I think I want Keir Starmer to go | James O’Brien - The Whole Show

Minutes after ten is the time

I mean, crikey, we ran through some of the greatest hits yesterday, didn't it, when it comes to my well-worn and over-rehearsed anecdotes

that I like to use to sometimes highlight rather bigger pictures. What did we go with for today, my old geography teacher or Donald Rumsfeld

Donald Rumsfeld's famous litany, of course, of, I always forget precisely what it was

the known knowns, the known unknowns, the unknown unknowns and the unknown knowns

And my old geography teacher, who was not, shall we say, the most knowledgeable exponent of geographic arts, who used to respond to questions that he couldn't answer by telling us, don't know, nobody knows, don't need to know, it's not in the curriculum

And there is an awful lot that we don't know about the extraordinary, the close to unprecedented revelation reported by The Guardian newspaper yesterday

that Peter Mandelson, prior to being sent to Washington, D.C., as the ambassador to the court of Donald Trump

but it would appear after it was announced that he was being appointed to that role

failed a or the vetting process well the vetting process his security clearance

pause for a moment just to reflect and forgive me for this

but on the journalistic scoop of the year this isn't it? It's going to take some beating

the Guardian absolutely smacking it out of the park. When you think about

the effort that some of their rivals on the right of British politics are putting in to

pin anything on the current government and particularly the current Prime Minister, trying to demonise

a donkey sanctuary at one point. This, by the Guardian, is absolutely extraordinary

and brilliant journalism. A massive, massive scoop and a potentially premiership ending revelation

He was, I mean, the decision was overruled by the foreign office

so that he could take up his role as ambassador to the US

We have a book to be written, don't we, about the damage sustained by the entire Labour Party

over a period of about 30 years, if not more, as a direct consequence of trying to find plum jobs for Peter Mandelson

How much damage? Can anyone count it? Is it measurable, the amount of damage sustained by the Labour Party

as an absolutely direct consequence of putting Peter Mandelson into plum jobs

Now, there's an argument to be made that the good outweighs the bad, and for a long time it did, but I suspect if we could somehow see those scales

then all of the dark arts of spin and the brilliance, alleged brilliance at communication and media manipulation

is probably now, if you were to cite those as positives, they are now rather massively outweighed by the negatives

that are pointing him to these jobs create. This is absolutely insane, this story

Make no bones about it. The problem I have, and I'm going to level with you briefly

because obviously this is not in any way, shape or form about me

but when you've spent much of the last two decades chronicling the appalling amorality and incompetence of right-wing politicians

and calling out the utter hypocrisy of so-called journalists who wear their biases on their sleeve so blatantly and unashamedly

that, frankly, you don't know whether they can even lie straight in bed

Then on mornings like this, and this will sound odd, actually, I worry sometimes that I might swing too far the other way

in order to prove that I'm not a hypocrite like they are. So if, for example, today you think that it's still appropriate to suggest

or to lie through your teeth that Boris Johnson lost his job for eating cake

then in order to prove that you're in an entirely different universe

to that sort of morally bankrupt liar, then you might end up swinging too far the other way

And I'm just putting that out there because these are the things that I ponder and pontificate before I come on air

But I'm not at the moment worried that I'm overreacting to this story

because, well, on a personal level, it was almost the only thing left in Keir Starmer's locker

that you thought you could rely on. His commitment to and observance of process

I mean, this may be unfair, but some of the things that he has

some of the balls that he has dropped can be picked up again. But the two things that I felt he was almost untouchable on

would have been commitment to process and international law. He has played an absolute blinder

with regard to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's hideous adventures in the Middle East

I mean, a truly extraordinary display of probity and integrity in the face of extraordinary abuse and criticism

up to and including the President of the United States of America

He has held a steady course and got every big decision right

And so that stays in his locker. Commitment to international law, commitment to the national interest

but commitment to process? The idea when we engaged in muted celebration

celebration that 14 years of nation shredding government appeared to be in retreat. The idea

that this would signal a period not of perfection, but of at least an end to the kind of corruption

the perception of corruption, the dishonesty, the perceptions of dishonesty, the ludicrous

finagling and reverse ferreting and excusing and explaining, just the simple idea, perhaps in

retrospect naive, that we would go back to a system where things were mostly transparent

and largely dealt with honestly. So, I think I'll allow myself, I said it's not about me

and of course it's not, but this is my show, and I usually begin with my thoughts and feelings before inviting you to share yours. So, I feel profoundly let down on this particular issue

because it's really hard to see any justification for what has happened

And the obvious question to ask is, do you believe him? But that's a pointless question to ask

because we've got absolutely no material to back up our opinions. The question really becomes, does it matter whether he knew or not

Because what you have now is a situation where the Prime Minister is sort of going to argue

that it's everybody's fault but his that a man who failed security vetting

got appointed by him to be the ambassador to the United States

If it's not his fault, then whose fault is it? Oh, it's the fault of the person that didn't tell him

that Peter Mendelsohn had failed the security vetting Oh it the fault of the person that told him that he had to prioritise cosying up to Donald Trump above everything else that appeasement was the order of the day and that anything could be rubber or rushed through or squeezed

as a direct consequence of the urgency of putting somebody in the embassy in Washington, D.C

that would be able to deal with Donald Trump's depravity. Whose fault is it if it's not Keir Starmer's fault? and

I mean almost the sort of metric of how big a deal it is, is necessary here

you need some sort of slide rule or a protractor or a compass, I'm just going to run through prep school

stationary I think at the moment, or a set square, remember those

little tins, weren't they great I used to love those at the beginning of every school year

full of instruments, most of which you'd never use in the course of the year, but you need some sort

of instrument to measure the scale of the scandal here. Because it is a scandal. I don't think there's any other word for it

At the moment, I guess that the more sensible people are sticking with revelation. But for me, it's absolutely scandalous that you can send somebody to Washington

as ambassador who has failed security vetting clearance. A decision that was then overruled by the Foreign Office so he could take up his post

as ambassador to the US. The problem we have now is so much is still unknown

so many grey areas, the timescale. Olly Robbins, who for a long time was the absolute

bet-noir of so-called Brexiters, he was their public enemy number one, they absolutely despised him

I don't know if any of them have had the brass neck to come out yet and start pretending that they believe

he's a man of incredible brilliance and integrity, but mark my words, they will

People who not long ago were telling you that Olly Robbins was the least trustworthy man

in the history of the civil service, will today, so desperate will they be to hurt Kirstama

will be pretending to believe that he's an absolutely stand-up guy who couldn't possibly have done any of the things

that he's accused of doing because he's absolutely brilliant. Just please don't mention what I had to say about him during Brexit

But the idea that he would take it upon himself to stick this failed security vetting in a drawer

and not tell anybody, not clear it with anybody above, do you struggle to believe that

Because I kind of do. I kind of struggle to believe that. But I don't know

He'd only been in the job for about 10 minutes when this would have crossed his desk. And the announcement had already been made

So it is a little bit like starting a new job and realising that you have to decide

whether or not the first thing you do is put a hand grenade

pull the pin out of a hand grenade and pop it in the internal post to your new boss

They've already announced that Mandleton's going to Washington. Oh, my Lord, he's failed his security vetting

We're going to have to unannounce it. or we're going to have to stick it in a bottom drawer

and hope that nobody ever opens it again. And do you know what? If it wasn't for the revelations in the Epstein files

would this drawer ever have been opened at all? Would we ever have known

that Peter Mandelson had failed this vetting process if the Epstein files hadn't revealed

that he had lied about his relationship with the convicted billionaire paedophile

I don't want to say billionaire, but with the convicted paedophile. And to give her her due

because in the spirit of a stopped clock, I think Kemi Badenoch has played this very, very well

As a consequence of what came out in the Epstein files, they're going over every element of that appointment

with a fine tooth comb, and guess what they found? I mean, probably the biggest thing you could hope to find

if you were an enemy of this government or an enemy of Kirsten. What is the absolute best case scenario

for the opposition parties when an investigation into how an appointment was made

is undertaken. The absolute best case scenario, I think, is that he failed a vetting process and

it was ignored. Things we don't know. By whom and why. Or even perhaps when. But by whom

We know Ollie Robbins ignored it. We're being asked to believe at the moment that nobody

else knew, that nobody else did. I want you to focus today on a combination of understanding

and feeling. Sometimes we go all the way down the feeling route, sometimes we go all the

way down the knowledge route, but I think today is actually about both, because politics

isn't a science. Certainly our politics are not scientifically created, otherwise we wouldn't

be so nuanced and so different. Our politics are about a million different things. And I

think I'm going to ask you whether or not you want Keir Starmer to resign. And that

leaves open a myriad other questions that I can ask you in the course of the conversation

Listen, nobody's sort of forbidden from contributing to this programme, but I think I would discourage

people whose answer to that question is the same today as it would have been last week

or certainly if you are absolutely and hideously opposed to him, then, I mean, today is great for you

and by all means do a quick lap of honour, but I'm not sure you've got anything interesting to say

about the latest developments, because you'd already arrived at this position of extremity

before they were revealed. Similarly, if you can't imagine any circumstances whatsoever

in which you would call for Keir Starmer to resign, then I don't know how interesting you will be

I don't know if stormtrooper is a fair phrase or a fair word, but it seems to be quite an accurate description of people that I managed to offend a few months ago when I suggested that he was veering perilously close to ice that was not just thin, but was probably just cold, very cold water

and I'm not I don't think going to apologise for not answering

that question early doors myself, I'm going to wait until I've heard

a little bit of what you have to say but I am I am

I dread to say it to be honest with you, but I think I might be 52-48 on this

because of what because of what you wanted from him I mean

And reasons why I don't want him to resign would include the fear of chaos

the fact that there's a war on that he's handling exceptionally well, the fact that I can't quite see anything happening

in the immediate aftermath of Keir Starmer's resignation that would be better for the country in many ways

than Keir Starmer staying in Downing Street. That's not the biggest of my concerns, by the way

because there are two or three people who could quite quickly prove that they would be better prime ministers than him

but these are reasons why I don't want him to go reasons why I do want him to go

I think the first is actually patriotism the first reason why I want Kirstama to go

is that we have to be better than this and just because I honestly

and almost passionately thought that he would be is not enough to dial down the anger

and the upset that this is a situation the likes of which you expected to see

under Boris Johnson, not under Keir Starmer. I don't think Keir Starmer has lied

So the parallels with Boris Johnson are fairly meaningless. Boris Johnson lied about everything He lied about everything and anything for his entire life First people to point it out were his school teachers Perfect qualifications for writing a column in the Daily Mail

not very good qualifications for being a Prime Minister. But this is why I kind of asked you a moment ago whether or not it matters

Whether or not the question of did he know or didn't he know actually matters, because I'm not sure it matters to me

I mean, if my scarf this morning were knotted so tightly around my neck that it had cut off the flow of blood to my brain

I think I would be arguing it. There's no way he knew, so how can he resign

Whoever has to resign over things that they didn't know about? I think Amber Rudd might have resigned over things that she didn't know about

Lord Carrington resigned over things that he didn't know about. It's not an unprecedented practice in British politics

but I'm not wearing a scarf today. I'm just wielding a magnifying glass and a phone, of course

which you're welcome to dial up on 03456060973, because we have to be better than this

I mean, God forbid we end up with Nigel Farage in Downing Street, we will then have a significant period of time

in which things get immeasurably worse. We'll go back to Boris Johnson's levels of moral corruption and worse

But that's not the point, you see. You can't form your opinions based on what you think about other people

I can't form my opinion on Keir Starmer in this moment based on my opinions about other people in other moments

You have to form your opinion about Keir Starmer in this moment based on what is happening now

And what is happening now is that the man who came into power promising a new era of transparency and due process

has appointed to the role of the most senior British diplomat on the planet

a man who had failed a security vetting process, and I'm not sure it matters whether he knew or not

I'm not sure it matters. That's why I mentioned that I'm 52-48

partly because it's obviously my favourite ratio, but also because it's a knife edge for me

I don't think it matters. I don't think it matters. I mean, if I did something outrageous and egregious on air, would my boss have to resign

It's not impossible, you know. Look at how the BBC works. How many people at the BBC have had to resign over the years because of things done by people much further down the ranks that they had no knowledge of at the time

In fact, you know what? This is a slightly grim observation. The BBC is probably the only organisation I can think of where that still holds true

certainly doesn't hold true in Rupert Murdoch's empire, who will be gnashing their teeth and sharpening their knives this morning

Ditto over at the Daily Mail. People do something wrong. You can do something wrong as Prime Minister in the Daily Mail world

and be rewarded with half a million pounds a year to write a column. But the idea of an institution, an organisation, a pyramid

and something rotten happens at level three, five or seven of the pyramid

the responsibility tracks all the way back to the top. I kind of want that for my country

And with Keir Starmer, I thought I'd got it. And that's why I am genuinely not sure

whether or not it matters that he, and for the record and for now

I believe that he didn't know about this. So all of that, I think, sets a scene

And it makes a stage on which you can now step and simply tell me whether you want Keir Starmer to go and why or why not

So bring in any of the stuff we've just touched on and all of the stuff that I've missed and forgotten and overlooked

But I think the central question this morning is whether or not you want him to go

because 52-48, right? And the pendulum is poised. But I think I might. 10.22

James O'Brien on LBC. Four minutes after 10. The second show this week, sponsored by The Clash

The first one was, should the king go to DC, go to America to help them celebrate their 250th anniversary

Should I stay or should I go? And today it's Keir Starmer's turn. Should he stay or should he go

What do you want and why? I suppose you could also have a side order of Ronan Keating

couldn't you, from the Prime Minister's point of view? His life certainly is, forgive me, a rollercoaster

Nick's in Dudley. Nick, what have you got? Hi, James. When you said the term stormtrooper at the beginning of the show

I had a bit of self-reflection and thought, you know what, I think I've been backing him a little bit too much yet

And I think my opinion has changed. I've actually looked through my emails in the last..

