Laura Kuenssberg (2:05)

It's Paddy in the studio.

Henry Zeffman (2:06)

And it's Henry in the studio.

Chris Mason (2:08)

Irl as the kids would say in real life. It's lovely to have you with us.

Henry Zeffman (2:12)

A New Year's surprise.

Chris Mason (2:13)

Especially because we will talk about a bit later our long interview with Keir Starmer. That is all there newscasters for you in your feeds. As a separate episode you can listen to the whole thing and it's glory or grizzly detail, however you feel about it and we'll talk about that in a few minutes time. So it's great you're here with us to help unpick the political intrigue.

Laura Kuenssberg (2:32)

First, President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela was plucked in his pyjamas from his bed trying to make it to the safe room in his fortress, as the US President has called it and is now in United States of America. The aircraft flying him was made to go past the Statue of Liberty in scenes that really were made for television. And he's done. As Laura told us, the perpetrators walked. Maduro manacled. The foe of Donald Trump now facing American justice with global reaction ignited.

Chris Mason (3:05)

That's right. And you can see how different countries are lining up to take different tax. You can see Western allies have all sort of landed on this slightly fence sitting line. But I think that reflects the difficulty of how they can handle it which if we sum it up they say, well, Maduro is a wrong and but we kind of hope that Trump didn't break the rules. But nobody's sad about this happening.

Henry Zeffman (3:30)

Yeah. And I think, I mean we'll come on to the fuller aspects of your interview with Keir Starmer, but his position seems to be that he stressed the importance of international law. He does not yet have a view on whether this broke international law. And Nicola Maduro was not a good thing. I don't think he is able necessarily to keep juggling all those balls in the air simultaneously for much longer. I think he's going to have to pick sort two of those three to stick to.

Chris Mason (4:00)

Not least because in this country you've got political rivals saying we'll go on and condemn it like the Lib Dems and the Greens. They're already labor mps saying it should be condemned. But also we're starting today on day two of this huge story have international organizations like the UN San Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General saying he's deeply alarmed by the military operation in Venezuela. But there's a lot kind of swirling around and, and the pictures of what's happened are completely extraordinary and they've been posted all over the world by the White House and others. The American have released all sorts of footage of what's happened through their own channels. But what we don't know yet, Paddy, is what's actually going to happen in Venezuela. You know, Donald Trump made this amazing claim yesterday saying American oil companies were going to go in and make billions of dollars and America's going to run it. But we don't know how that's going to work.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:51)

Yes, because really there are different horses to back in Venezuela because all of the Maduro regime is still there, including the woman he picked as vice President who negotiating with the White House, we're told, and with whom Donald Trump has said he will work. Rodriguez, the vice president. Meanwhile, there is an opposition leader, Machado, who beat him to the Nobel Peace Prize, with whom he's not working. And I spoke to Carrie Filipetti, who was a US Representative to Venezuela, and she told me that she thought that was a strategic mistake by the White House because Machado is the leader of the opposition and won the Nobel Prize for fighting the same problem, Maduro, who's said to have stolen the reelection. So you've got, she's got legitimacy and support. And the vice president was appointed by Maduro, the man that the White House says is the enemy.

Chris Mason (5:43)

There are those suggestions, and we don't know if this is true. But if you look at some of the reporting and if you look at some of the speculation, and let's be clear on day two of a story like this, there is a lot of theorizing around, some by people who are experts, some by people, frankly, who are not experts, who. But of course, there are questions being asked about whether the White House had dealings with other people inside the Maduro regime before they actually got him out and got him on a chopper.

Henry Zeffman (6:11)

Well, there certainly seem to be quite strong suggestions that at the very least there were assets for the US in the Maduro regime who were able to assist the US in working out how to get to what Paddy says, you know, the US Described as Maduro's fortress.

Chris Mason (6:28)

Where he was going to be in his pajamas.

