trump probably as soon as tomorrow.

Paddy O'Connell (9:01)

Can we say where sun readers are on this? We think of the sun as one of the barometers of public opinion, and you probably don't want to speak for all of them. But what are some of the moving points, moving parts for sun readers this week?

Kate Ferguson (9:15)

I think in terms of this story, there'll be a few things that will worry my readers and should worry kind of everyone. First of all, if you get involved in a kind of tariff war, if tariffs are slapped on us, that's going to push up, that's going to harm the economy, and once the dust settles, it's going to push up prices.

Paddy O'Connell (9:30)

Actually, I'm sorry, I'm interrupting, but that's a great piece for the sun tomorrow. What would 10% look like in a supermarket?

Kate Ferguson (9:36)

Exactly, exactly. So anything that pushes up costs, especially when we've just come out of really sluggish wage growth, a long period of inflation, that big cost of living squeeze, which is the perennial topic of political discussion, discussion domestically that is a problem for not just my readers, your listeners, all voters, really, because everyone's feeling that squeeze in terms of these kind of slightly more political grandiose ideas of the special relationship or this place called Greenland, you know, which is a long way right up there somewhere. Look, what I think my readers will think is that we need to. There is a realism that you were talking about how America do hold a lot of the cards. Europe have under invested in our defense a long time. So, you know, here comes along a president that's fed up and yes, making very controversial noises and decisions. But I think this will reinforce that argument for my readers that we need to be taking our own defence seriously and investing in it.

Paddy O'Connell (10:32)

So I spoke on Radio 4 today. Kate was our guest on our program as well. So it's lovely for me to have all hour of Kate's time. Lord Simon MacDonald, who's the former permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office, said something from his perch which is very similar to Henry's briefing, which is, guys, this is about, this isn't about tariffs.

Simon MacDonald (10:53)

This is about land and power. Mr. Trump wants Greenland and the threat of tariffs is a mechanism to try to help him to achieve that objective. It certainly grabbed everybody's attention. But no matter what happens on Tuesday, the underlying ambition will remain. Mr. Trump wants Greenland.

Paddy O'Connell (11:16)

Does this mean that Keir Starmer has to end his Trump whispering plan? Is this special relationship he wanted dead in the ice?

Simon MacDonald (11:25)

Well, no, but.

Paddy O'Connell (11:27)

Well, he hasn't got fundamentals. He hasn't played it completely right.

Simon MacDonald (11:31)

Personal relations.

Paddy O'Connell (11:32)

Yes, but hold on, hold on, because he's been trying to whisper and now we've got 10% tariffs because we've spoken up for Denmark.

Simon MacDonald (11:39)

Well, this. Welcome to the world of President Donald Trump.

Paddy O'Connell (11:43)

Well, I'm not welcome. I don't feel very welcomed by it. I don't think it's a sign that Keir Starmer succeeded.

Simon MacDonald (11:49)

Nobody is really succeeding in their relationship with Donald Trump. But Trump is more powerful and Trump is exercising that power.

Paddy O'Connell (12:00)

He was lucky to get a word out in that clip, wasn't he? But he mentioned Tuesday, and I'll just say that that is because the Supreme Court in the United States could rule on Tuesday, as early as Tuesday, that the whole wielding the tariff strategy is against US law. So that's why Tuesday was mentioned.

Laura Kuenssberg (12:17)