I wrote to my former Conservative MP in October 2022 saying this bring back borage nonsense is a load of rubbish

Yes. And I wrote to my current Labour MP on the 10th of Feb, which I think from memory is probably when the Mandelson stuff, when he was arrested, saying stick with him, this is storming the teacup nonsense

And I think we're at the point where it's a tipping point. But all three of those things can be true

You were right when you wrote to the Tory, you were right when you wrote to the Labour MP, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be on the same tip today, does it

No, I think it's the straw that's breaking the camel's back. I think Starmer has been let down by other people

and I think as a result we have, as the British public, and somebody's got to go

And I think it's really important now that I think he does have to go, because otherwise we're going to end up in this situation

where there's a right-wing narrative of civil service blocking what government wants to do

civil service letting government down. I mean, you think about the Conservatives saying, oh, you know, they were..

We have that already, mate. We have that already. They talk about the blob

They talk about... Even some of them are mad enough to talk about the deep state. And Ollie Robbins has gone already

They've fired him, trying to create the idea that the buck stopped with him

That's the problem, isn't it? That even if nobody knew except him

which seems unlikely, the buck still doesn't stop with him in your mind

I don't think it does. Well, if nothing else, though, I think it sets a picture to..

The danger we're going to have is that there's going to be a real narrative for some form of dissolution of the civil service

or significant removal of its sort of presence in government. And ultimately, we need them to do stuff for us

The only solution I can think of to take a prime minister or a minister away from that level of accountability

is if you end up with some US-style appointees into civil service departments

And obviously, with who's going in at the moment in the US, that would come with pros and cons

But I think you would still have more accountability over here. This is a brilliant first call

Thank you. Because you're highlighting so many of the things I'm worried about. The first thing I'm worried about, I did articulate it a moment ago

is that I fall into the trap of letting my knowledge of and fear of other people in other situations

influence my reaction to Keir Starmer in this situation. And you done something similar with regard to the civil service because I mean I don know why i thinking more about alternative governments rather than another labor government led by somebody else but the civil service you look at this doge nonsense that elon musk has um in floor tried

to inflict upon the united states of america some of the departments that they filleted are now

crying out for people to apply because so many people are resigning i mean the idea that the

civil service is the enemy of government or the enemy of the people has already taken quite a big

hold on far-right politics. And if we've learned anything in the last few years, it's that

increasingly far-right politicians are trying to describe themselves as centre-right and getting

ever closer to power. So the civil service in a country led by any party other than Labour

is an existential threat. So do you see what I mean? So you're almost saying we need to get rid

of him now, otherwise the civil service comes under attack. But it's coming under attack from

people that are already attacking it under your reading of the situation and is that enough of a

reason to to give Keir Starmer his sandwiches wrapped in a roadmap i think if the the challenge

you've got is if you don't it's just one more bit of ammunition that those other parties have

it's one more bit of ammunition for them to come in and go well they did this they did this and nobody's accountable it's a competence question yeah it's a competence question i don't think it's

a corruption question. If it turns out to be, we will shout it from the rooftops, but

competent and or corrupt. All I ask is that you are either, you know, that you

are competent and not corrupt. And there's no way they come out of this

Is there? There's no way they come out of this with both

of those achievements intact. They come out of this looking corrupt or they come out of, he, he comes out of

this looking corrupt or looking enormously incompetent, because you can't send someone to Washington, D.C.

as the head of an organisation that has delivered a failed security vetting

and nobody told you about it. That's on you, right? Not without going down a Donald Trump style of fake news

And that's not something Starmer is going to look to do. No, of course he's not

I do genuinely think he's a moral bloke. So do I. So do I

And again, whether that's naivety or not... It's not. It's not. You're going on the available evidence

And, you know, this is why it's so hard not to start Whataboutering

and reaching for the hideousness of a Liz Truss administration or the moral bankruptcy of a Boris Johnson administration

and giving your bloke, under your ysis, he is your bloke, and people who listen to this programme know that in the current political panoply

he's my bloke. We can't give our bloke the benefit of the doubt because the other lot have been so awful

and his transgressions are nowhere near as bad. They are bad enough. That's the question

are they bad enough? These transgressions to merit, justify, demand his resignation as Prime Minister

And I think they might be. And so does Nick, the first other voice

to get on the programme this morning. You're not going to believe me now, are you? When I said to you 20 minutes ago

give it five minutes and someone will be coming along who used to describe Ollie Robbins as the Antichrist

or as the worst imaginable public servant in the history of humanity

And now that he's a weapon with which you can beat Keir Starmer, they'll undertake a reverse ferret so violent

that it will leave scorch marks on their own buttocks. But yes, it has happened already

I didn't know. No prizes for guessing who has done it. You can listen to that after the headlines with Dominic Ellis

James O'Brien on LBC. You sort of wonder, well, does it matter

So I get a lot of messages saying things like, well, Boris Johnson did this and Boris Johnson did that

and he didn't resign, but he should have done. So these don't become..

Do they? I don't know. I mean, how many British journalists calling for Keir Starmer to go today have, until very, very recently, been blowing smoke up Donald Trump's backside

Have literally been excusing, cheering and championing corruption and moral bankruptcy on a scale the likes of which the civilised world has not seen since medieval times

you sit here enormously frustrated to hear people who were stupid enough

to deploy the phrase Trump derangement syndrome but have gone pitifully quiet

so we must have a look at what Richard Littlejohn's written about today no doubt it will be about the situation in the Middle East

and the enormously important issues being presided over by the man that he wishes was Prime Minister of this country

Donald Trump but the people who have been waving their Donald Trump pom-poms

furiously as he rode roughshod over every semblance of probity, integrity, morality

transparency, decency and honesty. You watch them today calling for Keir Starmer to go suddenly

discovering some great moral or political conscience. But it doesn't matter, does it

If it is the probity and the integrity to which you are committed, and it is your patriotic duty

to care about these things, then just because the other lot are disgusting

doesn't mean you get to excuse your guy for presiding over something far less serious

but still serious enough. I'll give you an example of disgusting hypocrisy

something that I suggested to you 25 minutes ago would happen at some point today

but which had already happened. No prizes for guessing that Nigel Farage

is the man of whom we speak. Here he is talking about Ollie Robbins in 2008

The problem, I'm afraid, is that there is a rogue element in these negotiations

a group of people who do not wish to see a solution, who've put up an immovable brick wall

to stop us from breaking free. And I regret to say, actually

it isn't your chief negotiator, Monsieur Barnier, it is actually the British Civil Service

Ollie Robbins' team. We signed up, they signed up years ago to the European dream

They've been happy to take their orders from Brussels. They are now out to sabotage Brexit

They are indeed the enemy within. So, 2018, not 2008, and here he is

the unspeakable skid mark on the white front of British politics. Here he is this morning

Whatever you think of Ollie Robbins and his role in the Brexit fiasco

he is one of the most professional civil servants in this country

Is he a man you've met? You've met him, have you, Mr Farage? Yeah, I don't know him well, but I mean, look, he is an intelligent bloke

He's a professional civil servant. I disagree with his politics, but hey, that is by the by

There is no way a man like that would unilaterally make a decision of this kind

I'm going to play those to you again because I don't have the words to highlight the level of hypocrisy and disgraceful moral gymnastics on display here

Neither do I have the words to describe how stupid Nigel Farage thinks you are

that you will either not know or forget or overlook or forgive or excuse

the absolute weapons-grade hypocrisy on display here. But you can't let your disapproval or your disgust at this kind of character

colour your view of what is happening to Keir Starmer today. I don't think you can

Feel free to try to persuade me otherwise. Better the devil you know

My enemy's enemy is my friend. Be careful what you wish for. I don't know what phrase or aphorism you would deploy to do it

but maybe I'm wrong. It is, it's politics, it's not religion. Maybe you should actually take into account how awful other people have been

when sitting in judgment on Keir Starmer's latest difficulty, scandal, revelation. But I'm not thinking it myself

So, I mean, this is the same man speaking eight years apart about the same man

And this is really the state of British politics. And I think for me and for Nick in Dudley and possibly for you

this is what Keir Starmer was supposed to be fixing. This is what he was supposed to be leading us out of

A political ecosystem in which clowns like this can be interviewed and not asked, for example

about what they said about the same man eight years ago. I don't know how you can do that

Genuinely. I don't know how you can conduct an interview with Nigel Farage about Ollie Robbins this morning

without having very briefly said to your producer, what did Ollie Robbins, has he ever said anything about Ollie Robbins in the past

because it really, really matters. But it doesn't matter enough to let Keir Starmer off the hook

So here he is, eight years ago, talking about Olly Robbins. The problem, I'm afraid, is that there is a rogue element in these negotiations

a group of people who do not wish to see a solution, who've put up an immovable brick wall to stop us from breaking free

And I regret to say, actually, it isn't your chief negotiator, Monsieur Barnier

It is actually the British Civil Service, Ollie Robbins' team. We signed up, they signed up years ago to the European Dream

They've been happy to take their orders from Brussels. They are now out to sabotage Brexit

They are indeed the enemy within. Enemy within. That's Nazi language, right

That is the 1930s Germany language used to describe sections of society

It's a hideous phrase to deploy in any circumstances, right? Fast forward to this morning

disgusting human being. He's the enemy within. He's colluding with foreign powers against

the British interest. He's pulling the wool over the eyes of our own government

He's in cahoots with Michel Barnier to the detriment of the British interest. He's absolutely

in political terms the devil incarnate. Eight years later, oh, he's an absolutely

stand-up guy. There's no earthly way. I mean, ow, what's left the building during that little

comparison there? What's left the building? What do we as a population

and lose when people like that are even invited to offer their opinions on today without being

asked to explain their opinions yesterday we lose something so precious but what do we lose

if Keir Starmer stays in power do you want him to go and am I wrong to say that the hideous

absence of integrity and decency on the part of almost all the current alternatives in other

parties is even a mitigating factor in the treatment of Keir Starmer today. Because this

is what I meant earlier by worrying that you lean too far to prove that you're not as craven and as

hypocritical as the kind of people who've been blowing smoke up Donald Trump's fundament or

allowing Nigel Farage to spout off about Ollie Robbins today without pointing out the polar

opposite position that he adopted yesterday. Steve's in Chislehurst. Steve, what would you

like to say hi james thanks for having me on you're welcome so i am calling in because i

back in february when um everything started coming up about the manderson appointment i was um

i came to the conclusion that i thought it was the right time for him to go then

um but i find myself with this news i'm of the opposite opinion now really um yeah um and the

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but back in February, and I remember I was sitting on the bench in a hiccup at the time

waiting to take my theory test, so I remember the exact moment. And it was just, I agree there's that incompetence there

and it was incompetence without anything good surrounding it. There's no achievements around that point

It was the combination of, you know, death by a thousand cuts

Since then, we've had this period where we've seen his response to the conflict in the Middle East

Yes. And I've finally seen something of achievement, something I can be proud of

Yeah, I'm the same as you, but you're going to have to work hard to persuade me

you're not describing the knotting of a scarf now. he's done something good in an entirely different context

so we should let him off the hook in an entirely different context where he's done something very bad

or presided over something very bad I do agree but I don't

so yes I think there is a level of incompetence I agree with you and your previous caller

you have either got incompetence or corruption but I think that level of incompetence there

was there when he said oh, I asked Mandelson if he was still in contact

and he told me he wasn't, and I accepted that. That felt, it hasn't struck me more, this

Now, if it turns out that he had in fact been informed, and this is, he has misled Parliament

and this is more corruption, within an instant, I think he should be gone

But I think on the basis of what's best for the country at this point

I really struggle with the idea that this compared to what was in February

Yeah, I'm very blessed this morning the first two callers are really working as

whetstones for my own thoughts and opinions because I mean you might be

right but does it matter I mean this is a fundamental question

does it matter what else is going on I think it does, I think when you're

looking at what I mean, you want a leader to be... to deliver what's best for the country

And I think you need to factor in whatever decision. I think you can also look back

and if we're doing it on the basis of competence, we haven't really had a competent person in position

since probably Gordon Brown. So, it's... That's very unfair on Liz Truss

I'll write a letter of apologies. Yeah, I get I mean so really and you might be right and this is why I said at the outset that today is going to be at least as much about

Feelings as it is about facts. So if everything was hunky-dory in the in the realm

You probably would be saying he got to go Yes I would have been under that belief It is it purely because he has performed so well over this past two months He given me some confidence in him

when before I had very little, unfortunately. I still thought he was a decent man

so I agree with you and the previous caller again in that. But he wasn't showing any aptitude at that point

And he has played a blinder over Iran, and for you that is enough to give him a break on this occasion

and for me and for Nick and Dudley and for many others at the moment. At the moment, it isn't

Although there are plenty of people in your camp as well, as I shall share shortly

The time now is 10.46. James O'Brien on LBC. 49 is the time

Miriam writes, Keir Starmer is a barrister. A barrister doesn't do the investigations. A barrister takes the brief from the investigating solicitors

This is significant in the way he works in government, reaching a bit, I think, Miriam

because if a barrister stands up in court and says something that is not true

then the judge will have him over a barrel in a nanosecond. And this from Carol

Hi, James. Boris didn't go when he pushed an ex-Russian spy son into the Lords. He also failed a security vetting

I don't like Starmer, although I admit he's not my choice for leader. I believe he's playing in a system he's not in control of

and is constantly being blindsided by the civil service. Again, I mean, that is close to incompetence, if not corruption

And I'm going to say it again about Boris Johnson. and it doesn't matter what he got away with

because he shouldn't have got away with it. So you can't say something awful happened over there to our country

done by a Prime Minister. Therefore, this Prime Minister, who has also presided over something awful

albeit not nearly as bad or as personal, he deserves a free pass

I'm just not buying that. And I know it's really hard to watch all these hypocrites and liars

pretend that they give a hoot about probity or integrity or due process or the law or the rules or the regulations

Talking about people who will say, oh, international law, you know, never mind that

What are we worrying about? It's no big deal. And then when it's Keir Starmer on the..