Henry Zeffman (6:29)

Exactly. I mean, that clearly is an audacious military slash law enforcement activity from the US Forces. I mean, I think one thing that's also really quite interesting that I thought from the Trump press conference and I think we'll see develop over the next few days, is that the US Is essentially presenting this international maneuver as a mere matter of domestic law. They say, look, Nicholas Maduro and his wife are facing a U.S. indictment. So we're bringing them to see to face justice in the US there's sort of no reference to international law. And that is obviously going to present a problem for all sorts of world leaders who do talk about international law. And obviously not to sound parochial, but sir, Keir Starmer, former director of Public Prosecutions, who wrote a textbook on various aspects of international law, is one of those leaders. So that is an issue.

Chris Mason (7:21)

And he didn't back the war in Iraq, even though that had a UN Resolution. So in this situation, this has not got UN Backing. This is an isolated American decision. Its legal position is not clear. And as you say, this puts this whole issue of the flexibility of international law and how politicians respond and use it to their own advantage or disadvantage, that puts that right back on the table.

Laura Kuenssberg (7:43)

Because what President Trump has done is what President Putin wanted to do in Ukraine, which is take your guy out. And they Putin thought he could do it in three days and has lost, killed or wounded nearly a million men because it's united the west or it did unite the west in opposition to contra international law invasion of Ukraine. And Donald Trump's got his man in a 92 hour operation from to taken him into a US court.

Chris Mason (8:10)

But the interesting thing here is always it's a reminder that international law is the law until it's not right. So we should not pretend, and no politicians should pretend, although they often do, that international law is somehow written on a tablet of stone and it is not, as all laws are open to interpretation. And it was interesting. We had Grant Shapps, the former Defense secretary, on the panel with us this morning, who, as he shared with us, once ordered a gunboat to go to Venezuela to send a message to Maduro. But what he said is he thinks the Tories should back these strikes and say, yes, they were a good thing and, you know, in a sense, hang international law. His point was, he said, it breaks my heart that Trump might not do the same in Moscow. So the question is, international law can be very flexible, but where does it apply and where does it not? Because the political contexts actually are so often the real, the real deciders.

Henry Zeffman (8:58)

Well, and if we are moving into a world, some would say we've long been in this world where the great powers, the us, Russia, China, simply declare that international law is what they're doing or they openly don't care about international law, then does the UK and perhaps to some extent the EU and NATO countries besides the US start to look a little bit irrelevant, peripheral, outdated? And might Sukhiya Starmer come to be seen as a symptom of that? And I think that gets to the bigger question, which I already thought was going to be one of the big questions of 2026, and I think I've said this on newscast, but much more so now, which is, is Sakir Starmer getting enough benefit out of his relationship with Donald Trump to justify the undoubted political difficulties here in the UK of having politicians to his left saying, why aren't you standing up to this man?

Chris Mason (9:49)

And there is that question of sort of the normies looking like the ones who are behind the curve Right. And I think we've already seen that in a way. I mean, I remember some of the speeches that Theresa May was making after the Salisbury poisonings and things like that. She was standing up and it felt like a big political moment. I remember a speech that I was at, she gave actually in the States when she'd been to see Trump. And I think it was then a speech given at Philadelphia, in Philadelphia. But I have to go back to my dusty old notebooks to be sure about that. But she was standing up saying the rules based order is under threat. Well, we're really, really in that place now. And warnings about that had been made for a long, long, long, long time. But if you think also about what happened dominating much of the news last year in the Israel, Gaza conflict, huge unhappiness in this country and others about what, how far their ally Israel was pushing anything like the remote norms of military action and what should be acceptable during a time of conflict. So I think as we begin 2026, Henry, I think you're absolutely right. It's likely to be an ongoing feature of this year, but it's a kind of development we've seen building up in our politics. And this sort of strong man. The strong men are strong men. And you're a bit of a normie. Do you actually look like you've got much influence?

Henry Zeffman (11:03)

Can I offer up one more niche fact that I've learned this morning while trying to.

