Up next in 10
The Mandelson scandal: Nick Ferrari puts another Labour minister in the hot seat
Apr 20, 2026
Sir Keir Starmer will battle to save his job in Parliament on Monday by setting out further details of the “unforgivable” error by officials in not telling him Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. In a Commons statement, Sir Keir will be faced with allegations he misled Parliament after telling MPs the proper process had been followed in appointing Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador to the US, insisting he had been kept in the dark about the peer being red-flagged by security experts. Sir Keir effectively fired the Foreign Office’s top official, Sir Olly Robbins, last week after it emerged Lord Mandelson had been given developed vetting (DV) status despite failing checks carried out by the agency responsible for assessing security clearances. Whitehall veteran Sir Olly is expected to give his own account to MPs on Tuesday at the Foreign Affairs Committee. 00:00 | Nick Ferrari questions Secretary of State for Scotland Douglas Alexander 10:39 | Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch weighs in 16:08 | LBC's political editor Aggie Chambre brings her analysis 20:07 | Prof Sir John Curtice adds some polling information on what this means for Keir Starmer's popularity Listen to the full show on the all-new LBC App: https://app.af.lbc.co.uk/btnc/thenewlbcapp #lbc #nickferrari #keirstarmer #petermandelson #kemibadenoch #jeffreyepstein #politics #debate LBC is the home of live debate around news and current affairs in the UK. Join in the conversation and listen at https://www.lbc.co.uk/ Sign up to LBC’s weekly newsletter here: https://l-bc.co/signup
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
One of his key colleagues, Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for Scotland, joins me now
0:04
Good to have you on, Secretary of State. How would you equate the level of unrest among your Labour colleagues over this
0:09
Good morning. Well, good morning, Nick. Truthfully, I haven't seen most of my colleagues
0:13
I've been campaigning in Scotland in critical elections for May the 7th
0:17
but I expect there'll be a big turnout in the House of Commons today. And that's the right forum in which, reasonably and rightly
0:24
the Prime Minister will answer a whole series of questions, not just from Labour colleagues but opposition colleagues as well
0:30
and set out the facts in relation to what's emerged in recent days
0:34
What do you expect him to say, Secretary of State? Well, he has stated repeatedly that the appointment of Peter Mandelson was a mistake
0:43
and he's taken responsibility for that decision and indeed apologised profusely. I think it is also the case, however, that lessons do need to be learned
0:52
in relation to the process by which that appointment was made and given the revelations in The Guardian on Thursday
0:59
I think the Prime Minister will be at pains to address the central charge that's been made
1:03
by the Leader of the Opposition, which is that he knowingly and willfully
1:08
misled the public and Parliament. And I'm sure he will assert that that is categorically untrue
1:14
He maybe didn't do that, but having been informed on Tuesday, why did he wait 48 hours
1:20
and indeed some could argue effectively bullied into it by The Guardian newspaper before we learnt the truth about this
1:25
So he was informed on Tuesday night. A minute's been produced. That's a bit of paper, a document from Number 10, confirming that at the meeting on Tuesday evening, the Prime Minister made clear that he wanted to go to the Commons and to answer all of the questions and set out the facts
1:40
But I don't think it's unreasonable, given the central issue in dispute is why the Prime Minister was not informed of all of the facts, that he wanted to be in possession of the facts before going back to Parliament
1:51
So as early as Tuesday evening, the Prime Minister made clear, both to the Cabinet Secretary and to the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, his own Principal Private Secretary, his determination to go to Parliament, but to do so on the basis of having all the facts
2:05
Those facts have been being gathered, and rightly and reasonably, he'll be at the dispatch box this afternoon answering questions
2:10
Why not on Thursday, then? Why not take Wednesday to ensure that you had all the necessary details
2:15
Well, I'm not privy to how long it's taken to get all of the information that was..