Oh, my God, he bought a donkey sanctuary for his... It's incredibly frustrating. But I think you have to be better, don't you? Don't you

Whatever Boris Johnson did and got defended by liars, charlatans and client journalists

You can't be one of them when you're defending Keir Starmer on this. Unless the last call is right

And the situation is too serious to allow a desire to see him go

or a reluctant conclusion that he's got to go prevail. Sarah is in Waltham Forest

Sarah, what would you like to say? Oh, my word. Hello, James. Hello, Sarah

I haven't had time to think this one through. Who put you on

lovely guy really really lovely guy um i it's just that my my blood pressure is going through

the roof here um i'm heartbroken i'm disappointed i'm beyond despair i'm bereft i'm sad um but um i

and i'm just horrified that mandelton has ever been given the kind of free pass he's been given

for the last, what is it, 30 years or something. He clearly has been fated

It is extraordinary. It is extraordinary that every time they kind of finagle him into a plum job

it doesn't just bite them on the backside, it takes off an entire buttock

Oh, no. I know, but I really do think it goes down to this thing

that you often say about how nice the prawns are, and we are, right

Always willing to extend the olive branch, always willing to understand where they're coming from

And I really, really, really mean that. And Mandelson, and of course we don't know anything about the dark arts

It's not in us. It's not in Starmer. He hasn't got that in his DNA

So where does he reach for when he's dealing with someone like Trump? And he's just crying out loud

I feel so sorry for this man. I genuinely believe this. I don't speak this language

let's send someone who's fluent in it Peter Mandelson and the whole media

the whole lot of them were behind it 100% I don't think that matters anymore

that mattered during the last conversation about whether he should go and whether he should stay

but it doesn't matter I mean we can point out the hypocrisy of other people until we're blue in the face

but I don't think that matters today James, the right wing project

the billionaire's project has brought us to the brink of war I mean

beyond the brink of war Of course, we're seeing people die in our name

So I'm not laughing at that. No, I know you're not. We're seeing it. It's breaking my heart

I can't bear what is happening in our name. We carry on with worrying about our gas prices

I mean, that is important. But these people are dying. And, you know, I mean, we need someone of his calibre

So you are saying he should stay because things are so serious

100%. Okay, okay. And you've made a very heartfelt... explanation as to why

I am, you know, sympathetic to elements of it, but I don't know that it's enough

So those are the two things now that are in the case for the defence of Keir Starmut

One is, well, look what the other lot got away with. It was much worse than this, and they didn't have to go

until their own party hounded them out, even though liars and client journalists pretend that it had something to do with cake

Boris Johnson's dismissal. The speed with which they reverse ferreted on Liz Truss

was supersonic. But I don't think that matters. You have to, you cannot, as Gary Burton says

you cannot set the standards where Johnson got away with. That can't be the bar

It wasn't as bad as Johnson, therefore he should keep his job. I don't buy that. That's awful

From a patriotic perspective, we have to be better as a country, not partisan, not liberal versus illiberal

We have to be better. Starmer was supposed to be, and he hasn't been

But it wasn't his fault. That's item number three for the defence, isn't it? So one is the comparisons. Two is the not knowing. And three is the situation in the world at the moment is so serious and he is handling the biggest issue of all quite brilliantly. Therefore, leave him where he is

those are your three things um comparisons with uh past prime ministers which he comes out

favorably for anybody honest um simply not knowing that mandelson had failed this vetting process

which i think is is probably the case but i don't know that it matters as much as some people are

arguing and finally the sort of not now argument the world is in too much turmoil donald trump

remains in the White House, we can't be having a psychodrama in Downing Street. And I mean

none of those on their own are enough, are they? But combined, together? I can tell you that Sir

Keir Starmer has said this morning that he is furious and that it was unforgivable that neither

he nor any minister were told that Lord Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting and he has

pledged to set out all the relevant facts in Parliament on Monday and whether or not he is well I think he is in fact addressing the nation Do we have that to play out or should we are we going to have the audio on this So just bear with me a moment and I have that audio for you in just a second

In the meantime, obviously with the caveat that I may have to interrupt you to listen directly to the Prime Minister

Edward is in the Hague. Edward, what do you think? Hi, good morning James

I think that he should announce on Monday that he is intending to resign

that he's intending to shepherd the country through the summer until conference and that a new Labour leader and Prime Minister will therefore be appointed in the early autumn

Is there a precedent for that? Well, I mean, I can think back, for example, to David Cameron announcing after the Brexit referendum

a certain period of time and then he would be leaving. So I believe that he deserves an awful lot of credit

and he also deserves the opportunity to continue to shepherd the UK and the wider world

through what's going on in the Gulf at the moment. but I can recall for example once at work making a mistake and my boss telling me it's going to be

okay as long as this doesn't become quote a pattern of behavior and I think with Keir Starmer what we

have now are mishaps that have become a pattern of behavior whether it's the management of the

economy the winter fuel alliance allowance the withdrawal from climate change targets

you can just line up like dominoes a whole series of things that you can either call mishaps or

transgressions but the real well there's a huge difference between a mishap and a transgression

this is this is indubitably a transgression i don't i don't know some of the other things

you've cited are at the very least debatable as either mishap or transgression and and the last

caller pointed out that an awful lot of capital has been restored by his conduct since netanyahu

and trump went to war in iran but obviously for you not enough well let's address that because the

Politico opinion poll this week, the poll of polls suggests Labour is at 16

and I'm just not sure that there's a way back from that and if you look

around the world right now, you'll see that whether it's Carney or whether it's

Albanese or whether it's Magyar in Hungary or whether it's Tusk in Poland

people have found a way to push back the tide of populism

and we need something similar in Italy. You've got the new fella in France who's currently the favourite

to win. I mean, the far right are not exactly in retreat are they there's just a few places where oh you didn't you mentioned hungary

of course it's just if i mean he's quite a right wing politician he's just not a far right he's

just not a far right populist but none of these are really reasons why starmer should go is it

because well actually they are because i can't say comparisons with previous prime ministers not

knowing about the vetting failure or um things are too serious at the moment i can't say you need to

add them all together to mount a proper defense and then say to you you can't add all these things

together to mount a proper prosecution, you're doing exactly what I just did, but from the

other side of the courtroom. Yeah, and on top of that, if you look at the pattern of

behaviour within the Mandelson situation alone, I don't think you needed detailed vetting to know that

this man shouldn't have been appointed ambassador to Washington. I think that was a fundamental

mistake to begin with. When the initial news broke, I can recall

the Prime Minister giving a vote of confidence in Parliament on a Wednesday to Peter Mandelson

It was then only a couple of days later that he was finally fired. Now we have this situation

arising. So even in this one specific case, there has been three or four opportunities

to actually put this right. And at each occasion, there has been failure to do that

Yeah, because optics, I know it's a dreadful word, but it doesn't matter what has happened. What matters is what we

can see. And what we can see, as you say, is a climb-down

statement, climb-down statement, climb-down revelation, humiliation, fury. We'll probably be hearing what the Prime Minister himself has been saying

during the news bulletin and then probably in greater detail afterwards. James O'Brien on LBC

Minutes after 11, and if Ollie Robbins has undergone something of a reputation rehabilitation

from the liars and charlatans, then Diane Abbott is about to undergo

exactly the same process, isn't she? People who have been vile and hideous

in their condemnation and racist, often abuse of her over the years

will now be holding her up as a paragon of political virtue because she's saying something

that they want to hear. So just as Farage's comments about Ollie Robbins

being the enemy within, extraordinary language to use about your own country's civil service

in the European Parliament, and then fast-forwarding eight years to him suddenly becoming some sort of paragon of a virtue

so it will be with Diane Abbott. But she, if more than any perhaps politician in this country

has earned the right to say whatever she wants about whoever she wants, whenever she wants. Doesn't mean you have to agree with her

Five minutes after 11 is the time. And we will hear the Prime Minister's statement in full

Does it matter? Is the question that's running through everything this morning, like a stick of rock

Does it matter that he didn't know? Does it matter that he didn't know

It's almost a song lyric, isn't it? Does it matter that he didn't know? And how does your answer to that question get framed

Does it draw on where we are now, politically, internationally, militarily? Does it draw on diplomacy

well, does it draw on what the alternatives would be if he went

And am I wrong this morning to argue that you have to ignore all of that

and judge the man in this moment? Of course, you can do that and still conclude that he shouldn't go

You can judge the man in this moment and conclude that what has happened is not enough to merit a resignation

But it's tight, isn't it? It's really tight. Five minutes after 11 is the time

Sanjay's in Harrah. A couple of finalists free for the first time since about half past ten

So if you want one of those, then do crack on and dial 03456060973

We'll be staying with this for the foreseeable. So we will get to you, even if it takes a while

Sanjay's in Harrow. Sanjay, what would you like to say? Hi, James. I've enjoyed listening to you

That's a relief. Well, I think that he shouldn't resign. but unfortunately

I think he will be turning it over in his mind and playing out the scenarios over the weekend

probably that's why he's giving himself time I think as a country

we're kind of cutting our nose to spite our face because look

the world isn't black and white politicians wear personas and you only have to watch

in the yes minister or in the thick of it and you see as you mentioned the optics versus what they say

in private and he's running a country. And, you know, as some of your previous quarters have said

running a country, including defence, there are hard choices to be made

uncomfortable choices to be made, and sometimes the public doesn't want to know. I'm reminded of the film

which some of your listeners might remember, A Few Good Men. You can't handle the truth

You can't handle the truth, exactly. You don't want to know the truth. So I think there are shades of grey

with this the world is uh it's another great film it's a yeah the world is in a in a it's

there's a lot of instability um i think the alternatives to care going are worse he is a

man of integrity i mean we know that i mean you know you talk about boris johnson and other people that a different scale of a mess Does it matter It does matter We do need integrity

No, no, no. Does it matter that all of the people calling for Kirsten Armour to go

were excusing and cheering and facilitating and championing the far, far worse transgressions and lies and omissions of Boris Johnson

right up until the moment he was dragged, well, actually, he ran away, didn't he, Well, you know, there's some hypocrisy you could say there

But it doesn't matter in this moment, does it? No. No, it doesn't. I don't think it does

You know, we can be pedantic or we can be pragmatists. Yeah

Right now we need pragmatism. We can't just say, well, look, some rules have been broken

And, you know, I heard some of the news and you reminded me of, you know

when I heard some of that played back of what people were saying. And, you know, Kemi Badenock and others

And yes, I think it was wrong that he said, Keir Starmer, he said, well, I wasn't told

I think the statement he read out, he said, I wasn't told. But why didn't he ask

Well, I do know. You're a genius. That's exactly where I was going to steer the conversation next

after we hear Keir Starmer's statement in full. Because, I mean, what level has..

Sanjay, come in. Sit down. Nice to see you. So we're appointing Peter Mandelson to the job in Washington

Has he been... Has he passed his vetting, Sanjay? Say yes. Yes, yes, he's passed his vetting

Okay. Now, I don't say now... All right, prove it. I don't believe you

Well, can I say, because I've got some experience of vetting and, you know, being in the civil service

and working with people and things. I know what developed vetting entails, and it's a lot

It is. You have to go through all the financial records of a person

and you actually have to interview people right from their childhood friends to say

have this person likely to be in it? I've got Callum Miller coming on at half past 11

the Liberal Democrat MP who spent years in the Cabinet Office and has, like you, a deep understanding of developed vetting

So not only have you jumped the gun on where I was going to steer the conversation next

but you're kind of eating my next guest's lunch. And I never booked guests. I probably didn't need to today

I should have just relied on my callers like I always do, because Sanjay knows the score himself

And so that makes you think that he either could or should have said

prove to me that he's passed his vetting or that that was a fairly crass question

on my part in the first place? Keir Starmer is a technocrat

He is. So he follows process. So technically he can say he passed vetting

because he did. I mean, it was overruled. They said, well, you know

we've got some concerns. But in the process, overruling what the security team have judged

is still part of the process. and overruling it is still... So technically he has passed the developed vets

Because the Foreign Office have ignored that element of the findings and said he's fine

so the message that reaches Keir Starmer's office is that he's passed. Yes

Wow. Yes. So technically you can say, well, he hasn't lied, he's followed the process

I don't think... I never thought he'd lied, but that little bit there, and that will come as news, I think, to many people

certainly to me, is a little bit of a changer, isn't it? Yes, yes

But, and for you then, that becomes the grounds for arguing that he should stay

when you add it to all the other considerations that we've been examining this morning. I think the alternative is worse

We've got to look at the bigger picture here. Do we? Do we really have to look at the bigger picture, Sanjay

Because that's what I'm struggling with this morning. Well, we do, because you can't just focus on a detail

I know this is hard to swallow for a lot of people. Yes. But in the big scheme of things, I mean, seeing the big picture is actually one of the competences of being a civil servant

Right. And, you know, you would say, well, OK. I mean, I don't know what was going on

I wasn't involved at the time when he was appointed. But, you know, you could feasibly say, well, we haven't had a deal with America