But here is the dilemma really, for politicians and we had quite a lot of chat about this on the program this morning, Does Trump mean it? So there'd be so many moments seemingly ever more outlandish. But does he mean it? Does he really mean it when he says he'll take Greenland the easy way or the hard way? Well, the speaker, Mike Johnson, who's third most powerful person in American politics, told us, well, actually, I don't think we're really going to see military involvement. So I said, well, should we not listen to President Trump then? Do we disregard what he says? You know, is he the boy crying wolf? But this is the dilemma for politicians. This is the Trump style. It's sort of bait and wait, you know, say something outlandish and crazy and people go, oh, God. I think what's interesting about this moment, which is enormous, is that Trump baited, if you want to use that phrase, allies over Greenland and making all sorts of threats. European allies in the UK Go, oh, okay, well, we'll send, we'll send some personnel, small number of personnel to Greenland. Yvette Cooper gets a big puffy puffer jacket on and goes off to North Norway going, oh, look, we're taking the security of this part of the world really seriously. But then you get this big disconnect. So who's got the wrong end of the stick here? You know, did President Trump get the wrong end of the stick about what European allies were trying to convey in their actions, or have European allies and Keir Starmer got the wrong end of the stick because Donald Trump didn't want them to step up?

Kate Ferguson (13:38)

Yeah, I totally agree. It seems to be loggerheads, this idea. I think that Europe must have thought, well, Donald Trump's criticized us before for not taking our own security seriously. So then we've talked about, do we put troops in Ukraine? And they sort of thought they could replicate that answer in Greenland, but they've kind of missed it. Feels like they've fundamentally misunderstood. Donald Trump is saying, Greenland is my sphere of influence. It's America's sphere of influence, and it's ours. And that actually, if I want to beef up military forces in Greenland, I'm going to do it myself. I'm not going to delegate that. You guys take care of Europe. In fact, you can't even take care of Europe, but Greenland's mine. And so I think there does seem to be this sort of fundamental disconnect.

Henry Zeffman (14:20)

It does feel like a lot of the conversations I don't know about you guys that I've had with government people over the last 10 days, which have intellectualized and complexified how to deal with what Donald Trump has done and how to get to the real heart of what he cares about, have actually missed what is quite a clear message from everything he said in 2026. He thinks the US should have Greenland. And what he did last night or yesterday afternoon with this announcement is yet another sign that it's really quite simple. He thinks the US should have Greenland. And one other point, by the way, not to be too parochial about all of this, but if we're talking about where this leaves Keir Starmer politically, I mean, look at the list of countries which the UK has essentially been sanctioned economically at the same time as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. They are European countries. We have seen a big debate playing out in the Labour Party and the government over the last few months about how close the UK should be to Europe and to the European Union. And I think this is going to be used by quite a few people in government are saying, look, let's get real. We are not going to be some Atlantic Bridge. Our future is lashed to the future of the European continent. And that means we ought to get closer to the European Union again.

Laura Kuenssberg (15:30)

And remember, just a couple of weeks ago, one of his big hints in our New Year's interview with the Prime Minister was, oh, yes, actually, I really want to get much closer to the single market. He used those two words, the single market. I didn't ask him what about the single market. He said, oh, I want to get closer to the single market. So I think for those people who want that to happen, I think you're absolutely right. In terms of the next couple of days, though, and how this is going to play out. Enter Davos. That sort of power broking grip and grinning fur coat, fur hat wearing, schmooze fest. Is this a song of the 1% of the world? Oh, it could be.

Paddy O'Connell (16:05)

I love this song. It was. Is it Eurovision?

Laura Kuenssberg (16:08)

It should be a Eurovision song. Complete with fur hat and fur costume. Fake, obviously. Costumes. Singing the verses about Davos. No, I've never been. I've never been. And I kind of nearly went on a few occasions and I've never been to Davos. So I'm quite happy to say I've never been to Davos. Not really my scene.

Paddy O'Connell (16:25)

But I undermined your analysis because it's outrageous.

Laura Kuenssberg (16:27)

It's happening. And so Donald Trump is going to be in Davos. All sorts of world leaders are going to be in Davos. Nigel Farage, who was under the weather this morning, who didn't come and do his interview on our program this morning. But he's meant to be going to Davos. And who is not meant to be going to Davos at the moment? We don't think is one Keir Starmer. Kate, do we think by the end of the next 24, 48 hours that Keir Starmer might miraculously find himself actually getting a fake fur coat and a fake fur.