Chris Mason (11:06)

It's the right place for it.

Henry Zeffman (11:08)

Work out what's going on. I mentioned this domestic trial that Maduro and his wife are going to face in New York. The judge who has been assigned to preside over it is 92 years old.

Chris Mason (11:19)

Wowzers, that's amazing.

Henry Zeffman (11:21)

And they say that US politicians are getting older.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:24)

There's a word for it. Is it gerontocracy?

Henry Zeffman (11:27)

Gerontocracy.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:28)

Gerontocracy. That's how it's pronounced. I was aware of the letters, but not necessarily in the right order. And the other thing I'll just put out there, because newscasters will be shouting this at their earbuds, is that the west loves to take out the leaders of oil powers. We've been doing it for years and it doesn't always go very well. The what happens next question was famously not asked in Iraq. So there's loads of listeners who think the west has not learned its lessons. Never mind what the east is doing, never mind what the war of aggression launched by President Putin. So let's come back to the other points of order raised in the interview between the Prime Minister and the newscast princess Laura Kuenzberg. I mean, firstly, Henry, I said to Laura yesterday, it's quite retro to do 45 minutes with a prime minister on TV.

Chris Mason (12:24)

Yeah.

Henry Zeffman (12:24)

So retro that I have to confess I don't think I've often seen it in my lifetime. Certainly my time covering politics. I know that it was a thing decades ago, but decades now I don't.

Chris Mason (12:34)

Think I've ever seen. I don't think I've seen it either. I mean, I, I didn't watch Walden when I was a kid. I was like riding my bike or eating sweets.

Laura Kuenssberg (12:41)

I did, but what was the negotiation like with the number 10, can you spill the tea?

Chris Mason (12:47)

Well, I didn't go to Downing street and said, I am the new Walden, the legendary interviewer of decades gone by, who had the show this Sunday morning morning slot on ITV for many years and used to do these incredible big, long interviews that I didn't watch when I was a kid, but. And famously had these big binders, the sort of huge binders of information to kind of plan these interview. And, you know, if they say yes, go to page nine. If they say no to that question, go to page 12 or whatever. But Keir Starmer, interestingly, had been doing some longer interviews on podcasts, including this one some time ago. And I just thought, can we give it a go? There's a convention, although Keir Starmer didn't do it last year, but there was a convention that the Prime Minister always does an interview in the first week of January. We did that with Rishi Sunak the year before, remember him? But Keir Starmer wasn't up for it last year. But so, you know, I suggested, look, we'd love to have him on in the first week of the year. Let's sort of revive that convention. And of course, if you do our jobs, you'd always push to do an interview with the Prime Minister. And we just thought, look, why not see if they want to translate what they've done in some other formats. Let's, let's see if we can do something really long and see how it works. But, and I would, you know, I would say I think it was a bit of a experiment for them and also a bit of an experiment for us because it's not been in vogue and television for a long time to have such a long conversation. I don't want to be self indulgent.

Laura Kuenssberg (14:16)

No, no.

Chris Mason (14:16)

About this.

Laura Kuenssberg (14:17)

But you've said people will either love it or hate it. Be very Rude. They can write and be very rude.

Chris Mason (14:20)

Oh, they will, undoubtedly.

Laura Kuenssberg (14:22)

Did you? No, no. Might have liked it.

Chris Mason (14:23)

Both all things are possible.

Laura Kuenssberg (14:25)

Henry, did you see a different side of him? Because, I mean, he is under the most extraordinary pressure to push off.

Henry Zeffman (14:31)

Yeah. As was a big feature of the interview was, you know, pressing that point to Sir Keir Starmer. And I think, you know, to look at it from the other end of the telescope, I know from speaking to people around Keir Starmer that for some time they've felt that one reason, they would not claim the main reason, but one reason for his unpopularity, which we should always remember, because I think for many people this is a startling fact, is unprecedented.

Chris Mason (14:55)

It's epic. I mean, it's epicly unpopular.