And by the way, can I just sort of say one thing

Of course. You can say two things if you want. which is, so for the awareness of some of your listeners

we rely on America for our defence. And people say we can go it alone

All of our domestic and military satellite capability, how many satellites do we have

The answer is none. We rely on American satellites. We rely... So you're highlighting the simple truth

that we cannot do a Spain. We cannot just tell Donald Trump to sling his hook

or invite his fury or do a Mark Carney. No, because any of our systems, our Trident systems

or any of our other systems, our missile-firing technology, we cannot aim it at anything without American intelligence

And that's nothing new that I haven't said that hasn't been published already in various newspapers and things

So we need to build a relationship. I mean, people try to build a relationship

Okay, final question. Final question. I understand that point. I'm not cutting you off

I think you've made it powerfully already. I mean, the reason goes right up to the question

of why did he want Mandelson in there in the first place so desperately? Well, he could have got another person

He could have got somebody else who was sort of in the dark arts. I mean, there isn't a coincidence either

that McSweeney was an apprentice of Mandelson and then became the right-hand man

And that's still bubbling away on a different ring. Hang on, hang on, hang on. I want to ask you this

What is the difference between saying, that he passed vetting and saying

I wasn't told that he failed. And how big a difference is that? Well, technically, and I remember

I think Keir Stumberg is a technocrat, that you can say, well, he's passed vetting

Right. Whether the process was, well, he failed the security team's part of the process

and then was overruled by a senior civil servant in the foreign office. So you think this is plausible, this timeline

Well, plausibility is to do with other things. I bet you were good at this job, Sanjay

I love the way your brain works. It's to do with trust and things

and you're getting into the political sphere. You are? Whether Keir Starmer, has he lost the trust of the public

I mean, you know, the polls will speak to that. I don't think this will affect the polls much, personally

I don't think it's a Westminster story. I think it's a hugely, hugely important story

but I don't think it's Clapham omnibus territory. Personally, I could be wrong

My phones have gone bonkers, so maybe that means it is something people care about a bit more than I would allow

But then if you're listening to this programme, you're probably part of a self-selecting sample anyway, aren't you

This radio station. A brilliant call, Sanjay. I'm very lucky that you were listening today

And no doubt Callum Miller, when he joins us at about 11.45, will expand on some of the points that you have made

A due process and a technicality are good things. You might roll your eyes at the use of words like that

but that is the whole point about facts versus feelings. Due process and technicality are the only things

that can be properly measured, ysed and checked. The rest is opinion. Here is Keir Starmer's full statement just a few minutes ago

Prime Minister, politicians resign when they mislead the public and mislead Parliament

Are you considering your position? That I wasn't told that Peter Mandelson

had failed security vetting when he's appointed... is staggering. That I wasn't told that it failed security vetting

when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable

Not only was I not told, no minister was told. And I'm absolutely furious about that

What I intend to do is to go to Parliament on Monday to set out all the relevant facts

in true transparency so Parliament has the full picture. Prime Minister, why do you always end up sounding like the passenger in this government rather than the driver

Are you really expecting us to believe that a senior civil servant, off his own back

without any sort of direction about the importance of Peter Mandelson being ambassador

unilaterally overruled security vetting to approve a political appointment? And they made clear it was political

I was not told that he had failed security vetting. No minister was told that he'd failed security vetting

Number 10 wasn't told that he'd failed security vetting. That is completely unacceptable

That is why I intend to go to Parliament and set out all of the relevant facts

so Parliament has full transparency and full accountability. It is totally unacceptable that the Prime Minister making an appointment

is not told that security vetting has been failed. Totally unacceptable. You're almost two years in post

Doesn't this just sound like you don't have a grip on your government? I was not told that security vetting had failed

That is shocking. It is unacceptable. And I intend to set out the full fax to Parliament on Monday

You're here in Paris talking about how to keep open the Straits of Hormuz, or to open it, reopen it

But it's not in the gift of any of the people that you're meeting here in Paris

So what's the point of today? It is very important that we build a coalition of countries

around the principle that the ceasefire should be permanent, there should be a deal, and that the Straits of Hormuz are open

It is in all of our interest to do that, because what's happening in the war in Iran is affecting each of our economies

That's why countries are coming together. Everybody is clear that in order for that to happen

we need a diplomatic and political limb, we need a logistics and economic limb

and we need some military planning. And that is what we're coming together to do today

And it's the right thing to do because the longer this conflict goes on, the more the impact

And I'm mindful that people across the United Kingdom, that's impact on them and the cost of living

And I will do everything I can with other countries to alleviate that and to get the straight open as soon as possible

18 minutes after 11, extraordinary, really, that the three things we'd assembled as articles for the defense of Keir Starmer

the two biggest that he didn't know and that the situation is too serious are so front and center

in that statement and really but he's going all in on i didn't know so our question changes

slightly as we move forward in two it does that matter does that change anything for you he i i

mean the passion with which he is stating that he didn't know the palpable anger with which he is

insisting that he didn't know. At 10 o'clock this morning, that wasn't enough for me

Hearing him in his own voice, in his own words, explain why it matters

it's still not enough for me. 51, 49 maybe. How much does it matter that he didn't know

Sanjay's contribution combined with the precedent, if you like, the tradition of ministers only being told the final finding

So the final outcome, the yay or the nay, They're not told anything else

The Foreign Office would have passed to Downing Street a yes. They would not have said, oh, that's a yes

but in brackets, the security vetting fair. You can understand why he's so flipping furious, can't you

Can you? Of course, plenty of people won't believe him. You might reach for the thing I reach for quite a lot over the years

which is the shaggy defence. It wasn't me. But there's no way that applies in this case

because he has not been getting jiggy on the bathroom floor. He is in the dark, but that, for many of us, is almost as unforgivable as having known all about it in the first place and decided to lie

Camille Baden-Ock, as is often the case, would have done well to stay quiet, I think, this morning

An impossible ask, I think, of any opposition leader, let alone her

But I think she's got the ministerial code wrong if he said it at a press conference and he hasn't misled Parliament

And if he hasn't done it knowingly, then he hasn't breached the code at all. But hey-ho, at least in a complicated and confusing world

some things are constant, and can we be to not stick in our size fours in her mouth? It's reassuringly reliable

It's 20 minutes after 11. James O'Brien on LBC. 21 minutes after 11 is the time

Can we listen again to the beginning of that? Just Sam Coates for Sky News asking the Prime Minister

about the story that dominates all of our bulletins and conversations at the moment

because there's a very real possibility of a Prime Minister resigning. My personal opinion is that that likelihood has diminished

having heard the way that he is talking. He's not just standing his ground, he's elbows up, as the Canadians say

But of course it may not matter. Very few Prime Ministers head for the exit door

willingly and happily. I suppose David Cameron did, in a way, didn't he

He took a decision after the referendum result came in that he didn't want to hang around

to help clean up the mess that he'd made and therefore he did not need any external pressure

or leverage to walk the plank. But I don't think that you can read too much into the fact

that Keir Starmer is currently determined to stay when it comes to answering the question of whether or not he will

or indeed whether or not he should. But I think it's interesting

I opened the show this morning by saying that we were in one of those curious moments where emotion matters as much as facts and evidence

never more so than when you hear the tone adopted by the Prime Minister

and the, I think, the very palpable anger on display here. Prime Minister, politicians resign when they mislead the public

and mislead Parliament. Are you considering your position? That I wasn't told that Peter Mandelson

had failed security vetting when he's appointed is staggering. That I wasn't told that he'd failed security vetting

when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable

Not only was I not told, no minister was told. And I'm absolutely furious about that

What I intend to do is to go to Parliament on Monday to set out all the relevant facts in true transparency

so Parliament has the full picture. Prime Minister, why do you always end up

sounding like the passenger in this government rather than the driver? Are you really expecting us to believe

that a senior civil servant off his own back without any sort of direction about the importance of Peter Mandelson being ambassador

unilaterally overruled security vetting to approve a political appointment. And they made clear it was political

I was not told that he had failed security vetting. No minister was told that he'd failed security vetting

Number 10 wasn't told that he'd failed security vetting. That is completely unacceptable That is why I intend to go to Parliament and set out all of the relevant facts So I mean roll on Monday Because of course he clearly believes

that what he will present to Parliament will exonerate him of the suspicion expressed there

by Sam Coates, the Sky News political journalist, political correspondent, that he is lying

I don't think he was lying at 10 o'clock this morning, and I don't think he's lying now. I don't think he knew

whether or not that is an omission a misstep an error so egregious and extraordinary

that he should still go is a question that we need to answer but I think the rest

the next stage of the phone-in will be contingent upon the presumption that he's not lying

which at least means we can cross one thing off our list

of things with which to defend Keir Starmer should you be so minded

he is not lying so the comparisons with Boris Johnson disappear he is telling the truth

there's no earthly way he'd have made that statement in the manner that he did if he wasn't

confident that he can prove on monday that he was not told my understanding is that the ministers

are simply given the green tick or the red cross when it comes to a process like this and that that

means downing street were given the green tick which puts the foreign office on the hook which

is why they fired ollie robin so the plan is that all bucks stop with him and he the prime minister

clearly believes that come Monday he will be able to essentially box in that buck

on Ollie Robbins' doorstep. And I don't know. The things that he can't control, of course, include coverage, public opinion, optics

and unhappiness on his own benches. But for the purposes of our conversation now, he is telling the truth

But is that enough? Does that matter? 0345 6060 973. Of course, some callers who've been waiting to answer the earlier questions

will be on the board already and we'll work our way through those as well

But I really want to just move that element of it front and centre. We've been asking it since 10 o'clock

but it becomes more pertinent now. Does it matter that he didn't know

Patrick's in Lambeth. Patrick, what do you think? Hello there. Hi, James

I've been listening with interest. I didn't particularly like what Starmer just said, I must say

Why not? Well, I think the thing that's got missing, and I'm not sure that anyone has really focused on it

is that there's a long-standing principle that when civil servants make mistakes

ministers take responsibility for those mistakes. And we're not seeing that at all

We're seeing that Starmer's saying, well, it was the Foreign Office's fault

I didn't know about it. Therefore, I'm not to blame. And I just don't think personally that is tenable or acceptable

But where I actually started out at sort of 10 o'clock was I don't have enough understanding of the facts

there are a lot of unanswered questions. I'll wait until Monday. Dharma has confirmed that he will give a statement in Parliament

setting out those facts, and then we'll see where that leaves us

I am very much in the same camp as you. It's sort of 51 that he stays, 49 that he goes

I'm the other way around at the moment. I mean, it's really close

and I will judge it on what happens on Monday. But it's interesting you don't think

if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't know, That's not enough for you to..

No, it's not. No, I didn't... I think we... Look, he set out his stall as being, you know, a man of probity, a man of responsible..

Process. Process is the word here. Well, probity too, I think. Sure

And the same for Rishi Sunak for that matter. Yeah, that's true. And I do think the principle that where civil servants make mistakes

if it is in fact the case that it was Olly Robbins who unilaterally overrode the security vetting

then somebody at ministerial level should take responsibility. Now, the cynic that I am thinks that Starmer will try to throw somebody under the bus if it comes to it

and I wonder if that might be Darren Jones who presumably was very involved in all of this

and has been doing the rounds this morning. Yeah, well, I mean, the idea that there will be no ministerial blood on the carpet

given the scale of the revelation seems a little bit optimistic, doesn't it

But, I mean, crikey. He does. Can I just throw one other thing in

Of course you can. So, I'm a lawyer, he's a lawyer, he knows how to cross-examine

I think the lack of curiosity, assuming we accept Starmer the Count as true, which I do

why did they not ask any questions about the security vetting? It's an obvious thing to ask in relation to somebody with a past like Peter Mandelson

This is why I think Alan Miller, MP, will be a particularly interesting guest in about 15 minutes' time

because he has personal experience of precisely this process and indeed working in the Cabinet Office

And the pat answer to your question is, of course, because you don't want to hear answers that you don't want to hear

Exactly. And so if I feel that we're in that territory, it shuts down for me. He needs to go

Except that it is always done like this. The report comes back from the Foreign Office

Is it a thumbs up or a thumbs down? It's a thumbs up. How do you interrogate that

Well, as I say, it's about he's a lawyer. It's about knowing

I mean, he's a lawyer by training, but he's not. I mean, he's a prime minister in the context of this conversation

And his trusted lieutenants have said to him, it's a yes. Why would he say prove it

I mean, look, there's no smoke without fire, I would say, where Mandelson is concerned

And I think that probably what was going on was that Starmer wanted this way through

and he just didn't ask the questions because it was an inconvenient thing to do

And that ship had already sailed. They'd already sacrificed, I like your use of the word probity

they'd already sacrificed some of their principles on the altar of getting a snake into the embassy

to deal with a snake in the White House. Exactly. So it sets a tone, doesn't it, for what would be the perfect word to use

Compromise. It sets a tone for moral compromise. I mean, yeah, one of your earlier callers raised the question about

well, why on earth did he put Mandelson forward in the first place? And I do think it does come back to that error of judgment

Or that epic miscalculation, which for a long time looked like a stroke of diplomatic genius

It can be both. I mean, it is now an error of judgment, but at the time, as I think it was Sarah pointed out

everybody was praising that decision from the rooftops, including characters like Michael Gove and Nigel Farage

although certainly the latter of those two is unlikely to admit the reverse ferret they've undertaken on this

as with almost every other issue. Patrick, great stuff. Thank you. I always get a bit nervous when callers tell me that they're lawyers

because I think there might be an invoice in the post by the end of the next news bulletin. And here it is with Dominic Ellis