2:20
You can see, I mean, we've known each other a long time, Colin, you can see this is a pretty grave crisis
2:25
that the Prime Minister was facing. Surely you put a line through just about everything that you can on Wednesday
2:29
and you say to your colleagues, right, Thursday, I am not going to be caught out by the Guardian
2:34
or any other part of the media. But, respectfully, given the gravity of the crisis
2:38
that you rightly identify, Nick, the important thing is to have the facts
2:41
And those facts are in part, as we've discovered in recent days
2:45
held by the administrative part of government, not the political part of government
2:49
So the Prime Minister is reliant on officials providing information to him, and it's right and reasonable that as early as Tuesday evening, he was like, get me all of the information to allow me then to go to Parliament, account for my actions and to answer the questions people have to ask
3:04
so we have to believe then that the appointment of the lord manlinson peter manlinson's u as
3:10
ambassador was a catastrophe in waiting the intelligence services knew it prime minister's
3:14
national security advisor jonathan powell knew it the cabinet of his knew it the only man who didn't
3:19
was the prime minister pitiful isn't it well the prime minister has accepted it was a mistake but
3:23
it's not a small allegation to suggest that the prime minister of the united kingdom has lied to
3:28
parliament and to the public and when you just dismiss it as saying well maybe not the fact is
3:32
as recently as Friday, Kemi Badenoch's central charge was the Prime Minister was lying
3:38
For that to be true, Nick, you would now need a conspiracy involving not just the Prime Minister
3:42
and his ministers involved in this appointment, but a growing number of senior officials
3:47
The fact is, Kemi Badenoch decided, as usual, to shoot from the hip
3:52
to allege the Prime Minister was lying, and I'm very confident he'll be able to offer the facts today
3:57
that's not true. Let's focus a little, if we can, Secretary of State, on the Prime Minister. Yep
4:01
His appointment was announced by the Prime Minister on December 20th, 2024
4:05
The vetting began in January the following year. Why? Because we inherited a system from our predecessors
4:11
Oh, everything's inheritance, isn't it? Are we going to have 14 years of Tories next? Just let me finish the sentence and then you can ask my next question
4:18
We inherited a situation, and indeed a system from our predecessors, whereby political appointees as ambassadors could be announced
4:25
ahead of the deep vetting being undertaken. This is incredible. we have already, it is incredible
4:30
and we've already changed that system Why would a Prime Minister announce our new man in Washington
4:36
before he'd been vetted? What is the point of vetting? If A, you announce the bloke
4:44
or woman before vetting B, when vetting turns up negative results it's ignored. Why spin your wheels
4:50
Let's not have any vetting. But Nick, it's not that the vetting was ignored, it was the outcome of the
4:54
deep vetting, a highly intrusive process was not shared either with the foreign secretary or with the prime minister not only at the time that peter
5:03
manderson was taking up his position in washington but subsequently when the prime minister was
5:08
speaking in the house of commons and indeed in press conferences elsewhere that is the dispute
5:13
this morning as to why if as you say vetting matters why then was no information shared
5:20
that the recommendation of the uk vetting agency was not being adhered to in terms of
5:25
develop vetting being approved. But what does it say about the Prime Minister's judgment
5:30
Secretary of State, that he would appoint someone with a colourful background, such as Lord Mandelson
5:35
prior to vetting? So what does that say about his judgment? We've talked about this issue before
5:39
Nick. The Prime Minister reached a judgment that he now recognises was the wrong judgment
5:44
and for which he has apologised profusely. But if you ask me, how do you reach a judgment about
5:49
a government? As you know, I'm a Scottish Presbyterian. I don't believe in papal infallibility
5:53
and I don't believe in prime ministerial infallibility. Everyone is capable of making a mistake
5:59
and the prime minister accepts that this appointment was a mistake. But the fact is, on the single biggest judgment of this parliament
6:06
whether to involve ourselves in someone else's war that's engulfing the Middle East at the moment
6:10
I think the prime minister made the right judgment and the public will in the round reach a judgment
6:15
not just about the prime minister but more generally about the government at the time of the next election Why do you suppose it was Secretary of State that such a forensically skilled barrister chose not to ask about how Mendelssohn was getting on with his enhanced vetting Why did he not ask
6:29
Well, I presume, and this is a personal view, that the Prime Minister works, not least given his background
6:35
as a prosecutor on the basis of evidence. Let me tell you why I say that. Well, the evidence was there. He failed it
6:41
But the evidence was not... But critically, as you say, Nick, that evidence was not given..