Kate Ferguson (16:54)

Well, I was going to say, I guess he might be kind of grabbing his kind of down coat now and rushing off, I suspect. So, I mean, you know, Keir Starmer actually is happiest right when he's off frolicking on the world stage somewhere. So I'm quite surprised they didn't pencil Davos in for him in the first place. But yes, I suspect he will be going to do these discussions.

Henry Zeffman (17:12)

Actually, just quickly, he what? This is a piece of Keir Starmer trivia. He once told, I think the news agents to the sort of mirth of quite a few people in Westminster while he was in Davos. He preferred Davos to Westminster.

Kate Ferguson (17:25)

Yes, yes. Never, never prefer any other, any other place to your own country. Yeah.

Henry Zeffman (17:30)

So let's see if he lives up to that point.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:32)

And I think he was trying to make the point that he wasn't at home in Westminster's terrible gossip filled corridors. And actually in Davos you could get things done with important people. But saying that you prefer a foreign shindig with members of the 1% most wealthy people in the world was not necessarily a great political message.

Paddy O'Connell (17:49)

You started that by saying just quickly and I've said it before, and please say things slowly because we love listening.

Henry Zeffman (17:54)

Well, it was because you wanted to come in.

Paddy O'Connell (17:55)

No, I want to. Well, I thought I was going to try and just insert some diary dates. So the 27 countries of the EU have an emergency meeting today. There is as early as Tuesday, as Previously mentioned, the U.S. supreme Court, a possible ruling against the Trump tariff strategy. And then Wednesday is Davos. So that was all I was going to do. I was going to be kind of like the secretary of the meeting.

Laura Kuenssberg (18:16)

And talking of Davos, of course, that's primarily an economic and business focused thing. Faisal, our economics editor, has helpfully to help us understand what the economic impact might be, has shared his thoughts by the miracles of modern technology by sending us a voice note of how he sees this could play out.

Faisal Islam (18:33)

Hello, newscasters. I'd love to have been there in person today, but I was filing late on this extraordinary development from Donald Trump, even by his own standards and I'm grabbing my passport, my trolley bag, and heading to Davos, where I hope to see the US President catch up with him, asking some questions. I'm sure most of the world's leaders going there will, too. And my basic take on this, beyond parallel, beyond parody, but also sort of beyond reality. And I've been covering this trade war for a year, and this is the most extraordinary thing we've heard. And there's been some pretty extraordinary stuff over the past year, beyond parody, because there's a sort of edge of can this. Can this actually happen? You sort of have to assume not. You can't take it at face value, can you? Although if you do, and you should do, it's the President of the United States speaking. What is he saying? He's saying essentially, as a form of economic war on Western Europe, economic coercion of allies in Europe in order to gain the territory of Europe, essentially in Greenland. No precedent for that should be taken seriously as rhetoric. And the consequences of that for the economic partnership, let alone the military partnership, the end of NATO, really, really pretty profound, which is why I said beyond reality. Totally surreal. I imagine a lot of capitals are saying that this is as baffling, as baffled as they are angry. What on earth does it mean for existing trade deals? Some Western, you know, economies like Canada will say, well, you know, we can ride this out. Maybe we need to stare him down. Maybe we will stare him down. So an extraordinary moment. Big moment for the US Big moment for the. For Donald Trump, and we'll see some consequences in Davos.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:15)

Faisal will be in Davos then. And let's hope and hope and pray that Faisal manages to get a microphone in front of Donald Trump's face. That would be great, wouldn't it? But, yes. So this is obviously a very serious political, diplomatic situation and potentially a very serious military situation. But we should stress to people, I think, no. Well, no one is taking the actual threat of military intervention seriously. I think that is an exaggeration. But when you hear someone like the speaker, Mike Johnson, say, I don't think we're really looking at military intervention. I think it's important to note that.