James O'Brien on LBC. It is 11.34. You are listening to James O'Brien on LBC

where, I mean, if you needed... So we've got three real... What do you call them, like an article of evidence

Three arguments for the defence, is it? You have arguments for the prosecution and arguments for the defence

So the three arguments for the defence of Keir Starmer this morning, as he faces arguably the most difficult weekend of his prime ministerial career

are, in no particular order, you can go after Keir Starmer for this because previous prime ministers most obviously Boris Johnson have behaved in infinitely worse manners I very much of the view that that doesn matter even though it true

And of course, the Boris Johnson cheerleaders who are now suddenly pretending to care about probity and integrity and lying repeatedly about cake

their hypocrisy, although irritating, is not relevant. Argument number two, the situation is too serious for this sort of domestic psychodrama

That's probably the most powerful until Keir Starmer gave a speech 10 minutes ago, 20 minutes ago, 35 minutes ago

in which he made it pretty clear that he is confident he can prove he didn't know

And that's a good phrase, confident he can prove he didn't know. Because, of course, that leaves the door ajar for him failing to prove that he didn't know

to the satisfaction of an impartial, unbiased observer. but I don't think he'd have come out swinging in the way that he just did

in that pulled clip that you heard were he not confident that come Monday

he can prove that he didn't know but is that enough? let's say he didn't know

should he stay or should he go? alright, who's playing base? 0-3-4-5-6-0-6-0-9-7-3

let's say he didn't know should he stay or should he go

and obviously on this program not only do i want you to explain why and how you have arrived at your

conclusion but i want you to show your working as well tas is in pangborn tas what would you like to

say yeah hi james um i think he has been you know redeeming himself over the last few months

given his conduct in iran on the iran war but i think ultimately what we've seen here and a few

people have touched on it is just his laissez-faire approach to um domestic policy and and most things

and the concept of i didn't know and i wasn't told it may be factually correct um but it just

highlights something that was true before this happened that he's left so many decisions to

others and just because you didn't know he's not a junior minister he's not just an mp he's a prime

minister and that to me is not a dereliction of duty but it is proving incompetence or lack of

competence i think you'd called earlier on rather than you know him lying or anything else because

i think he is a moral person but it is lack of competence and it boils down to him being a

you know a barrister and a very process driven and and that works very well in that world but

it doesn't seem to be working well in this world and time and time again we see that and so i think

his international policy and foreign policy has been very good recently but this isn't a new issue

Yeah, this isn't a new issue. It's a brilliant question, wasn't it, by Sam Coates

to talk about why does it often seem as if you're a passenger. It really cut to the heart of what you're saying as well

that idea that he's a victim of events rather than a driver of events

What if you're right about the rest of it, but you're not right about this

I'm keen to pin down, and I'm hoping Callum Miller will help us, whether or not it really is a binary yes or no

that gets delivered to Downing Street over an appointment like this. Has he passed

has due process been followed and is it a tick or a cross at the end of it

and it is always just a tick or a cross and that it is not reasonable

to have expected Kirsten to have enquired further so in all the other

It's a political appointment so again if he was one of the cabinet

and just a sort of even a senior cabinet member he could sort of wash his hands

but it's a very clear It's actually like Angela Rayner's mortgage so it's not enough to have taken some advice and been given the green light i mean what they found

her guilty of was not properly reflecting the seniority of her status in that it's not enough

just to ask one person you need to have interrogated to use your word every level of this

but we need it's not good enough to just do this the normal way to just deploy the old ministerial

civil service rubber stamp, I need to know for a fact that

this is not going to come back and bite us on the arse because for God's sake, lads

it's Peter Mandelson that we're talking about. And it isn't new. The Guardian revelation

is not, this isn't new news, it's new news from the Guardian, but

you would have thought that the Prime Minister and his team would have

been picking bit by bit every piece of the process. Okay, hold that thought

Right, because I wanted to double check that this was completely real before I introduced it into the conversation

16th of September, 2025, Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee

writes to the Foreign Secretary or to the Department of Foreign Commonwealth and Development Affairs

about the security vetting processes undertaken as part of Peter Mandelson's appointment

She wants answers. I'm not going to read you the whole letter, although I may need to in the course of the rest of this hour

but the crucial paragraph or the crucial sentence, it seems to me, two sentences, the process is also independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome

This remained the case in this instance. And then they attach a letter, an annex with specific answers to specific questions

about which bits of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office is responsible for those elements of the vetting process

something that I suspect we'll be seeing rather more of on Monday. But that double sentence there, the process is also independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome

This remained the case in this instance. That is normal. Morgan McSweeney is not a minister, and I can't, and we haven't talked about that, again, just mentioned very early on in the programme

but no one's really talked about Morgan McSweeney other than he'd lost his phone, as we know

And that, to me, is not that I don't think Morgan Sweeney told Keira Mayer

Mayer not told the Prime Minister, but at the end of the day, that just, again, is another I-delegate-everything moment

It's not. I disagree on this. Not on the previous examples that you provided

but only because of this letter. So it's not basically... I mean, it is literally a letter signed by Yvette Cooper

the Foreign Secretary, and Ollie Robbins, Oliver Robbins, the permanent Under-Secretary, that states this is what happened and this is what always happened

So, I mean, I think the point you make about it being a political appointment

poses the question of whether or not they should have gone further than they do always, usually

whether or not they should have gone further than they needed to, and the answer to that retrospectively might be yes

but then, and in the moment, is this enough to go ahead

Then yes, obviously it is, because this is all that ever happens. We just get a yay or a nay

his chief of staff may have been told by Ollie Robbins or somebody in their

foreign office, and they just said, sure. And not tell Kirsten. So I'm not

saying Kirsten was told. And I'm not saying that he is lying there

Then he hasn't really abnegated due to your responsibility. On this occasion

I think you're right that he's done it in the past, and that's why I like the question about being a passenger

But I think on this occasion, he is going to be able to argue on Monday that he

did follow due process. I don't think that's good enough for a Prime Minister to

leave it at arms I'm not sure, but that seems to be

what he's betting the House on, isn't it? Yeah exactly We shall see Taz we may talk again on Monday when we have well actually it be Tuesday won it Because I don think he be delivering his statement to the House of Commons in time for us to pick over it on this programme

which is, when you think about it, dashed inconsiderate. Josh is in Chiswick

Josh, what do you reckon? Hi there, James. Well, my thunder's been stolen by some previous excellent callers

I thought Taz was brilliant and Sanjay added sort of depth and nuance

My first question originally was, well, why didn't he ask? Yeah. It's not enough to not know why didn't he ask

And you should be buttoned up on this. And I appreciate he's the Prime Minister. At that level, you're going to get sort of executive summaries only, I would assume

But given that, you know, I can remember in the new Labour days, John Prescott holding up a crab and saying, this is my friend Peter

So, I mean, you know, like... Oh, we miss John Prescott. Oh, God, don't we just..

But, like, you know, but it's just like, you know he's dodgy, right

So you check in, you know? It's like if you know someone

you're working with someone who can be very good at their job but be a little casual with the truth sometimes

you know, you double check, right? I would, yeah. Yes, I agree. I agree

And so I think, you know, I voted for Starmer because why wouldn't you

given the shower that the Tories were. I'm probably to the left of left of centre

I'm not like a sort of screaming communist or anything. But, you know, I have my reservations about him for that

But I thought he redeemed himself in the international sphere. But the thing is, is that, you know, I just think the Labour Party needs a bit of a reset

And you're going to ask me, well, who would it be? And the answer is, I don't know

But I think, I think, you know, that Sam Coates question about him being a passenger

And I know life is what happens when you're busy making other plans. But, you know, that does not really felt like a consistent narrative under Starmer's leadership

And it just, I mean, every time you think that it's beginning to get better

something like this comes along. And was it Napoleon who talked about lucky generals

You need to have lucky generals. Probably apocryphal. But every single time you think he's beginning to turn things around

something like this comes along, doesn't it? This is it. And the problem for me is, and, you know, there's that book called The Fraud, which I haven't read yet

but I've sort of seen a lot of interviews around, you know, McSweeney and them getting rid of the left and all of that kind of stuff

But, I mean, you know, there was that thing about the Ming Vars, right? Don't say anything in the election campaign

You're carrying the Ming Vars. You're trying to get it over the threshold. Great. They did

Fantastic. Brilliant campaign. Huge landslide. I voted for him. Happy days. Issue is, when they set the Ming Vars down, there was nothing in it

What are we going to do now? Well, I'd pick you up on that, but that's a conversation for a different day

I think they've done a lot more than they get the credit for. And even this week, you're seeing some of the ramifications of that

West Streeting's announcement about the NHS, and we're looking at free school dinners

we're looking at increases in minimum wage and living wage, and there's a lot that they can stick on the CV

But equally, the narrative... I don't like that word, I'm using it too much

The picture that you've painted of what they look like from the outside is also accurate

And I think that's the thing, and you're right to pick me up on that. That is me being unfair

But we live in a media world. We live in a social media world, especially

And their inability to not get that messaging out has been an absolute crime

Yeah, and they're getting a bit better. I mean, it's a really interesting point you make there, Josh, actually

I was chatting to a colleague this morning, not Eleanor, somebody else, about, I won't tell you who, you might be able to guess, but about a sort of fairly prominent journalist who has become increasingly ridiculous since Brexit, like all of the people that supported it

But, of course, as Josh reminds us, we live in an ecosystem where there's no punishment or penalty for being hideously wrong about Brexit, hideously wrong about Boris Johnson, hideously wrong about Liz Truss, hideously wrong about austerity, and now hideously wrong about Donald Trump

You can have all five of those things on your CV and still be writing columns for every newspaper under the sun

presenting television programmes and spouting your nonsense on the radio every day

But one in particular we were talking about, and I said, you know, since I came off Twitter

I just don't notice him anymore, or her. No, it's a him

I just don't... And it was quite odd, because one of the people that used to be very much front and centre

in the increasingly unhinged attacks on the Keir Starmer movement in both opposition and government

But he's right. I mean, if you are on there, Cami Bailenot obviously lives and breathes on Twitter

But if you're not on there anymore, it's extraordinary what ceases to matter

and what begins to seem more important and all of these things

And it's a shame because it shouldn't really matter. It's an entirely skewed and bogus platform

that Elon Musk has quite deliberately engineered to promote white supremacists and people who lie about London

deeply treacherous and unpatriotic British voices attacking their own country, their own politicians

their own democracy, their own government. But it is unfortunately also, as with Facebook

the only place that some people get their news from. Brian has guessed correctly who I was talking about

but I just noticed now, Brian, you've actually had two guesses, and only one of them was correct, so I'm afraid you are disqualified

James O'Brien on LBC. It is 10 to 12. Callum Miller is the Liberal Democrat MP for Bicester and Woodstock, has been since 2024

But prior to that, he was a civil servant and rose to the dizzy, dizzy ranks of the Cabinet Office

Chiefly, I suppose, for the purposes of the conversation that we're about to have, serving as Principal Private Secretary to Gus O'Donnell, who was the Cabinet Secretary

and latterly to Nick Clegg when he was Deputy Prime Minister. Callum, thanks for squeezing us in this morning. I'm sure that everything's very hectic

in your world, but we should probably begin with developed vetting. You had it. You know what it is

Enlighten the rest of us. Thanks for having me on, Jim. So developed vetting is one of the highest levels of security classification

for somebody in the government, and it's put in place so that someone is really scrutinised before they're allowed to access top-secret material

It's a really thorough process. It's actually a very invasive and, frankly, quite unpleasant one

You have to dredge back through your history, provide the government with all of the countries you've ever visited in the world a whole series of

your addresses throughout your lifetime and they can take up to about six months to investigate this

to speak in depth to three people you knew and then the most uncomfortable bit is a in my

recollection two to two and a half long hour long interview where you're grilled and everything from

whether or not you're financially solvent to whether or not you've had any sexual peccadilloes

during your lifetime to how many jobs you've taken flipping heck i don't know where to start

I'm picking all of that. So Peter Mandelson went through that process

Yeah, his interview might have been longer than two and a half hours, I imagine. But yes, he certainly went through

And the conclusion arrived at was that he was not fit for developed vetting status

That's right. So developed vetting is carried out by an agency of the Cabinet Office

staffed by experienced investigators, maybe with a background in the police or the intelligence services

and they draw up a report and pass that on to the relevant department

who's hoping that their staff member will be given developed vetting and what we understand now is..

is that Peter Mandelson was recommended not to receive developed better. Wow. Have you ever heard previously of that decision being overruled

I have never. I think you've identified three possible scenarios that would account for what happened next

Shall we run through them? Of course. Scenario number one, number 10 is leaning on the Foreign Office

to the point where the Foreign Office sort of obeyed in advance

Yes. So what we know is that the Prime Minister and Knights, Peter Mandelson, would be the ambassador on the 20th of December

And the process then appears to have started of his developed vesting, all in a great rush to get him out to Washington by February

And at some point in that process, the answer comes back to the Foreign Office to say

actually, he's not passed developed vetting. And this is a scenario where the Foreign Office internalizes the instruction from Number 10

a political instruction and decides not to tell anybody that that's happened and find a way to

adjust the approval and give him his developed vetting nonetheless. And the big problem with

that is that, you know, I need to emphasize this is really important national security stuff

You know, it's a big deal to overrule a developed vetting. So you've got a situation here. The

Prime Minister today says he's furious that he didn't know. But, you know, if it's that serious

and that's important. It seems incredible that very senior officials in the Foreign Office

would have been too scared to whisper to Number 10 that there was a problem with the process