Henry Zeffman (14:58)

It's quite extraordinary for a Prime Minister who won a landslide 17 or so months ago. But one reason that people in Downing street ascribe for that is that they believe he hasn't got a chance. Partly because of the media, but partly because of them. Various reasons to just state his case, make his case. So I can see that that is what they were hoping for here. I guess the question which I'll be really interested in back to Parliament tomorrow, speaking to Labour mps, is whether they believe that at greater length he did manage to set out what they crave from him, which is a clearer vision for where he wants to take the country, or whether actually they just felt he was saying the same old things at greater length over a greater time period.

Laura Kuenssberg (15:38)

You know the scene in a really epic horror film where someone's trying to start the car and there's a big scary thing coming down the road and the car, you see the keys and you think of the Downing street turning.

Henry Zeffman (15:51)

The key constant analogy.

Laura Kuenssberg (15:53)

Well, they're trying to turn the key five times. There was a reset, wasn't there? There was a rebound, there was a milestone. But the papers over the holiday period told me that there is a landing zone. Laura, we've always tried to explore this because there's so much doom. There is a picture of falling interest rates, of some growth, of falling inflation. We voters may not feel it, but pay has been going up and there is a potential future.

Chris Mason (16:22)

There is. I mean, you and I have wanging on about it for months and months and months, like doom is doom and doom can be in fashion and doom has been in fashion for a long time, but fashions can change. And to just turn to what K Summer said, you know, that's clearly his pitch is, ah, I'm optimistic and I'm confident and 2026 is going to be a great year. And by the way, I'm not going anywhere. And a reminder, the interviews in your feed do listen to it and we're not going to go through all of the clips here, but I suppose that's his the main political message that they want to convey. But I wondered at the end of the interview actually if some people listening to that will just think you don't get how much trouble you're in. So at the end, you know, I kind of said to him, listen to you really carefully for many, many minutes. Isn't there a danger that you, you just sound complacent and that giving lists of the things that he thinks have been good are not going to be enough to change the dial?

Henry Zeffman (17:15)

Well, and he was trying to be at pains to say, look, I get why people are frustrated. And you know, he had this ages a while adding up the number of times how old people would be if they were a certain age at the financial crash and certain age now. And yeah, you know, of course he had to do that. That's a prerequisite of then making the argument that things are going to get better. But I think as you got to at the end of the interview, the risk is that that's a category error and that actually people aren't or some people aren't frustrated at the slow pace of change. They just don't like him and they just don't like what he's doing. And I'm not sure for the slice of voters for whom that's the case and you can argue over how big that slice of voters are. I'm not sure he offered anything new to change their minds in this interview.

Chris Mason (18:01)

So one of the things he did suggest and actually we'll just briefly, if you haven't got time to listen to it or you haven't listened to it yet, just if we sort of whiz through some of the lines. He said the whole news story about the Egyptian British activist Abdullah Fatah, who'd said some outrageously offensive things online. And Keir Starmer had said he was delighted to welcome home. He said he regretted having said that. And that is a sort of mini story in its own right. He was very positive about the possibility of a peace deal in Ukraine. And he told us that on Tuesday, this week there are going to be talks between the Americans and the Europeans about how they integrate military efforts to give security guarantees to Ukraine. That could end up being a big story on Tuesday. But he also, which will be Very. Might be a sort of mini political explosion. He said he wanted much closer alignment in lots of different areas with a single market. Now if you voted for Brexit or your Nigel Farage, you might think, oh, hang on a minute, this is going to make me pretty cross. He always told me Brexit was safe in his hands and now he's misled me on that too. If on the other hand, you're in the progressive ranks of the Labour Party or you're a Lib Dem, you think, oh, well my, that sounds interesting. Oh, maybe we might be in, in business here.

Henry Zeffman (19:12)

Well, and we should also say as we enter the year which marks the 10th anniversary of the EU referendum.