Paddy O'Connell (20:46)

And I think it's interesting in this room, the person who went straight for what is the effect on businesses and British voters was Kate, which is a reminder why the sun is the sun.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:57)

But it does have to be parochial. Quite an interesting impact on politics here because we had Richard Tice from Reform on the program this morning. Nigel Farage is going off to Davos and Of course, one of their big plus points for some people and one of their big detractions for other people is their political closeness to Donald Trump. But I was fascinated this morning that Richard Tice basically said, well, I agree with the government on this. He said, we are united. It is completely wrong of Donald Trump to go about this in this way. It's completely unreasonable and counterproductive for him to be. He didn't use the word bullying, but for him to be putting threats out into the public domain to allies in this way. And I was quite struck by how happy he was to draw a sharp line between the reform position and what Donald Trump is putting forward.

Kate Ferguson (21:46)

I totally agree. I mean, last night when the story was breaking, we were writing it in the office and Nigel Farage was actually one of the first politicians to tweet about it. He saying something along the lines of being friends with Donald Trump means I can say when I disagree with him. This would be totally wrong and harmful. And he's totally in line with Kemi Badenoch and Keir Starmet. So we have unanimity among our political leaders here. I mean, we might say, is that a bit odd because he's mates with Donald Trump, but of course we do. There is no world in which someone who wants to lead Great Britain, lead our own country and be elected as Prime Minister could possibly back a foreign power threatening to slap us with tariffs and also, you know, NATO ally. We are in Nat, and we are. So you have to back your NATO allies and you want to keep America in without throwing all of NATO under the bus. And that's the tightrope these politicians are trying to walk at the moment.

Paddy O'Connell (22:36)

So, Henry, the. Kemi Badenoch also has said she's with the government. Laura's told us Richard Tice of Reform is also backing the government. But that's really not, in a way, not surprising because it's such a crosswind for the political parties. It'd be really weird to side with Donald Trump against Europe as a British political party.

Henry Zeffman (22:54)

Yeah, I think Kate hits the nail on the head. There is no way that any party which aspires to be a party of government in the UK can back the country that is threatening the UK over the uk. I mean, that is simple. However, I do think there are difficulties for Nigel Farage potentially here because a big part of his political personality is that he is mates with Donald Trump, is that he is part of the same transnational phenomenon of populism, of speaking up for the common man, as they would have it that Donald Trump represents in the US and so if Donald Trump is going to become him, he's already pretty unpopular in the uk, judging by polling. But if he is to become even more so in the uk, I think that is going to be quite delicate for Nigel Farage to manage and it's going to be quite delicate this week if they are still to meet at Davos.

Laura Kuenssberg (23:42)

Yeah, we'll see. Would it be a boon or not for Nigel Farage to be pictured alongside Donald Trump? Don't know. People will look at it in different ways. Some people will look at that and think, great, look, he's got that access. Fantastic. There are people, polling suggests they're a minority, but there are lots of people in this country look at Donald Trump and think, well, look, great. He tells it how he is, he says what he thinks, he takes strong actions. That's not the majority opinion, but it does exist. I mean, what's your sense, Kate, of where your readers are at generally? And I know it's that we wouldn't say our viewers all think the same thing. Of course we wouldn't. But having a pulse on, on, on readers views is part of your. Part of your job.

Kate Ferguson (24:18)

Yeah, agree. Look, they really value the special relationship. I think probably what a lot of my readers think about Donald Trump, what they like about him, when they like him, is that he seemed to stand up for his own country and, and be able to kind of cut through the, kind of get things done. Right. He will say something and he can get things done. And actually, I think part of the reason so many of them are toying with Nigel Farage now and thinking about supporting him is they want that same kind of patriotism, kind of can do attitude and protecting Britain's own interests. So I don't think it's that they kind of like Nigel Farage because of his proximity to Trump. I think it's more that they hope Nigel Farage could bring that kind of Trump style government to his own country. So I think I'm thinking of like of Georgia Meloni, the leader of Italy and she's quite close to Trump. I mean, we're talking about Keir Starmer being the Trump whisperer. Maybe Meloni's got a bigger claim to that. Really?

Laura Kuenssberg (25:13)

But she's like her a lot.