Although it looks like that is the position that the Prime Minister is going to defend on Monday

and as started defending today, only time will tell whether it actually is. Before we move on to Scenario 2

under Scenario 1, your reservations and misgivings notwithstanding, it would be normal practice for the Ministers or the Prime Minister

to simply be given the result, the yay or the nay, and that will be the end of the matter

There's no precedent or tradition of Prime Minister saying, all right, prove it, for example, prove that they've passed

Look, I believe that's true, James, but I think the thing we need to emphasise is this is exceptionally unusual

One thing that people are probably not aware is that ministers don't go through developed betting

This is only applied to civil servants. So ministers are expected by dint of their election

and by dint in many cases of being what's called a privy councillor to be trustworthy and therefore to receive this information. It's only civil servants who go

through the process. And what happened in the period between the political appointment in

December and Peter Mandelson moving into his residence in February was that he became a civil

servant because he was an ambassador. And so this period in January when he was going through

developed vetting was a period when he was being treated like a civil servant. And frankly, if a

civil servant, another ambassador in the world, was not passed through their developed vetting

no one would tell a minister they would just not get the job and it would be an hr matter within

the foreign office so when people say this is the precedent i think it's very unlikely that there are

many precedents at all because it's such an unusual situation the last explicitly political

ambassadorial appointment i can think of is maybe helen little to be the high commissioner in

australia and way back when peter jade by jim callahan to go to washington but you need to go

back into these precedents uh to understand whether or not there would be any likelihood

of this information being shared with the minister. So scenario two then would be that they did tell somebody at number 10

and got them, not Keir Starmer, under scenario two, someone at number 10 got told and sent the Foreign Office Mandarin away

with a flea in their ear and told them to fix it. And I think that's a very plausible likelihood

Whether it was over WhatsApp, whether it was through a phone call, one would assume that number 10 believe there's no documentary evidence

and therefore they can maintain the line that they're taking today. but I think it's much more likely

that somebody in the Foreign Office did pick up the phone or have a quiet word with somebody in Number 10 to say

look, we've got a problem here and was told that that problem needed to disappear

Did Morgan McSweeney's missing phone suddenly rear its mysterious head? I wonder, but I won't ask you to answer that question

because Scenario 3, of course, the worst possible scenario from the Prime Minister's point of view

is that Starmer was told and it was him that sent the Foreign Office

mandarin away with a flea in their ear and instructions to in the words of Jean-Luc Picard

make it so. That's right and I've got no evidence for that and clearly the Prime Minister has flatly

denied it however I don't think the fact that he's flatly denied it fully gets him off the hook

in terms of where we are in Parliament he repeatedly said at Prime Minister's questions

that the full process had been followed he's now stating that he was misled or not informed prior

to that but it still stands that he said the full process had been followed and it hadn't been

and what that gets to is whether we're under scenario one scenario two or scenario three

something is rotten at the heart of the government's approach to this because the prime minister is

protesting today that he should have known about these things and i agree with him but for whatever

reason he didn't know about them under his account and that means he's created either a culture of

fear or a culture where the political writ runs ahead of the national security interest and the

political imperative overrode any concerns about Peter Manson handling top secret material

But your party position, the Liberal Democrat position, your leader calling for the Privileges

Committee to investigate further whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament, that call

doesn't really get affected by anything that does or doesn't happen on Monday

Well, let's see where we are by Monday. Obviously, this is moving by the hour. I think the Prime

Minister has given his first statement in the last hour or so. We will see where we are. But I think

it's a very grave situation for the Prime Minister and, you know, it might well be that

there's considerable pressure on him on Monday to consider his position. So, final question. I mean

even if he were to prove beyond reasonable doubt on Monday that he had no idea that Mandelson had

failed developed vetting, that may not be enough to save his skin? I think he's got some very big

questions to answer the the the conclusion uh of either of the first two scenarios is that number

10 set a culture where the political importance of an outcome in this case peter mandelton's

appointment was more important than national security and and just to emphasize james you know

top secret material could be material that relates to national defense installations that is actually

intelligence material where the lives of those who provided the information can be put at risk if it

was shared in the wrong way and we all knew that peter mandelston was someone who wasn't really to

be trusted we've learned more subsequently about jeffrey epstein and his relationship with him and

information that he shared with him under gordon brown's uh prime ministership but you know that

is a really deep concern and even if kia samuel wasn't told that he failed the developed vetting

process the very fact that he allowed the political imperative to override the national security one

is a very serious charge. Indeed it is. Any chance that a fourth scenario might emerge

over the course of the weekend, or are you fairly confident that you've got all the bases covered? I'll keep scratching my head

Callum Miller, thank you very much indeed, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bicester

and Woodstock, and the party spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, and as I think he demonstrated pretty conclusively there

extremely well qualified to comment on precisely the moment that we have been examining all morning

and which, unless something remarkable happens in the next news bulletin, we probably continue to examine after this James O on LBC Three minutes after 12 is the time you listening to James O on LBC If I read you the first line of a message that says you are promoting dear James

you are promoting a utopian view of the world, what do you think would follow after that opener

I shall probably share that with you a little bit later in the programme

But a couple of texts just to reset the conversation that we're having about the Prime Minister's imperiled situation

Fred in Guildford. Starmer chose the people who supposedly let him down, whether it's

McSweeney, Mandelson, Doyle, Gray, Rayner, Lyons. Some of these names I don't recognise, Fred. You're paying more attention than I am

At some point, he needs to take responsibility. That is, I think, an

emerging theme, or rather a crystallising, a strengthening theme. For how long can you

say it wasn't my fault? It wasn't me. To paraphrase Shaggy. Although I've been listening more this week

to shabba ranks than shaggy, just by way of an aside. No, more tingling, actually

more than love of man. If you want to hold him accountable, fine, right, Stuart

but that's politics. But accountability is not the same as self-sabotage. A resignation now would hand opponents

the narrative, it would fracture the party, and it would stall every major policy

which, of course, is why they are doing it. It's not because they hate Mandelson. You can debate his decisions all day

but the idea that resigning magically fixes anything is fantasy politics. Stability isn't weakness

it's the minimum requirement for governing. And that speaks also to the utopian accusation

that I face from Leszek, who writes, James O'Brien, you are promoting a utopian view of the world

where everybody should be checking everything about everybody because somebody might have wanted to sabotage the reality

This is a nonsense. If anything, the whole problem revealed that Starmer trusted fully his government

and trusted the system. If you spend a little bit more time thinking about advocating

you would have to start checking the credentials of the electricians that are created

before you can broadcast in your radio studio and feel that you fully trust them

Of course, this is an absurd expectation. Well, you say that. How do you know I haven't checked all their credentials

or at least got Keith to? But then have I checked Keith's... I take your point

You can't double check everything. That was sent... Oh, no, 1202. I was going to say that was sent before we spoke to Callum Miller

who was one of the best guests we've had, actually. We've had two politicians on in the last three months

who've been absolutely brilliant. And they both have names that sound similar

One's called Callum and one's called Calvin. There you go. I don't know what you read into that

but if you're thinking of names for a recently born son, then I would recommend names that begin with the three letters Cal

It was Calvin Bailey who talked us through the Chilcot checklist. in the most magnificent fashion

when everybody else was still advocating for Keir Starmer to jump into Donald Trump's back pocket

the MP for Leighton and Wanstead. And it was Callum Miller today, the Liberal Democrat for Bista

who has talked to us through, and the Foreign Affairs spokesman for that party, talked to us through what developed vetting really is

and how plausible the Prime Minister's defence is and whether the plausibility even matters

given the likelihood of what has unfolded. So both Stewart and Leszek then

arguing that the pragmatism of the moment overweighs the principle. So even if Starmer has very big questions to answer

and even if you would be calling for his resignation if everything was hunky-dory

I love the way we've circled back through three or four different questions that have changed in volume and importance

as the events have changed slightly in the course of the show. Because we've moved through now

okay, he didn't know, that seems to be the widely accepted scenario

still some questions over who did know but Starmer didn't know probably not enough to get him completely off the hook

but roll on Monday and we circle back to that other question then

of whether or not the pragmatism actually in this moment outweighs the principle

it's all very well and this is why the word utopian was so apposite in that text

It's all very well wanting this and wanting that. But in the real world, you can't triple check and double check everything

In the real world, Keir Starmer is currently providing global leadership in the face of Donald Trump's insane adventures in Iran

And to remove him from his post or to hound him out of this post at this moment

would be a matter not only of national jeopardy, but international jeopardy as well

and I can see some mileage in that albeit slightly if not completely at odds

with where I've been since 10 o'clock but we're also are we veering into don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good territory

or are we seeing scales that have now tipped so far away from approval of Keir Starmer

that they have to hand him his sandwiches wrapped in a road map too sweet

The situation that we currently face, domestically and internationally, means that Keir Starmer will persuade himself over the course of the weekend that, albeit that there are circumstances in which he could imagine resigning over what has happened, these are not those circumstances

And the national interest is served by him staying in post. Just imagining the internal dialogue that Keir Starmer has

Look, if everything was hunky-dory, if the economy was ticking along quite nicely

if the madman in the White House hadn't started yet another war

and then pretended that he hadn't, if we weren't looking at instability across the markets

if the Strait of Hormuz was as open as it was before the madman in the White House started another war

and then pretended that he hadn't, if everything, if all things were equal

then I would probably resign over this. but everything is such a mess that i can't

let's add that to the mix and tell me how much sympathy you have for that argument

because i am utopian and i am the idealistic i really am and and i don't i don't want to

compromise that and i don't want to prioritize pragmatism over principle i i cannot conceive

of a completely compelling explanation for why Keir Starmer didn't ask to see every single dot

on every single I and every single cross on every single T

over an appointment of a man proven to be political gelignite that blows up in the face repeatedly

of the prime ministers who have promoted him. How on earth did the great pragmatist

the great king of process, end up fast-tracking the appointment of political and diplomatic gelignite

That's the bit that's extraordinary to me. But whether or not it is an act extraordinary or egregious enough

to merit his departure at a time of international and national jeopardy

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I need you to tell me

0345 6060973 is the number that you need should we be looking at circumstances surrounding these events in a way that allows the gravity and the importance of the events to be somewhat diluted

I'd love to hear your answer to that question, but of course we're still canvassing your answers to previous ones as well

To which, Stuart is in Harrogate. Stuart, what would you like to say? Thank you very much for taking the call, James

I thoroughly enjoyed Callum Miller's contribution. It was great, wasn't it? It was fantastic

and if he was the sublime, I only hope I'm not the ridiculous

I've got that covered. Don't you worry. Thank you very much. Well, you're talking about the circumstances about what has happened

I have some skin in the game to the extent that I'm a lawyer

Well, I was a lawyer. I'm retired now. But I went to the same university and did the same course as Keir Starmer

and has taken an interest in his career throughout. Okay, of course. And it's one of sadness and disappointment at the moment at another unforced error

And it got me thinking back to the circumstances that he inherited in terms of the diplomats that they had in Washington when he was elected

And of course, there was a very highly respected ambassador in Dame Karen Pierce, who had served the country throughout the first term of Donald Trump, which would have been no mean achievement on its own

And, you know, was highly regarded both in Washington and in the Foreign Office

And what I can't understand is why didn't she make the cut when she had all the credentials for diplomacy to a professional extent

She'd got a proven record of getting on with Donald Trump, whether that's a pro or an anti

We all know what that, well, I don't know what it is, but she had the appropriate communication

And it then goes to the extent as to what benefits did she have over somebody, as you said, is political jelly night

And it's very hard, I find, not to exclude political expediency in relation to the activities of Mr McSweeney

And, you know, those are the things that really disappoint. And you wonder, it's another unforced error which has dominated, unfortunately, this prime minister

And I absolutely agree with you that in terms of his standing at the moment, by virtue of the stance he's taken against Trump's war, it is very, very difficult to actually understand what and how we get out of this

but I think he will I hope he doesn't go but I suspect it may well be

that circumstances will dictate that he has to go and I thought it was interesting

talking about the future and it's not going to do him any good at all

in terms of the elections that are coming up and the idea that perhaps

he'll stay on throughout the summer until they're over exactly and that's the view

But those are the points that are dominating my thinking at the moment

And some of those questions probably will be answered. The jettisoning, the defenestration, if you like, of Dame Karen Pierce

the previous ambassador to whom you prefer, may well emerge as a consequence of the already underway investigations

into the nature of the appointment and what actually happened. And my, I mean, if I were to put 50p on it

I'd say that pressure was brought to bear upon Downing Street to appoint Mandelson either by Donald Trump or Tony Blair or both

And that he kind of acquiesced, which doesn't do him any favours

but it does at least provide the consolation of explanation. And again, we're doing that thing, aren't we, where you're not

but everybody else is pretending that they weren't cheering the appointment of Peter Mandelson to the rafters

which they were, right across the political landscape. and I certainly didn't call it out

in a way that I wish I had done and probably should have done but everybody else was saying

that it was a brilliant appointment as well so when we say political expediency as you just did with a certain

with a certain tombra it's changed from being a brilliant idea albeit politically expedient

to being a terrible idea that was politically expedient it's a weird one that

it's a really weird one and the other weird thing today and you've just done it as well is I've had such quality callers

that almost all of them have provided brilliant ysis of what is going on

really interesting insights and thoughts, but until you've actually told me specifically and explicitly

whether you think he should stay or should go, I haven't been able to call it

That's how confusing and complex this situation is. Well, it's going to be extremely interesting what Monday brings, obviously

Yeah, it really is, because, I mean, every argument for him to go is powerful and compelling

every argument for him to stay. What have you relied on ultimately then? Not vibes, but what, the national interest