6:45
But why didn't he ask? Why didn't Sir Keir ask? How's Mandelson getting on
6:50
Ah, Prime Minister, can I have a word? I'll be round in half an hour. Repeatedly, Downing Street did ask
6:55
the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and were assured that deep vetting had been undertaken
7:00
and that developed vetting status had been granted. The fact is, in your day-to-day work as a minister every day
7:07
I say to officials, listen, my job is to exercise judgment. Your job is to equip me with the information
7:13
to exercise that judgment. In this case, critical information that the recommendation of the UK vetting agency had not been adhered to was withheld, both from the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister
7:25
One wonders what else is going on he doesn't know about. Well, listen, do the lessons need..
7:29
I mean, it's a wonder the country governs itself, because he seems to know so little what's actually going on until it smacks him in the chops
7:35
Well, of course lessons need to be learned. But as I say, respectfully to the significance of the Mandelson affair, probably the single issue that has the biggest effect on the livelihoods and outlook of people listening to this programme this morning is whether we involved ourselves in that foreign war or not
7:51
And on that really big call, probably the biggest call of the Parliament, I think the Prime Minister made exactly the right judgement and reached the right conclusion
7:57
Last question on this. The Daily Telegraph is suggesting today that senior Whitehall sources are saying that the Prime Minister was aware of the issues over vetting prior to his appointment
8:07
Can you absolutely, resolutely deny that, Mr Alexander? Yes, my understanding is there are two processes of vetting
8:14
There is work undertaken by the Cabinet Office, and then there is the developed vetting process led by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office
8:21
And in that sense, the Prime Minister will set out all the facts, but information in relation to that process was withheld not just from the Prime Minister
8:30
but also from the Foreign Minister. So he was aware of some red flags, as it were, was he
8:33
Well, no, there was reputational issues that have been flagged from the Cabinet Office
8:38
That's very separate and distinct from the deep vetting that involves very intrusive questions being asked about your financial affairs, about your personal relationships, all the questions that form part of developed vetting
8:50
Last minute or so together, you mentioned your faith in an earlier answer. There are people of a faith in this country now feeling very concerned
8:56
I speak of our Jewish friends. We've seen yet another attack. Obviously, a response from events in North London, but also questions again
9:02
why have the British government not prescribed ban the IRGC, Secretary of State
9:07
Well, I'm horrified by the latest attack and can assure the Jewish community
9:11
not just in North London but across the United Kingdom, that this is a government that has their backs
9:15
and is determined to root out the evil of anti-Semitism. In relation to the prescription of any organisation
9:22
there is a formal process that has to be followed. I can't go into all of the details on that today
9:27
but I can assure you that we are looking at every avenue to address the evil of anti-Semitism
9:31
Are we moving at speed then? Mr Alexander, because I'm going to read you a list of countries that have already taken that action
9:36
The United States, Canada, Australia, the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein
9:41
Moldova, Montenegro, Nathma. I could go on. No sight of the United Kingdom
9:46
Are we moving at pace to prescribe the IRGC? I have great faith in Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister
9:50
in Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, and all of the officials leading on this
9:54
both with a determination to do what is necessary to tackle anti-Semitism
9:58
Because my Jewish listeners are saying it's just words. Anti-terrorism. Lastly, Mr. Alexander, they say it's just words
10:03
We stand alongside. We deplore these attacks. A lot of my Jewish listeners, of course, want to see action as in prescribing the IRGC
10:10
Lastly, Mr. Alexander. I can promise you that action is taken each and every day
10:14
not least by our brilliant security services, who work tirelessly to try and identify plots and threats and terrorism
10:21
both against the Jewish community and against wider British society. They are working day and night to keep all of us safe
10:27
and critically, that includes the valued and vital Jewish community in the United Kingdom
10:33
Grateful for your time. As ever, thank you today. Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander, appearing here on LBC
10:38
Leader of the Conservative Party. Thanks, Mr Baden-up, for coming to the studio. Appreciate it. OK, what will you specifically be listening out for this afternoon? Morning to you
10:46
So, what has changed now is that this is not just about Mandelson's links with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein
10:56
That's what the prosecution about that appointment has been so far. What is new is that it turns out that separate to all of that
11:04
Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting and the prime minister still appointed him
11:09
That's a national security issue. So today I will be expecting him to explain how he could not have known that
11:18
which is what he's claiming, that Mandelson had failed the security vetting
11:22
he had i'd asked him about these things before and he said it was all fine he was on telly telling
11:28
everyone that mandelson had passed the vetting does he really expect us to believe that no civil
11:33
servant ollie robbinsdown not a single person came out and said prime minister you really should
11:37
stop saying this because it's not true it's inconceivable some would say that he was determined
11:43
to get peter mandelson in that post in washington because we had an unconventional president who
11:48
dealt in an unconventional fashion mandelson is anything but not a colorful background but he's
11:52
probably quite good at that wheel of dealing. Do you subscribe to that theory? Where do you think this..