Kate Ferguson (25:15)

Yeah, but she's also super assertive Italian leader that talks a lot about Italy's own national interests. So we're talking about the rise of kind of populism. You have to remember that that's not about us being kind of like America's poodle, as it were. It's about British interests.

Henry Zeffman (25:30)

One other thing that I think we often forget in the conversation around Donald Trump and how he is warping British politics is that Donald Trump is not going to be the president of the United States at the time of the next general election unless you take a third term. Something really wild happens to take a third term seriously, which some people do. But, you know, assuming the US Constitution proceeds as at least I understand it, then Donald Trump is going to hand over to someone potentially a quite liberal Democrat in I don't mean capital ld. I don't mean Davies had become president of the United States. Well, you never know. He spent a lot of time in the US recently. In January 2029, there will be a new president of the United States. And so it is quite interesting just to think, I'm sure our politics here is going to be dominated by Donald Trump for years to come, but come the next general election, they'll be competing to have a better relationship with a different U.S. president.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:18)

And you know that I always go on about mega may coming, which is going to give a big, big political moment in this country. But the American midterms are, some people might suggest, one of the things that is making Donald Trump act as if he's in such a hurry because post the midterms has political capital might really go down the skids, who knows? But if you look at polling, you know, he's not riding high in America at all. And there's a kind of pressure on him, therefore, to get as much as he can possibly done in the midterm, some of the analysis suggests. But in terms of that kind of effect that he's having and that kind of vibe that he and Nigel Farage share, it's something that's becoming more and more popular on the Tory benches. And Robert Jenrick, of course, is the huge political moment at home this week. We spoke to him on Friday. But Kate, you also interviewed him for this weekend. So I wonder what, what stood out from your conversation with Robert Jenrick?

Kate Ferguson (27:14)

I spoke to, yeah, we did it yesterday morning. A bit closer deadline for a Sunday reporter. But anyway, we, we interviewed him yesterday morning. He came into the news building in London Bridge. But yeah, I mean, I think it's really interesting. Look, did we all have Robert Jenrick on our defection watch list to reform? Yes, we did. But still, that is a bit political beast to cross the floor. It's certainly the biggest Tory scalp that Nigel Farage has managed to lure over. What I Was struck by is. Now he's gone over. Robert is really giving his old party both barrels. So in our chat yesterday, he talked about. It's in the paper today, he talked about how the Tory Party have become the posh party. So he says they've given up on the Red Wall, they've given up on the Midlands, the North. That coalition of voters that Boris Johnson originally managed to win over, that's it given. That's why they won't say Britain is broken and actually they're just for posh people. And tied in with that is his criticism of this thing called the Boris wave, which is that sky high migration numbers into this country and kind of 21 to 23 ish in the wake of that new immigration system that Boris Johnson and Priti Patel introduced. That's going to be a real political dividing line. You can see reform training, all their guns on it. They're going to say they're the party that will bring immigration down and that the Tories, when they had the chance, when they had the mandate betrayed, their voters can't be trusted.

Paddy O'Connell (28:43)

There's so much going on there about the state of British public opinion, because if I'm a voter, I was told to vote for Brexit, I was told if I voted for Brexit I could bring immigration down. Some of those same people who told me that are now telling me, ah, well, it did go up, of course it went up, but the reason it went up, it wasn't me, I said it would go down. The reason it went up was with the other people. It's the fault of the other people.

Laura Kuenssberg (29:08)

So we've got 29 minutes in before an impersonation.

Paddy O'Connell (29:12)

I think some of the angriest people I meet are Brexiteers who, for perfectly respectable reasons, wanted to vote for their own conscience and their own opinion. And then it wasn't carried out what they were told they were going to get.

Laura Kuenssberg (29:26)

And even more annoying to many voters is when the politicians who did campaign for it say, oh, no, we didn't mean migration would come down down, we meant that we would have control of it. Now, we all know, having covered that and lived in this country in 2016, that the very, very, very heavy implication and the message was, you get control of immigration, that means it will come down. Nobody meant you get control of immigration and we'll control it so that it goes up. And people are perfectly entitled to feel very cross with the politicians who told them that and gave them that impression repeatedly. And then it didn't happen. You can see why voters would feel very disgruntled.