You're thinking about the bigger picture. What is the reason why you recognise all of the awfulness

of much of what has happened, but you still don't want him to walk the plank? Well, the reason I'm saying this is that what we need at the moment

is some form of stability, and I suppose what dominates my own personal position is

I have family in Dubai at the moment, and those are matters that do, shall we say, dominate your thinking

So you want that business to be over as soon and as peacefully as possible

Correct. Can't really argue with that. And that would probably involve wanting Keir Starmer to stay in the job for the foreseeable

I see why, albeit it may not be a massive game changer in the context of what Trump and Netanyahu are up to

It's probably better than any of the immediately obvious alternatives. Sure, what a great call, amazing calls today

quite a few people commenting on that, but if you're new to the programme, that's pretty much par for the course over here

James O'Brien on LBC. It's 12.18, I think I've got an idiot's corner for you, which is somewhat odd, given the calibre of contributions today

but there is always one, and I will hopefully remember to share that with you shortly

A question, really, of whether or not the bigger picture justifies the, what would the word be, the pass for Starmer over this

So working on the principle or the presumption that he genuinely didn't know, impossible, I would say, not just hard, impossible to defend the idea that that doesn't matter

He should have known, but he didn't. And we'll find out more about that on Monday

If you were assembling your position on this in a time of absolute peace and harmony, for which you'd probably have to go back to 2007

in relative political terms. Or, yeah, I guess. But you would call for him to go

But you don't think he should go now because of the bigger picture

either domestically or internationally or both. How much mileage does that argument have

Because I suspect if Keir Starmer girds his loins over the weekend

and persuades himself to duke this out, it will be a combination of

I did not know and I cannot go and I wonder whether that butters

any of your parsnips this morning Tony in Greenock Tony what would you like to say yeah hi James thank you for taking my call I hope I don break your streak of excellent commerce today I sure you won don you worry You got me nervous now I quite excited because this is an area I never thought I speak about what I do for a job as an area of something that relates to the political conversation

I mean, I work in controls assurance and for me, you know, every day you speak to people about processes and the assurance that they've got that that process has been completed properly

and I think if you look at it in this context the process is a well established one

people have said that it's something that this is traditionally what happens

so you're looking for your where's your evidence of your control being exercised here

and what Starmer has done is said well basically the process was this

the process was followed and this is the information that I was given

that's the control evidence I need to make sure that the decision I make is the right one

So in the context of what normally the process is, you can say, if this indeed is true

then you could say, yes, the process was followed properly, the information was given to him that he needed to get to make the decision

But this wasn't a normal process. This was Peter Mandelson. This was the US ambassador role

This was a high-profile, high-visibility role being given to somebody who they know

is just a lit fuse waiting to explode, really. So for me, yes, you can say I was following the process

but he should attach risk to that and say that this is a very high-risk decision I'm making

so I need to know with certainty that all the right boxes have been ticked out in the process

I've really enjoyed today's show, I have to be honest, because my levels of interest are increasing

on some areas of the conversation as it continues rather than levelling off or decreasing

because 2020 hindsight, mate, everybody thought the Mandelson appointment was brilliant precisely because he was so dodgy

And now we're all sitting here, me and you included, I'm not singling you out on this one

and saying how mad was it, how stupid was it of them to not go an extra mile in Annalise

that he got the job because he's dodgy. So to now say we should have stopped him getting

we should have worked harder to stop him getting the job because he's dodgy is, it's a bit contradictory almost

I was never, I've never been a fan of the appointment. But you accept that every, I mean, the world and his wife were

The political discourse was, yes, what a great appointment. But yeah, I mean, in that situation

you have to make sure that the process that is followed to get him across the line has been done properly

and that every part of that process, there's evidence to support the decision that's being made

And in this case, there's a very large chunk of the evidence is missing down the line

Now, the Starmer will argue that that wasn't my job to know that. I rely on the people telling me that that's the case

I would counter-argue that by saying, for a decision like this, you should have checked in Bali

You do a risk assessment of the appointment and then you check that the process is..

Yeah, well, you do. I mean, and Callum Miller's contribution to the programme

has kind of challenged elements of this conclusion, because he talks about there are no real precedents

So there are precedents for appointing an ambassador, right? And when an ambassador is appointed and Downing Street is told

that they have passed the process, there is no precedent for then going back for more

But because it was Peter Mandelson, we are all now saying, well, then they should have gone back for more

precedents don't matter because there's no precedent for a political appointment of this

sort of nature and there's certainly no precedent for appointing to this role somebody who's had to

resign from two previous senior roles in labour administrations over um questions of integrity

and probity so all of those things are true but i can't get past the point and albeit you're not

on the hook for this but i'm afraid i am you can't get past the point everybody thought the fact that

he is dodgy, was a brilliant reason to send him to be Donald Trump's ambassador

or the ambassador to Donald Trump. Oh, boy. Do you want to have a crack at this question from Anthony

given your background, Tony, and the quality of your contribution? Thank you very much

Anthony got in touch one and a half minutes ago, so just while you were in your pomp

and he said, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Starmer did wrong

I think in the normal scheme of things, he's relied on the checks and balances that are in place

for him to reach the decision. He's relied on all the parts of the process working properly

It's not exactly a smoking gun, is it? It's not up there with presiding, living at the address

that breached more COVID laws than any other address in the country. It's what gets him off the hook, I think

is to say, this is what we normally do. But then you have to make it..

And my argument is you have to make an exception for this. Because it's Mandelson

Because it's Mandelson. Because it's high profile, yeah. I love the way that this focus is zoning in

on this wonderful conundrum that they should have worked harder to process the appointment

because it's Peter Mandelson and he's so dodgy, but the appointment was made

because it's Peter Mandelson and he's so dodgy. And boom, that's it

Everything blows up. It's like a kind of, it's like the streams crossing in Ghostbusters, isn't it

Once that happens, you can't, Tony can sustain that position because he didn't think Mandelson should have got the job in the first place

But everybody who said, oh, it's great that they've given him the job

because he's so dodgy, can't really in all good conscience now say

I can't believe they gave him the job without triple checking everything because he's so dodgy

That doesn't happen very often where you talk about a big, big story

from loads of different angles, with loads of different callers and contributions, and they all ultimately lead to the same Gordian knot

the same unravellable conundrum, which is the reason why he got the job

is the reason why he shouldn't have got it. And that is the hook upon which Keir Starmer

finds himself hanging this weekend. Tony, great stuff. Thank you. Alan is in Kendal. It's a few miles south

Alan, what would you like to say? Good afternoon. I think, well, I've just finished reading Get In by a couple of Sunday Times journalists

and I'm embarking on Paul Holden's amazing book, The Fraud. And anybody who wants to understand where this is all coming from needs to read those books

because Morgan McSweeney was Mandelson's protege, and those two, with Keir Starmer and a few others

were the brains behind Labour Together. And this whole thing goes back to that relationship with the three of them

Starmer wanted Mandelson. He wasn't bothered about vetting. He appointed him before having him vetted, which strikes me as weird

No, that's completely normal. Well, not in any other sphere of activity

You vet people before you get the job. It takes six months

So you make your decision about who you want and then the vetting kicks in. Presumably

I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe they've done it the wrong way around. I probably misunderstand that, but I don't..

Maybe I have. Maybe I have. Maybe I have. They're vetting everybody all the time

But the other thing is that this notion that we have to hang on to Starmer

because of what a grand job he's doing in Iran, well, I was about to use an exceedingly rude word there

but it's nonsense because he's not doing a great job. He found a way of being involved in that war without being involved in that war

Why is Donald Trump so angry with him? Donald Trump's angry with anybody who..

Oh, no, he's singled... He's singled Keir Starmer out for particular abuse and approbation

Why do you think that is? Because he wouldn't commit himself 100% to an offensive war

No, he's followed the Chilcot checklist at every turn. But he hasn't..

And obeyed international law in a way that Donald Trump has failed to do. I have very little patience

You know, your capacious reading habits notwithstanding, I have very, very little patience with the argument that Keir Starmer has somehow finagled on this

or become complicit in what Donald Trump has done. He's explained at every turn his reasoning for allowing our air bases to be used for very certain and specific activities

while not allowing them to be used for obviously illegal activities. And it's deeply disingenuous of you to pretend that you don't understand that

I do understand that. So why are you pretending that you don't now? I do understand the offensive capacity of a B-1 bomber and a B-52 bomber

You cannot launch those bombers from Swindon to go to Iran carrying 24 2,000-pound bombs

When did you stop serving? Pardon? When did you finish your service in the RAF

Well, I was brought up in the RAF and I finished my Royal Air Force service at the age of 19 in 1967

And how many B-1s were in action then? B-1s were built after that

The B-52s were there and they were used in Vietnam. So you don't know what you're talking about

when it comes to what Keir Starmer has and hasn't given permission for in the context of this particular activity

He's given permission for very heavy bombers to fly from Swindon to Iran

And he's explained at every turn what they will and will not be doing

and he'll be held to account under the auspices of international law

and all the rest of it all the time. I'm being rude to you, and I'm sorry. It's not fair. I don't believe you

I'm sorry. I've been rude to you. It's half past twelve. That's fine. That's fine, James

It's not fine. I shouldn't be rude. I just think that Starmer has really carefully plotted a course here

And the thing that people arguing from the position that you're in can't do

is explain fairly why Donald Trump is so furious with him if what he's done is actually complicit in Donald Trump's war

Do you believe that the Americans are giving us details of where those bombs are going

Those American pilots in those B-1 bombs? Yeah, I do. Well, I don't

No, and that's fine. And you might be right and I might be right. But to steer you back to the phone in that everybody else has been having today, Alan

do you think that this particular issue should do for him as Prime Minister

Absolutely, because there have been so many others. So it's an accumulation of problems

Yes. If I'd asked you on Friday, and I want you to tell me honestly, if I'd asked you last Friday whether you felt that Keir Starmer should resign

would you have said yes then? I would. Yeah, I thought so. And there we are

I mean, that's where we began the phone-in, by saying that those are perhaps, and this is not a personal affront to you

that these are perhaps the least helpful contributions to a conversation about what has emerged in the last 24 hours

If you're going to stick up for Keir Starmer, whatever happens, or if you're going to call for Keir Starmer's resignation

whatever happens, then the events of the last 24 hours, and I don't want to misrepresent you

they are irrelevant to your opinion. Keir Starmer is sitting on a pile of gender

with the last piece hanging on by the skin of its teeth

and it's being pulled out. And that pile of gender has been built up over the last..

No, you might well be right. You might well be. It might be the only piece that matters

And thank you for your good grace and accepting my apology for my short temper. It is 12.31, and Matt Hewitt has your headlines

James O'Brien on LBC. It is 12.34, you are listening to James O'Brien on LBC

There you go. I mean, that is actually brilliant. Came in at 12.22

I'm waiting for someone to tell me what Starmer did wrong, writes Anthony

Well, he appointed someone to the ambassadorship who had failed security vetting

but he didn't know that he'd failed security vetting. Because nobody told him

Well, they should have told him, but they did. So what's he done wrong? He's not asked people to prove that Peter Mandelson had passed the vetting

when he was told that he had passed the vetting. Well, does any prime minister ever ask for proof

that a vetting process has been such a... No, not previously, but he should have done in this case

because Mandelson's such a dodgy character. Why did he appoint Peter Mandelson to the ambassadorship

Because Mandelson's such a dodgy character. and I can't, that's just, it's close to perfect, isn't it

But I still, I'm still, I think I've gone back from 51-49 to 52-48

I don't think he will go on Monday, but I think he should

I'm afraid that for me, this is an accumulation of events, not the same events that our last caller, Alan, cited

but enough events on my personal Jenga board, particularly the thing I began with at 10 o'clock this morning

which was that the process was the thing, the thing you could rely on him for

international law and due process. And international law, he has, I think, upheld

well, I mean, he has upheld quite spectacularly in extraordinarily difficult circumstances

Hence my impatience with Alan and Kendall a moment ago. The idea that you don't fully appreciate

how hard it is for a UK Prime Minister to being publicly and viciously subjected to ad hominem attacks

from the President of the United States of America, and to just be resolute, to let it wash over you like not quite water off a duck's back

but to be clear that you ain going to be bullied and you ain going to be swayed and you ain going to sacrifice the national interest on the altar of Donald Trump narcissism That takes some real cojones You show me another politician in the UK at the moment that would do that All right Ed Davey But seriously

and by politician, I mean somebody with experience, somebody with a seat in the House of

Commons, somebody likely to become Prime Minister, to actually, and someone with a proper understanding

of the facts. You can imagine Baden-Ock or Farage telling Donald Trump to sling his hook and then

carrying on to tell him to sling his hook long after Donald Trump

has exposed him to all sorts of abuses often in cahoots with the British media

It takes some real guts that, some real backbone which is what we wanted when Keir Starmer

became Prime Minister. But the other side of that coin, the only

coin left in his treasury, that was process, that was doing things right transparently and he hasn't and even if it's not his fault it's probably enough to do

for him and i'm still of the view um that it that it that it should should be that's how let down i

personally feel although i'm you know by no means speaking for everybody uh kevin writes we're at

war jimbo we don't have the luck that takes me back we don't have the luxury of fighting the

enemy or of moral perfection is it perfect absolutely not but sometimes you've got to do

what's right for the greater good. You could be talking about anything there. You could be talking about the appointment of Peter Mandelson

or you could be talking about the argument that he should stay on his job for the time being

which I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by. Although, our first Idiot's Corner of the day

Stephen Guilford has listened to the same programme that you've listened to and sent this message. Your pathetic defending, no prizes for guessing how he's spelt

Your pathetic defending a pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister is laughable

I'm not defending him, mate. I'm suggesting that he probably should walk the plank on Monday

I'm explaining the reasons why he might not and inviting people to tell me

why they think that he should. But hey-ho, Steve. On we go

Lawrence is in Watford. Lawrence, what would you like to say? Oh, hiya, James. This is my second call, I think, to your show

Once was with Brexit. Top man. You don't have to keep count. Well, crikey, so what? We've got a ten-year gap, have we

between the first call and the second? It's been a while. and I was so disappointed with Brexit, I couldn't phone you again

Yeah, all right. I know what you mean. I didn't have that option, unfortunately. I had to keep talking

Yeah, exactly. And you're a sane voice in the mad world. Thank you

Yeah, I'm an IT, or was an IT program manager and worked on a number of major programs for government

as well as national industries. Okay. So I've been through the vetting process

and I've actually employed people through the vetting process or either ask them to be vetted

And when that paperwork comes across my desk, I make sure that it's all approved and it's cleared to go

Now, I don't necessarily go into the level of detail of looking at each and every line item

These are being approved by the process, and as far as I'm concerned, the people that are carrying that process have cleared him

and he's good to go. Now, if he commits some sort of security incident

during the time at work, then of course I would take action and he would go immediately, which is what I think Starmer has done

in this instance. And I can guarantee you that I was running programmes and projects

for maybe up to 100 people under my auspices, and they would be trusted by me to do the right thing

But I have to take it on face value that the person that's been vectued

has been approved, gone through the due diligence and the process, and therefore

can work on the programme. What else can you do? What else can you do

Show me the money, show me your workings, bring me the head of

John the Baptist, whatever it is. I mean, the argument that's put forward, and no one's going to put it forward

better than Callum Miller did on this programme about an hour ago, is that the circumstances

were so extraordinary, given what we know about Peter Mandelson, and that Starmer should..