Chris Mason (19:17)

Yeah.

Henry Zeffman (19:17)

The, the polling shows that a majority of the country, sometimes quite significant majority, thinks that Brexit was a mistake. Now that's not the same thing as saying necessarily that the same majority of the country wants the government to spend its energy doing more to renegotiate its relationship with, with Europe than it already is because it is already doing quite a lot. I mean this is, it was rearing its head quite a lot towards the end of last year, but it's quite frustrating one to report on because there was a, a Monday a few weeks before Christmas where Keir Starmer had, I think an article in the Guardian and two speeches in both of, in all of which he made similarly positive noises, not actually as far as he went with you in this interview, but positive noises about going further than currently planned to get closer to the eu. But then when I tried to report it out in the phrase, you know, speak to people and ask them what was going on, it became clear there was much less to it than met the eye. It was a rhetorical turn of phrase. But actually, you know, it's still just the negotiations that we knew about at the pretty significant UK EU summit last year. And I'm still not clear that there is much more to this than just a kind of beyond what we know about, which is quite significant. But I'm still not clear there is a developed plan within government to actually go way beyond what we know. And I think it might just be a sort of line to try to reassure progressives who might be quite frustrated that Keir Starmer isn't going further because.

Laura Kuenssberg (20:42)

You mentioned the 10 year anniversary of the Brexit referendum. We'll probably look back and say Brexit gave birth to the new multi party politics and probably that was the death knell of traditional two party system. Will probably look back and say that. And one of the. I know. Well, one of them. Let me limp to my conclusion. One of the. Some of the groups of people who are most upset at how Brexit turned out are Brexiteers who feel that they were let down. They were promised as voters, vote for my Brexit. Oh, British person. And immigration will fall. All that problem you've had with all the over demand on our services from people coming in, it's going to go down. So what happened? It went up. How much did it go up to? A record. So voters. That was the beginning of this breakup of who to trust and who to rely on. And I think that that's one of the reasons why when we go into the next election, we're going to have 16 year olds voting for multiple parties. And when Henry's on here saying what happened and you'll be there hosting the show, we'll go back to 2016 and say that's what started it all, multi party Britain.

Chris Mason (21:48)

So I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on that because we just had the coalition era before that and remember then everybody in that era went, oh, yes, look, multi party politics. Because we've got the SNP having swept through Scotland and they're now part of the picture and we've got the Lab Dems even in government. But what I think that you. I think you're right. I think people will see Brexit, quite rightly as this sort of cataclysmic moment where the status quo was thrown up in the air. That's definitively the case. And the Conservative Party, which up until that point had been the most successful party in the history of the world, was cleaved into, if that's the right word, and they've still struggled to come back from that. You know, there was this huge big split on the right, but I just wonder if we can be incredibly nerdy for a second this year. And I think what we might see, and which may last all the way till the 29 election, is what we're basically looking at. It's not two big parties, but two blocks. So does Keir Starmer become the leader of the block of people who see themselves as sort of progressive and kind of on the left? And that might include labor voters, the Lib Dems, who are tipped definitely more to the left than they might have used to have done? The Greens. Where do they fit into all of this? Then you've got your party over in the sort of left turn, end of that. And then the block on the right Whether it's reform and the Tories. And some of the biggest questions I think for us and for the country really are how are those two blocks going to start operating together, if at all? So if there were to be a deal between reform and the Tories that completely transforms the numbers at every future election, if there were to be any kind of formal or even just an expansion, a deepening of the links between those, those different parties on the left, the kind of tactical voting, we've already seen some of a little pocket in Caerphilly Plaid Cymru got that by election Reform were disappointed because some voters on the left decided to get together to stop Nigel Farage. And I think for 2026, maybe 27, 28, up. Up to the. That might be the really interesting thing that we're talking about for even longer than I've just been talking about, because.