11:56
What does this all back up, back down to? So, I think that Keir Starmer wanted this man in
12:03
thinking that this would be the person to help grease the wheels with President Trump
12:07
There were other people who could have done this, and he just didn't care. He doesn't have his eye on the detail
12:15
After this crisis had exploded, people make mistakes, so I'm not here to say
12:18
no one should ever make any mistakes. No, people do make mistakes. But after the mistake had been made, why was the prime minister not looking at every single line of every single paper
12:28
Why were they hiding things which should have been released to Parliament? It is very clear that he did not care about this appointment beyond making sure that Peter Mandelson got it
12:40
And after that he has thrown everybody under a bus to protect himself sacking the head of the Foreign Office sacking the head of the Civil Service sacking his chief of staff And then after that there a new revelation that shows
12:51
that Keir Starmer himself is the one who's responsible and is the one who should go
12:56
So we are told that he was made aware of this on Tuesday
13:00
He didn't bring it to the Prime Minister's questions when you were speaking to him on Wednesday. He didn't tell us on Thursday until he effectively was bullied into it by a newspaper
13:06
We're told this is because he wanted to establish all the facts and details. But Mrs. Badenock, he can fire a senior civil servant
13:12
who served under Theresa May, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David. Can fire him like that
13:16
Yes. Can you explain that? No, I can't explain it. And a lot of people have been wanting to act as Keir Starmer's lawyer
13:25
saying, oh, well, but this may have happened, that may have happened. It is not my job to cook up lots of excuses for him
13:30
It doesn't make sense the speed with which he sacked Ollie Robbins
13:34
if it is the case that he followed the procedure. So tomorrow, we're going to get, you know, Ollie Robbins' side of the story
13:41
There's now a spat or a war between Downing Street and former civil servants
13:47
What this means for your listeners is that no one's running the country again. He's not looking after defence. There's a war on
13:54
The defence chiefs have said he's not spending enough money. He's not looking after the borders. We still have an immigration problem
14:00
He's not looking after the economy. We had all sorts of statistics a couple of weeks ago to show that we are going backwards
14:06
we are uniquely vulnerable he's not drilling our oil and gas he is not running the country
14:10
and that is why this matters for everybody else well here's another thing that occurs when he's
14:14
so he wanted this so we could have our close relationship with president trump in the united
14:19
states and yet the first time that relationship really gets tested he tells president trump you
14:24
can't use our air bases so it blows up the relationship anyway yes indeed he he's he doesn't
14:28
have a long-term strategy he's just dealing with everything day to day and that is why the story
14:34
about mandelson is unraveling because he says stuff that will get him through monday and then
14:39
tuesday there's a different question monday's answers have fallen apart so i will be asking
14:43
a lot of questions today i think that it is uh up to him now to show that he can run the country
14:51
that he is not lying i believe that he's lying it's for him to show that he is and i've put out
14:55
my evidence uh questions i asked him which have now shown to be untrue uh there are lots of people
15:00
who want this to be, you know, all nicey-nicey. I think that people need to see me doing my job
15:05
holding him to account. He needs to come out and show more than contrition
15:10
He needs to show more than contrition. I'm only holding him to the same standards
15:14
that he held previous prime ministers to. People make mistakes. I'm not here to say people don't make mistakes
15:20
They do. It is how you behave after the mistakes that shows your character
15:24
And what he has done is chuck everybody else under a bus and pretend he didn't know anything
15:28
Well, he famously told Boris Johnson in the House that he, Boris Johnson, had come to the end of the road
15:31
when he was Prime Minister as he reached the end of the road? I do think, certainly in terms of his authority
15:36
he has reached the end of the road. He should resign. I don't think he will resign
15:40
He'll cling on. It is Labour MPs are the only people until a general election
15:44
Whatever you, whatever Sir Ed David, whatever Nigel Fry, it's the people sitting beside and behind him
15:50
Which way are they going to go? Well, I think that they will try and cling on to their jobs
15:54
But if they do, then that means that they are complicit in his cover-up
15:58