Paddy O'Connell (30:00)

And one of the people who warned against Brexit was Robert Jenricks.

Laura Kuenssberg (30:04)

Indeed.

Henry Zeffman (30:04)

So a remainder. I mean, there was a photo during the rounds the other day of him campaigning during the referendum with his fellow Nottinghamshire MP at the time, Ken Clark. So he's the remain wing of neurophile in the Tory party. I mean, I think when it comes to the so called Boris wave, it is worth remembering what we're actually talking about here is legal migration. It's not the boats issue which Robert Jenrick ended up resigning as Rishi Sunak's immigration minister over. It is legal migration. And it did balloon, I mean, from a Conservative party which had talked about net migration in the tens of thousands, a target they never quite achieved. It was way, way, way, way, way beyond that. But what is quite interesting is that principally as a result of policies instituted by Rishi Sunak towards the end of his time in office, there are some smart people who think that net legal migration is going to come down to basically zero in the next year or two. And I don't know, I genuinely do not know how that will affect British politics. Will you have voters say, fantastic, we've dealt with this issue, or will you have them say, well, yeah, okay, but all those people who came over who we don't think should have come over are still here. But it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out if we do get to essentially net zero legal migration.

Laura Kuenssberg (31:18)

And of course, the real contested signs of migration, I think that have become very toxic for politicians right across the board. Our small boats, pictures of small boat arrivals on our TV screens and in our newspapers, and pictures of asylum hotels and people seeing hotels in their communities housing large numbers of people who have come to the country illegally and for good or for ill, not making a judgment about any of those things. But those very visible signs of illegal migration is the thing. I think that's actually, that's what's become really toxic rather than the legal migration. But you're right, Henry, who knows what impact that will have if it happens, means if it does come down to almost zero, that's a huge change from something that was such a big change on the way up in the early to 2000s. And to have it come down in the mid-2020s would be a really, really big. It would be a really big deal.

Paddy O'Connell (32:13)

There's a lot going on with that, isn't there? Because if the number is zero, that would, on the face of it eat the lunch of part of the reform message, but also it shines a light onto why immigration is. Is a tool of a big developed economy. It's jobs, it's growth and that that's why people have allowed some people in. Of course, the argument has been, what is the level? Have you got too many? But that will open up the question, are there enough people to do the jobs that British born workers have apparently not been very keen on doing.

Laura Kuenssberg (32:45)

That's right. And there are lots of people in the political spectrum, Conservatives and people in the Labour Party, who would say that higher levels of immigration can be good because this helps the economy. And if people come here and they want to pay taxes and we particularly if it's people with high levels of skills, that actually can be a good thing. There's plenty of Conservatives who would privately say quite happily that their immigration at a high level, if it's legal, is a sign of a prospering economy. And it's also a question for public services, who works in social care then? Who works in the nhs then? If we're making it incredibly difficult to bring in people with the skills to do the jobs that British people either can't do or live in the wrong place to do or won't do.

Paddy O'Connell (33:23)

And it's linked to the welfare of argument, because you could say our welfare bills rising for people who've been born and live here, because we're bringing people in from other countries to do jobs that people won't do.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:33)

Oh, everything's linked to everything today.

Faisal Islam (33:35)

Do we need.

Paddy O'Connell (33:35)

We need another newscast?

Laura Kuenssberg (33:39)

The last thing I just want to ask you about, Kate, I'd be interested to hear, how big do you think the risk is that with the generic defection, him slugging off all his former colleagues, how high is the risk that this just turns into a sort of grudge match fight to the death between the turquoise and the blue?