Henry Zeffman (23:59)

What you describe, Laura, is essentially the electoral strategy for 2029, as far as we can tell, in Downing street, which is to say that at the next general election there will be a Nigel Farage candidate, I, Nigel Farage and a not Nigel Farage candidate, which they hope to be Sakiya Starmer. Essentially they think that, that progressive voters who are frustrated with the government for all sorts of reasons will come home because they will not want Nigel Farage to be prime minister. And they made a big call, by the way, getting on for a year ago in Downing street to treat Nigel Farage like the leader of the opposition, which they would say is just a reflection of reality rather than the Conservatives. But one thing I keep thinking is, well, okay, but if Downing street is willing to entertain the idea, indeed, say it's inevitable that on the right wing block the leader is going to be the guy who currently has five MPs, not the woman who currently has 120 odd. Well, why is it obvious that the Labour Party leader would be the anointed not Farage candidate? Why could it not be Zach Polanski who currently has five MPs? Why could it not be Sir Ed Davey who has 80 odd MPs? I think it is slightly fraught with risk for them there.

Chris Mason (25:07)

What does it also though mean in terms of policy? Right, because if that is the clear decision, why then is Shabana Mahmood's immigration policy being cranked up and her critics would say going closer to a reform or conservative style of policy? She would deny that. But in the Labour's first sort of year in government, there was a lot of, oh God, actually, reform is rising up the Rails, we need to be responding to the concerns of voters who might be tempted for reform. If they've made a clear decision that actually they're looking the other way, you might expect. Expect them to be either rolling back on some of that or starting to push the buttons more firmly in the other direction. And this gets us back to where's the coherence of what they're trying to do in number 10 and whether today there was any more definitive coherence from the Prime Minister in terms of what he was saying? I don't think there was particular. I think it was interesting language on Ukraine. That was a. That was a story. I think there was a story about the single market, there was his regret about Al Fata, and there was the I'm not going anywhere. But did he come with a new isn't script script? I mean, or even just a new big plan? I mean, even on asylum hotels, he said, oh, yeah, we'll shut them before 2029. That's a new story. But would he give us a date? No, he said, I've told the system I want them to do it.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:21)

I can see, Henry, you're imminent.

Henry Zeffman (26:22)

Well, I thought the one bit that did come closest to a new argument I'm interested in whether you think the same law was when he was talking about Nigel Farage and he said, look, I'm a student of history and I know that, you know, if people go for the easy answer option, by which he means Nigel Farage, and then inevitably that government fails, it will keep going right and right and right. And I thought that was quite close, but in a new form to the argument which went down very well on the left that he made at Labour Party Conference, which began actually in his interview with you back then, when he said that Reform's plans were racist.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:55)

Because there's an interesting piece by the Times columnist Fraser Nelson saying there is a version of the future which includes zero net migration as partly as a result of decisions taken by the last Conservative administration. To your point about what Shabana Mahmood is doing, which does provoke people on the left, if there is no migration to the uk, where does that lead?

Henry Zeffman (27:18)

Reform.

Chris Mason (27:19)

Well, that's true. And it's interesting. When you talk to people in Reform, sometimes at the top of the party, there's a fundamental question for them, if the other parties were doing well, if they were doing what they promised to do, do they need to exist? And some senior people in Reform have been very candid to me and said, well, no, we don't. I Mean, we're here because the others don't work. We're not here. People have said to me, because we have our own burning ambition, burning ambition and ideology, that we're desperate to take the country towards a shining city on the hill. They would admit themselves they are here because what they would say is the, what they call the mono part or the Uni Party, they may say this, the Tory, the laboratory and Labors, both, both screwed up and therefore we're filling a gap in the market. So that's an interesting thing. And if immigration were to fall significantly. But illegal immigration though, and it's the sites, I think, of those small boat crossings and the sites of asylum hotels, those are the things that I think have become so politically toxic in the last couple of years. So. And closing that down is just such a huge, huge, huge challenge. And there's this government has not made, you know, not made much visible progress. They would say they got deals, returns, deals with countries around the world and they're putting things in place now. And Shabana Mahmud's got a whole load of new measures on the way which have to go through Parliament. There could be some very, very stormy debates around that. There's nothing at all clear that says they're going to have sorted it by the time of the next election.