So if you imagine that you were appointing somebody who had... I don't know what the worst thing you can do in the world of IT is

but who had shut down the Blackpool Illuminations this time last year. Yeah, yeah, yeah

And therefore you said, look, I just need to be sure that, you know, that he's changed, as it were

or that there's nothing in the... That's the only argument I've got against you

Yeah, I suppose the only way a comparison that can make on that

is that I've got a genius coder who's absolutely brilliant at his job

and get this particular aspect of the work completed with the maximum efficiency

and hopefully we'll get through it and it'll all be done without any issues

However, you know, so I employ him on the basis that he's absolutely brilliant. There's no one that can be comparable to him

and therefore, you know, I've taken that risk. But you have to take the risk assessment along with that

So presumably, if you're going into a gunfight with knives, you wouldn't put a knife in a gunfight

you would put someone capable of doing the job. But at the same time, I do get the fact that it was a risk for Starner

and I'm no fan of Pete Manson, and at the time I thought, what is he doing

Did you? Funny, all my callers are saying that today. It's a bit, you know, I've got no reason to doubt you or Stuart

or anybody else, but it's a little bit convenient that everyone except me, because I'm the one on the flipping radio

who has to offer up an opinion about everything, could see the writing on the wall over Mandelson's appointment

But anyway, of course, I mean, we should have known, even I should have known, we should have seen it

even if I didn't. But my goodness me, it was rare, wasn't it

The voice of caution or the voice of criticism at the time. It was, but you have to say

was it a risk in putting Manos in place? And was he the best candidate to work alongside Trump

Now, initially, when you look at how he got on with Trump and everything else, it seems a brilliant position to appoint

And I was kind of coming around to the fact that yeah, maybe he did the right thing, but

There was a risk. It was a heavy risk and as it turned out the risk has come through

So I've said that all the brilliant callers today have put forward really interesting

Arguments and insights without actually making it easy for me to guess which way they would go on the central question I think you gave me a fairly broad hint earlier You want him to stay or at least you think he should stay I think you know in the way that things are going turning out for the country and for the world

it'd be absolutely lunacy to call for Starmer to go, because we need stability in the country and we need strong leadership

Now, he might be the most boring PM and the most unlikable PM that we've got for a long time

but when you look at what happened previously with the previous government

I take Starmer every time. Yeah, that's a really good point. And I don't share, I mean, I know you're probably describing other people's positions

I don't quite understand the unlikable element. I mean, I could see innocuous or boring, that's a fine

but I don't, I mean, unlikable, it's a great mystery, even to people on the doorsteps

as to where this vicious animosity, vicious personal animosity has come from

although I'm afraid I think the answer probably is social media. and Liz in Brisbane picks up the point

that Lawrence in Watford makes in this text thank you for your kind words about the show Liz

but she goes on but seriously you Brits have finally got an intelligent

articulate eminently useful Prime Minister and you are spending an inordinate amount

of time trying to undermine him by focusing on human factors that in the

past created a situational challenge with the Mandelson appointment when for the sake of all of us you could

should be focused on the extraordinary leadership Starmer is currently showing And I think you've both got powerful points, is the thing

It's quarter to one. James O'Brien on LBC. 12.47 is the time

I'm going to give you two full disclosures. Hopefully I'll have time to take a few more calls as well

Incredible appetite to talk about this. Much greater appetite to talk about this than there was to talk about Mandelson's original dismissal

I think because we're talking about the Prime Minister, aren't we? Rather than talking about the ambassador

But I tell you what, I bet you 50p we'll be talking about it again on Monday

albeit from a slightly different angle. But I do want to draw your attention to two episodes of Full Disclosure

We got rather overtaken by events two Fridays ago, so I couldn't tell you about one of my favourite episodes ever

Genuinely. With Natalie Cassidy, who you probably would know from EastEnders, where she played Sonia

But she's such a... Just such a top person, actually. And such an enjoyable interviewee

interviewee sometimes and one of my colleagues commented on this that i think it was matthew the

lad who puts the youtube episode together just it was like he said it's just like he's dropping

on people who are having a chat in the pub and my body language apparently if you watch it on

youtube is a bit different from how i don't think i've ever felt so relaxed or so warm in an

interview as i did with natalie cassidy so i'll let you have a little taste of that first

And it includes a reference to June Brown, who played Dot Cotton in EastEnders

And I'm fascinated by the alchemy of fame in the way that some famous people

even actors and actresses who aren't even being themselves, they're playing roles

but they somehow get to a place in your mind where you think that you know them

I realised when I met Natalie that she was in that constituency

she was in that category for me. I'd never met her before, but she came in, and I thought I knew her

And somehow I thought I knew her, not the character that she used to play. And the same with June Brown, who played Doc Cotton

I was watching an old episode of Would I Lie to You the other day, and she was on that, and she was someone I wish I could have known

Anyway, this is Natalie Cassidy talking about the enormous privilege she had while on EastEnders

of getting to know very, very well people like June Brown and some other stuff as well

If June Brown thinks this is worthy of her time and her energies and thinks you are worthy of her collaboration

and her energies. And you're in a very special place. It was very, very special

We'd sit together with a bottle of red wine, pyjamas on, crafting that script, talking about it, noting it

blocking it through together. And she just used to be... She said every single line you say is a song

Every line you... Just remember, tonally, the way you breathe. you're making music

and she used to say and listen for God's sake listen it's half of acting reacting

that's all you need to know it's your training really yeah it was my training

Anna Cher June was a tiny kid but then these people June probably more than anyone

Barbara also acting was June was the lady that I aspired to be like

and listen to the most Barbara for etiquette professionalism being on time

knowing your stuff talking to people. Wendy was being kind to the crew

Well, I've taken that as far as I could go. I'm marrying one, aren't I? Boom, boom

That just gets better as well. It's just lovely. June Brown, Wendy Richard and Barbara Windsor

the sort of three guiding stars of Natalie Cassidy's career and personal development

because she was a baby when she started on EastEnders. That is one of my all-time favourites

which doesn't mean that the other one, the one that comes out this week, that came out two Fridays ago

We didn't put one out last week because I wasn't here. But this was, I mean, this was extraordinary

for a whole bunch of different reasons. I've always been an admirer from afar of Marcus Brigstocke

the comedian and actor and presenter. He's done all sorts of things, including a couple of jobs

I don't think I told him this about 20 years ago that I frankly thought I should have gone up for in the presenting world

if not the stand-up comedy or the acting world. But I was only vaguely aware of the difficulties

of his early years. you know from the outside a privileged education and upbringing but from the inside an absolutely

torturous one so i need to warn you if you do download or listen to the entire episode that it

does include discussion of some very sensitive topics including addiction that some listeners

may find distressing so do take care while you're listening and free feel free to pause or step away

if you need to but this clip takes us to a point in marcus brigstarch's life where i think i can

safely say, albeit that these battles are never over, they're always works in progress, you are

always as an addict in recovery, as I understand it. This is certainly when things were getting

much, much better for him. The Ministry of Sound, when it first opened, had no liquor license

remember And those were I mean that really because everybody bar me and my best pal who had a heart condition everyone was on drugs as far as i knew uh but it was a particularly good place for me because no liquor license i liked that

um and also i just lost 13 stone so my body was this brand new thing brand new and i'd never felt

like that before when I was 18 19 years old and so dancing felt it didn't just feel like oh this

feels good because I like this music for me it was a state of pure ecstasy weirdly and everyone

else was like yeah with a couple of pills I can get there I was like yes from the moment I walked

in and eyes wide like I looked absolutely like I was off my nut and I would dance and dance and

dance with huge exuberance. Wow. I took up a lot of space, hence climbing up onto the podium

And I liked how showy offy that was because I was not drunk and I was not high. I was not even

particularly interested in meeting anybody. I just liked moving and being on a podium meant I could

do it more. And then I got one of the dance crew at Ministry came up and said, do you want to be

I want to be one of our dancers and I was like um yeah obviously yes yeah straight away yes

so then I was that and I danced there and limelight and equinox and a few other places

did you feel beautiful uh did I feel beautiful yes I think I did I

yeah i mean i was still i was still kind of i had a really complicated relationship with my body

so i wouldn't go top off very much not least because i still had a lot of loose skin right you

know uh i mean i was lucky i was young enough that there was some elasticity there um so i

go completely top off but yes i think i did feel beautiful i certainly i certainly felt something i

hadn't really felt before which was a a really pure state of of joy this is again again another

absolute humdinger of an interview and if that struck is a slightly odd question to ask i don't

think i've ever asked any previous interviewees on full disclosure whether or not they felt

beautiful, then I promise you it will make perfect sense in the context

of the broader conversation. So Natalie Cassidy and Marcus Brickstock highly, highly recommended episodes

And that brings us back to today and the conversation about Keir Starmer, his

will he, won't he? Will he, won't he? Will he join the dance scenario? Which probably won't

be answered until Monday, although this is one of those political situations where

you can't say anything for certain I don't think. It may be that the

weekend sees an even bigger development. Personally, I doubt it, but I wouldn't rule it out

Last word, probably, on this goes to Chris, who's in Leeds. Chris, what would you like to say

Hi, James. Yeah, just, I'm in my early 30s. I've voted, I could vote since 2010, and I'm just in

complete despair, to be honest, at the state of our politics. I grew up, obviously, the social

media era and the amount of vile venom that is aimed towards our leaders it's just so depressing

um you know i'm no political expert but i i'm so concerned about the future of our country and you

know we've got a prime minister here who he might be boring he might be dull as dull as dishwater

but in my mind he's the first prime minister we've had for quite a while with some common sense

common sense between his ears. And I just don't know. We've got so much more in the world to be worried about

Do you know the word I haven't yet? I think I may have used it a couple of hours ago, but I thought we'd use it more today and we haven't

which was chaos. We've had chaos in this country. Chaos has become normalized, political chaos

I mean, my job is such, Chris, that I kind of sometimes I used to welcome it

because it's very good for business, chaos, political. chaos. It's great for business

Keir Starmer was, to both endorse and challenge your position, he was

supposed to end the chaos. And it is his fault that we are

now on the brink of more chaos. So I don't know whether he gets off the hook

under your reading because we don't want more chaos if he is responsible for creating the imminent chaos

Do you see what I mean? Can he be responsible for it and also use it as a reason why

we should let him off? Yeah, I agree. And I think so many

people in my, you know, my age. It's all you've ever known

as a voter is chaos. Exactly. I mean, you know, I was living

in the age where we had a health sanctuary, and I'm not exaggerating

responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and we pay them a million quid to go and sit in the

bloody jungle. I cannot get my head around it. I cannot get my head around it

Yeah, and I'm just in a complete loss as to where we go

from here. So leave him be. So leave him be. in my humble opinion yes because he's better than the alternatives out there and the alternatives

include chaos well we shall see in the course of the next few days whether or not that position

prevails but i i think you've articulated it quite beautifully thank you in fact thank you

everybody today they're really good calls i mean exceptional actually i know i say that a lot

but only because it's true um i've learned quite a lot i don't think i've moved position i i'm

Right, maybe if I would say, no, I don't. 50-50 now, maybe

But that would be an appallingly non-committal perspective, wouldn't it? If you missed any of today's show

you can listen back on our free Global Player app or the LBC app, where you can stay up to date with all the latest news, videos and opinions

You can listen to a range of podcasts, including James O'Brien Daily, the best bits from this show every day

And, of course, Full Disclosure, which is, as I've suggested to you, We're going through quite a rich seam at the moment of guests

You can listen to a range of podcasts, including, I've just said that, download the official LBC app for free from your app store now

Coming up at four on LBC, it's Tom Sawbricht, but now it's time for Sheila Fogarty. And for the record, I've always thought Marcus Brickstock is beautiful

Have you really? He's a lovely man. Yeah, he's a very handsome man. And now I know why. You can pass that on if you ever see him again

I will, if I do. James O'Brien on LBC