Kate Ferguson (33:58)

Yeah. Because I do think things have become so toxic between Nigel Farage's band and Kemi Badenok. They're kind of two rival gangs. Look, it was pretty toxic to begin with. There's no love lost between Nigel and the Tories. He thought that they betrayed him when they did the last election pact. And he's always talked, Nigel, for the past few years, of wanting to destroy the Tory Party, wanting to burn it down. But I think with Robert going over and him kind of unleashing both barrels on his former colleagues, that does kind of entrench this toxicity between them. So I think Jacob Rees Mogg, the Tory grandee is kind of valiantly writes in our paper today calling for the right to unite. But any idea of a deal, a pact, I think is miles off, certainly at the moment. Who knows when we get right by an election, but that's years away.

Henry Zeffman (34:46)

Another thing that I think is interesting is that, as you put. Well, Richard Tyson, you also discussed with Lisa Nandi today this idea that reform is becoming the home for so many former Conservatives. I think we're up to well over 20, at least former, but also current Conservative MPs defecting. And I was just thinking, actually, what Keir Starmer has really pivoted to in the past few months for his attack line on reform is that they are distinctively new and different. He has said in various settings, look, when there were Conservative governments, I slept fine at night, even if I didn't like them. But Reform UK as something completely different. And then here is Lisa Nandy on your sofa, Laura, saying, well, reform are just the Conservatives. It's just clear now that they are for the failed Conservative politicians from the past. Now, you know, I think the last few days of chaos on the right were good for the Labour Party, but I do think there is going to have to be a question for them at some point, strategically for themselves, apart from anything else. Are they saying Reform UK are just the Tories or are they saying that some distinctively new threat, that Keir Starmer cannot sleep at night thinking they might be in government? I think that's kind of interesting wrinkle to all of this.

Kate Ferguson (35:56)

I think that is so interesting because it's true, isn't it, that basically ask Keir Starmer personally, I'm sure he says they're terrifying new threat. Hence his big Labour Party corporate speech, which was so controversial, which kind of invited this idea that he thinks Farage and reformer kind of far right dangerous, you know, almost. I don't think he used the word fascistic, but like almost that kind of variety.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:18)

Well, he said the policies were racist.

Kate Ferguson (36:21)

Racist. So he's painting them as something totally frightening and new. But now they've got this new attack line. They're just Tory Party 2.0. You didn't like them, you chucked them out last time. Don't give them another go. They fly in the face of each other. They are conflicting.

Paddy O'Connell (36:35)

I think it's evidence Nigel Farage knows of the risk of having too many Tories because he's put this deadline on having any more.

Laura Kuenssberg (36:42)

And supposedly he said no to lots of them who we will see. We also tried to get out of Richard Tice this morning who the labor defector was going to be this week. And he wouldn't say it. Shock, horror. And told everybody to be patient. However, he did say very nice things about Kate Hoey, former Labor MP who was busy saying very nice things about Nigel Farage online last night. So may not be her. Who knows? Who knows? But might not even happen either.

Paddy O'Connell (37:07)

Really. Well, that's bigger news than the name because we could play Name Wang and we'd all, we could all be wrong. Well, I would do that for hours. But you might be right. But the fact that it may not happen, that's embarrassing.

Laura Kuenssberg (37:17)

Well, I just think these things, you know, don't always come to pass, do they? So they, you know, Najafar said yes on Tuesday. There'll be somebody anyway. I'm, I'm in the realms of speculating, but, you know, these things are often very uncertain. We didn't think Robert Jenwood, Robert Jenrick didn't think he was going to defect this week.

Helena Merrill (37:43)

If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merrill and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first time? The History Bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Paddy O'Connell (38:20)

So we're on our way. We will do a look ahead. But a little bit of reaction from newscaster to Ian Russell, father of Molly Russell, who appeared on a special newscast on Saturday with Laura and I and he spoke about how he's not in favor of a social media ban for under 16 year olds. There are different opinions about it, but one of the things that Nicola appreciated was his tone, knowing what he's been through that he had so much nuance.