A lot of people want to pretend that nothing has happened. But Labour MPs need to do what is right for the country, not just right for them and their party
16:07
Aggy Shonray, LBC's Deputy Minister of the Editor in the studio with the background. How bad is it for him today, Aggy
16:12
It's pretty bad. Today is being billed as Judgment Day for the Prime Minister
16:16
And his argument this afternoon is going to be that he and Parliament should have been alerted sooner
16:22
to the fact that security officials did not believe Lord Mandelson should have access to secret material
16:29
He will tell the House he is deeply furious. He will argue he did not mislead Parliament
16:34
despite telling the House three different times that due diligence was followed
16:40
Olly Robbins, who of course was the head of the Foreign Office
16:43
has already been sacked over this. He is being blamed for not telling ministers
16:48
And his allies have suggested it wouldn't have been legally possible for him to tell ministers that Mandelson had failed vetting
16:54
The Prime Minister's argument, though, will be that there is a difference between being involved in the decision
16:59
and being informed about it. And they, the government, have dug up a document from 2010
17:04
that says no law stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK security vetting recommendations
17:11
And this is Liz Kendall, the Technology Secretary, speaking yesterday. She did not know, and neither did any minister
17:18
that UK security vetting hadn't given Peter Mandelson this sort of devolved vetting status
17:26
They hadn't cleared him. And if he had known that, he wouldn't have gone ahead with that appointment
17:31
I'm very clear about that. Opposition leaders like Conservative leader Kemmy Badenock
17:37
who Nick, I know you are speaking to later in the show, are calling for him to go
17:40
She said the Prime Minister had no one left to sack and that this is what her shadow minister, Alex Burghardt, said yesterday
17:47
It comes down to his judgment. He is the man who appointed Peter Mandelson, appointed a man who turned out to be a security risk to the most sensitive diplomatic post that Britain has
18:01
And I think what's shocking about this is that the Prime Minister won't take responsibility. It's always somebody else's fault
18:08
Nick, I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not the Prime Minister was told before Tuesday
18:12
Everyone I've spoken to in Westminster does believe that. But there was already an awful lot in the public domain
18:19
Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, for example. His links to Russia and China were also flagged
18:26
But the real audience that matters today is the people sitting behind him
18:29
those Labour MPs who can... Because they're the ones who will do... Never mind what Kimmy Batenock says, what's Ed Davies say or any of them
18:34
The people who will or will not do him in are those beside him behind him. Isn't that the reality
18:38
That's the reality. And a lot of them are absolutely incandescent with rage. they are furious. People I've spoken to have accused him of incuriosity, of being incompetent
18:48
comparing one compared this government to a flailing plane saying both engines on the plane
18:52
have failed and now it's nosediving towards the sea. But from all the people I've spoken to
18:59
it charming isn it All the people I spoken to I don think there be a leadership contest just yet We are too close to those local elections in May may but lots of people suggesting this is going to add pressure when those and they say when those results are a bloodbath bloodbath again being uh their word one small slither of silver lining for the
19:18
prime minister apparently according to labour and peace i spoke to last night is not yet cutting through on the doorstep but nick if he does get through today then there's tomorrow when ollie
19:27
robbins himself will be speaking to the foreign affairs select committee and setting out his side
19:31
of the story. Lastly, why did he do it? Do you subscribe to the view that with Trump in the
19:36
White House, there was no point appointing someone who is very skilled in diplomacy? It was going to
19:40
need a different sort of ambassador. Mandelson, high risk, but supremely skilled at ingratiating
19:45
himself with difficult people. It was worth the risk. Do you buy that line? I think that's exactly
19:50
why ministers appointed him. I think that's exactly why the decision was made. It was high risk
19:54
high reward. This guy, you know, we need someone who's going to be a bit different with Donald
19:58
Trump and this, this may work and it may not and of course it didn't
20:02
Aguyshombray, LBC's Deputy Political Leader. I've been joined now by Professor Sir John Curtis, political scientist, a professor of politics
20:10
at the University of Strathclyde. Journalists are getting very excited, a lot of MPs are getting