Henry Zeffman (28:52)

Well, and also to draw an analogy on both illegal and legal migration, we've just seen with inflation, which has been at the heart of British politics for what, three, four years, that the Conservatives went into a general election saying, well, the rate at which prices are going up has fallen, I. E. Inflation's come down and people went, yeah, we're still really struggling with the cost of living and things are still really expensive. And I do think, I mean, it would be fascinating what the implications for British politics are if legal migration comes to net zero, as Fraser Nelson suggests it might. But I do think there's a possibility that the voters who are most exercised about immigration say, well, yeah, but all the people who came here in the so called Boris wave and after are still here. And I'm not quite clear that it would completely reorientate British politics in the way that some people in the mainstream parties are hoping that it would.

Laura Kuenssberg (29:47)

Okay, we'll be wrapping and looking ahead. But I just wonder, should we just drill into the fact that there's a famous Harold Wilson quote? What's going on? I'm going on. Is that what Keir said? Is that the message this morning?

Henry Zeffman (29:56)

Keir STARMERS yeah, I think it essentially was. And he, he all but promised you another long form interview in the first week of January 2027, Laura. I mean, for all the reasons we've talked about over newscasts recently, and for all the reasons I think we'll be talking about right through to the May elections, which Keir Starmer, by the way, began to argue, and I'm sure we'll hear a lot more of this. These are not a referendum on national politics.

Laura Kuenssberg (30:22)

Yeah, they're a referendum on national politics.

Chris Mason (30:24)

They are. I mean, of course those races are important decisions for who runs our councils, who runs hol, who runs the Senate in Wales. But they absolutely, certainly also are a test of Keir Starmer's own popularity. And whether he likes it or not, that's true for the public. Whether he likes it or not, that will be also true for many of his MPs. But I think, Henry, you're right, we heard that little flash of what that argument is going to be. But I did think that him saying I will be sitting in this seat in 2027, that's the most definitive. He's been elsewhere in the interview he said the kind of thing he said before, which is like, I was elected with a mandate of five years and I intend to serve that you. But that was the most definitive, I think he'd been. Because at the conference, which was the last time we did a long interview with him, not quite this long, but it was long. He, we asked him, that's, you know what John Major said, put up or shut up. Wilson said, what's going on? I'm going on. And Keir Starmer then said, give, give me space and give me time and then start talking about his mandate this time saying, I will be in this seat by 2027 and I will lead us into the next election for that fight against Nigel Farage. I think it's the most definitive that he been. But I would love to know, Henry, what all those MPs queuing up to speak to you in Monday in Port Cullis House in Westminster tomorrow. Are they all back tomorrow or is it Tuesday?

Henry Zeffman (31:42)

Isn't it? I think it's tomorrow.

Chris Mason (31:44)

I don't know.

Henry Zeffman (31:44)

I mean, it'll be tomorrow. I just want to say this message for any labor mps, I'll be sitting in Portcullis house from about 10:30am tomorrow.

Laura Kuenssberg (31:53)

Do you sit there with a sort of, you know, with a begging bowl or do. How do people come over?

Henry Zeffman (31:57)

I think my presence is, is a sort of metaphorical begging bowl. There's a, there's a crucial sense seat. Oh, Actually, I shouldn't.

Chris Mason (32:03)

Anyway, I started.

Henry Zeffman (32:04)

Now I'll finish. Well, no, I grab it early in the morning, which is the sort of green feature as you come up the escalator.

Laura Kuenssberg (32:11)

The seat of destiny.

Chris Mason (32:12)

Oh, yes, I've seen it.

Henry Zeffman (32:12)

And it's very impossible. Very impossible to dodge me. Very hard to dodge me. Sorry, it's not impossible. People are quite good at it. If I'm sitting there because I was.