Laura Kuenssberg (38:47)

Yes, she said. I've just listened to the interview. It was so inspirational and hopeful to hear from a rational and caring human being with clear and thoughtful ideas about social media policy. Shame Ian Russell is not a politician. Well, that there will be a vote in the Lords shortly over banning social media for under 16s. It's one of the issues that has been bubbling around and it may come to, well, it will come to a head in Parliament, but we don't know what the results would be. But clearly. Thank you for getting in touch. A lot of you thought whatever side of the Conversation you're on. It was good to hear somebody describe their thoughts in a very thoughtful way. Having had the worst possible experience at the worst excesses of social media, but coming through that and able to engage and share their insight and expertise. After all his years of campaigning. Quick thought, Henry. The vote on the Hillsborough law tomorrow. Is the government going to be red face or they're going to press the pause button?

Henry Zeffman (39:43)

I think it's looking pretty tricky for the government, to be honest. I mean, worth remembering we were talking about Labour conference back in September in Liverpool. I mean, it was a huge moment and a very moving moment. Margaret Aspinall, who, whose son died at Hillsborough and has been one of the most vocal and prominent Hillsborough justice campaigners. I think she introduced Keir Starmer, she hailed him for introducing the Hillsborough law. And now you have various families and of course, Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, Steve Rotherham, the Labour mayor of the Liverpool City region, Tracey Brabin. On your programme today, another Labour mayor essentially backing those two mayors up. I think it's very tricky for the government and this is something that Keir Starmer has put a lot of personal impetus behind. So if it does all fall apart, I think never mind the implications of not having the policy, but also just politically for him, that is going to look pretty awkward.

Laura Kuenssberg (40:39)

So we'll see. Lisa Nandy told us she thought that she was confident they could resolve the issues with the family. The issue at hand is whether or not the intelligence services would have a legal compulsion to this duty of candor in other ways to be legally compelled to tell the the whole truth and nothing but the truth when things go wrong in public, if there's a public inquiry or an investigation. But the government wants to exempt to a degree the security services from that. That is what was angered and upset so many of the campaigners. So that's the issue at hand. We'll see if the government decides to delay the bill or they manage to reach a compromise. But it really is an issue that a lot of people care very deeply about.

Paddy O'Connell (41:16)

It's almost as if governing is difficult, isn't it? That seems to be what the message of Labour's term has been since the election.

Laura Kuenssberg (41:23)

So hard.

Paddy O'Connell (41:24)

So, listen, we say thank you so much to Kate. We've asked you to work on a Sunday, which is when Sunday journalists normally have a day off.

Laura Kuenssberg (41:31)

Thanks for having me.

Kate Ferguson (41:32)

I've enjoyed it. Thanks for the coffee. BBC.

Laura Kuenssberg (41:35)

Very welcome. Let's provide value for the license fee, even if it's a kind of bad white coffee.

Paddy O'Connell (41:40)

Henriett's Goodbye. Anything else we've lost about the week ahead?

Henry Zeffman (41:44)

No, I'm just. No one made me a coffee, so I'm feeling. I guess I could have made it for myself.

Laura Kuenssberg (41:49)

She's a gay. Yes.

Henry Zeffman (41:50)

Yeah, yeah, quite right.

BBC Announcer (41:51)

Quite right.

Paddy O'Connell (41:52)

So thank you very much for listening and being in touch. It's goodbye.

Laura Kuenssberg (41:54)

Goodbye.

Henry Zeffman (41:55)

Goodbye.

Laura Kuenssberg (41:55)

Bye.

Kate Ferguson (41:56)

Newscast Newscast from the BBC.

Chris Mason (41:59)

Thank you so much for making it to the end of Newscast. You clearly copyright Chris Mason Ooze Stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Don't forget, you can email us anytime. It's newscastbc.co.uk and if you would like to join our Discord community to talk about everything Newscast related, there is a link in the description of this podcast and don't be scared. It's super easy to click on it and then get set up. Or you can WhatsApp us on 033-01-239480 and I promise you we read and listen to every single message. Thanks for listening to this podcast by.