20:16
very excited. Sir John, is the public, good morning. The answer to that question Nick is that we don't
20:23
know as yet because of course this story only really broke on thursday uh and i'm afraid the
20:28
polling circle doesn't move quite that quickly that said what we can do is to look at what
20:35
happened to both public evaluations of keir starmer and of the labour party standing in the polls on
20:41
the two previous occasions that this story uh hit the headlines the first of course was with the
20:47
original sacking of Lord Mandelson as our ambassador in Washington back in September of last year
20:56
and then the release of the Epstein files at the back end of January this year
21:03
which led to questions as to whether or not Lord Mandelson might be accused of having
21:12
conducted misdemean in office, something of course which he very strongly denies
21:17
Short answer to that question is neither of those two stories made any obvious immediate impact
21:26
If we just, for example, take Labour standing in the polls, back in August of last year, they were at 21%
21:33
And by the time we got to the end of September, when the Lord Mandelson had been sacked, it was still at 21%
21:40
um so far as the release of the epstein files are concerned well we were uh 20 labor rate 20
21:48
percent in january they'd slip just to 19 in february and if you look at the three companies
21:53
that track the public's evaluations of the leader on a regular basis uh frankly in each case you can
22:03
find a reading that was taken before not long before these stories broke which ended up being
22:10
very similar to a reading thereafter now why might this be the case because i think what one needs to
22:15
bear in mind here is that these kinds of stories have an impact if they tell the public something
22:21
they don't already know arguably that's one of the reasons why partygate had a discernible impact
22:28
we had no idea beforehand that uh the then prime minister boris johnson had been presiding over a
22:37
more liberal interpretation of the covert regulations in 10 downing street than anywhere
22:40
else on the other hand and and you know the conservative party was still relatively popular
22:47
in the opinion polls when that story broke keir starmer was not popular uh even in september of
22:53
last year he was running around at minus 40 minus 50 in the various uh approval evaluations and as
23:02
already indicated to you support for Labour had already fallen very very markedly so I think
23:08
probably the way to think of the current story is yes the risk to Labour is that it reinforces
23:15
an existing relatively negative perception of the Prime Minister and of the party but is it going to
23:22
make things even worse not obviously so. Sir John you've seen with senior politicians scandals come
23:28
and scandals go you referenced boris johnson just a moment or two ago in your view is mandy gate at
23:34
the same level as party gate it's certainly something that people are likely to remember
23:41
and associate with this prime minister uh and we may well be whenever kia starmer resigns we might
23:47
still be referring uh to it five years later in just the same way he's now been referring to party
23:52
gate five years later uh and to that extent at least as it were it is going to be one of those
23:57
things that's going to hang around the current prime minister for quite some considerable time
24:03
How is trust re-won? It's very, very difficult for a leader to change people's perceptions of them once it has been set
24:15
in trade. And the honest truth is about Keir Starmer, there's nothing new about his unpopularity
24:20
If you go back to his position as leader of opposition, certainly from the spring of 2021
24:25
onwards he was always consistently less popular than his party in his polls in the polls and and
24:32
neither of them was was ever that popular there was a very brief spell in the immediate wake of
24:37
his electoral success in july 2024 when his ratings got up to about zero but this has never
24:44
been somebody who particularly persuaded the public that this is somebody who that they regard
24:50
as a particularly effective leader, somebody whom they enthuse, and somebody that gives them a sense that he's leading a government
24:58
has a sense of direction. And certainly, you know, one of the problems with this story
25:02
is it kind of underlines the fact that in the absence of that sense of direction
25:08
these knocks, which, you know, and U-turns, and clearly the sacking of Lord Manesson was a particularly sharp U-turn
25:15
just creates, reinforces that perception amongst the public that they're not quite sure that what it is they're following in this current prime minister
25:22
Always enjoy your time. Thanks so much, Sir John. Professor John Curtis, political scientist, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde
#news