Laura Kuenssberg (32:20)

Told there's a similar seat in the House of Lords where one peer told me he liked to sit, get all the gossip. But there was famously a mouse that used to sit under the seat that was known as the mouse of Lords. And I'd see you as a sort of a similar muse in the Commons.

Henry Zeffman (32:35)

Well, there is certainly not just one mouse in the Houses of Parliament, be it literal or metaphorical.

Chris Mason (32:40)

But are there any rats? Ho, ho, ho. I had a different tactic. I used to perambulate. So I used to walk around and bump into people that way. And then I used to go up and down the corridors where government ministers have their offices. And if you do that for about half an hour, you could bump into, you know, however many government ministers it used to be.

Laura Kuenssberg (32:59)

Be.

Chris Mason (32:59)

And you're quite cunning.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:00)

And you get your steps up.

Chris Mason (33:01)

Yeah, and you get your steps up. Exactly. I mean, you probably also look a bit crackers, to be honest. But, yeah, I used to walk around also sit and drink cups of tea and people with people in Portcullis House. But sometimes people do that to be seen.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:11)

So that's the look. Parliament returns.

Chris Mason (33:14)

Yeah.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:14)

Henry returns.

Chris Mason (33:15)

Yeah.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:16)

Also Venezuela, we have a look ahead.

Chris Mason (33:18)

Huge. I mean, look, that's going to rumble on. It could.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:21)

Who.

Chris Mason (33:21)

Who knows which way that will go next? But Maduro, we expect to appear in court in New York this week with his wife safe. Beyond that, look, we. We don't know. I'm sure there'll be questions in Parliament about statements in Parliament. There might be some kind of session at the un. But we're sort of. There is, you know, we're sort of guessing of it, aren't we?

Laura Kuenssberg (33:37)

Well, an emergency Security Council meeting called by Colombia with the backing of Russia and China. We do expect. As a look ahead.

Chris Mason (33:44)

Oh, so excellent. You had the fact. I didn't.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:46)

The editor wrote it down for me to say. I thought you were going to say it, but it falls to me. But I'm only reading. So there we are.

Chris Mason (33:53)

Look.

Laura Kuenssberg (33:53)

Henry. You're Henry at home to me, and now you're Henry in the flesh. It's a. It's a lovely thing.

Henry Zeffman (33:58)

I feel at home wherever I'm talking about.

Chris Mason (34:00)

Oh, there we are. Well, it's been lovely to have you with us in real life. And newscasters. Happy New Year. It's lovely to have you back with us from our weekend purchase. And if you do want to listen, the whole Care Summer interview is in your ears on BBC Sounds and it's on iplayer if you want to watch back. And of course the screeds of other bits and pieces of it. And some, some, some women rattling on about what they thought online as well.

Laura Kuenssberg (34:24)

So there we are and Adam's here tomorrow. Thank you for joining Sunday's Newscast.

Chris Mason (34:28)

Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye Newscast Newscast from the BBC.

Podcast Host/Outro Speaker (34:33)

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 any 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.

Chris Mason (35:13)

Bye.

BBC Announcer (35:20)

At the BBC we go further so you see clearer. Through frontline reporting, global stories and local insights, we bring you closer to the world's news as it happens. And it starts with a subscription to BBC.com, giving you unlimited articles and videos ad free podcasts. The BBC News Channel streaming live 24. Seven plus hundreds of acclaimed documentaries. Subscribe to trusted independent journalism and storytelling from the BBC. Find out more at BBC.com join@thebbc. We go further so you see clearer. Through frontline reporting, global stories and local insights, we bring you closer to the world's news as it happens. And it starts with a subscription to BBC.com com giving you unlimited articles and videos ad free podcasts. The BBC News Channel streaming live 24. Seven plus hundreds of acclaimed documentaries. Subscribe to trusted independent journalism and storytelling from the BBC. Find out more at BBC.com. join.