0:00

We all have that one friend whose

0:02

opinion we trust on everything. For

0:04

63% of podcast listeners, that friend

0:06

is their favorite podcast host. When

0:08

ACAST's podcasters endorse a brand, their

0:11

audience listens and takes action. So,

0:13

if you want a recommendation that

0:15

really sticks, put your brand in

0:17

their hands. Look a host red

0:19

sponsorship today by visiting go.acast.com slash

0:21

ads. Hello

0:35

and welcome to Not Another One,

0:38

a podcast with me, Steve Richards,

0:40

Ian Martin, Miranda Green and Tim

0:42

Montgomery. Tim isn't here this week,

0:44

but we are, and we are

0:46

going to be exploring a very

0:48

rich theme. Our first podcast this

0:50

week, and if you haven't listened,

0:53

please do, looked at the politics

0:55

and the detail of the welfare

0:57

announcement from the government earlier in

0:59

the week. And at the end

1:01

Miranda pointed out that there will

1:03

be tensions within the Labour Party

1:05

and we were exploring how they might

1:07

be dealt with by number 10 and

1:10

others. And that leads to the theme

1:12

we're going to be discussing in a

1:14

moment. How do leaders deal? with

1:16

divided parties? It's a very rich

1:18

question because there are so many

1:20

different approaches to this and we'll

1:22

look at stoma obviously but go

1:24

back a bit before then just

1:26

thanks so much for tuning in.

1:28

We're not owned by anyone we

1:30

do this ourselves so we hugely

1:32

appreciate you for listening there will

1:34

be other opportunities we're going to

1:36

expand and do other things in

1:38

which you can support us in

1:40

the meantime if you can tell

1:42

friends family. to subscribe and tweet

1:44

about it or whatever social media

1:47

outlet you use. That is great

1:49

because us lot and all of

1:51

us together are doing this on

1:53

our own with the great Soho

1:56

radio who make sure that you

1:58

get it in beautiful quality. So

2:00

there'll be more announcements to come

2:02

on how we plan to develop,

2:05

not another one. But in the

2:07

meantime, yeah, at the end of

2:09

the week we always try and

2:11

do things, a bit of context

2:14

of what current political dramas are

2:16

being played out. And this is

2:18

an interesting one. Now we left

2:20

part one, so to speak, Miranda,

2:23

on a kind of cliff edge,

2:25

with you rightly in my view

2:27

detecting sometimes a swagger. in number

2:30

10 when they have either a

2:32

soft left minister resigns or whatever,

2:34

as if in a way it's

2:36

a form of vindication. And it

2:39

is interesting that Kier Starmer's approach,

2:41

I think on the advice of

2:43

others, not necessarily his own instincts.

2:45

His way of dealing with kind

2:48

of issues around party management has

2:50

basically been in a way that

2:52

Blair never did, certainly Harold Wilson

2:54

never did, is to sort of

2:57

target the so-called hard left, try

2:59

and get rid of them, personified

3:01

by Corbin, but also to some

3:03

extent the soft left. It's interesting,

3:06

isn't it, that the ministers who

3:08

have gone from the cabinet, Lou

3:10

Haig, transport, and more recently Annaly

3:12

Sadhards, you know, there wasn't any

3:15

attempt to sort of save either

3:17

of them. And it is, it's

3:19

quite a unique way to... managing

3:21

a party. I mean all these

3:24

parties are broad churches and it

3:26

is one of the toughest challenges

3:28

managing them. As even Nigel Farage

3:30

is beginning to find out, we'll

3:33

come to that moment. But that

3:35

seems to be Kirstama's one. You

3:37

know, certainly the hard left, kick

3:39

them, don't manage them, get rid

3:42

of them. Soft-left, I think some

3:44

people think he was of the

3:46

soft-left, but it's such an imprecise

3:48

term, it doesn't get us very

3:51

far. But that does seem to

3:53

be the leadership management style of

3:55

Starmer and his chosen advisors, which

3:57

in some ways... leads to a

4:00

kind of appearance of unity, but

4:02

can cause great risks as you

4:04

were suggesting at the end of

4:07

our last episode. So it's really

4:09

interesting, isn't it? Because after the

4:11

Corbin experience, which was all about,

4:13

let's get rid of the heretics,

4:16

only true believers, I mean, it's

4:18

a terrible caricature, but you know,

4:20

let's call it that for the

4:22

sake of argument, even though it's

4:25

obviously a bit more complicated. then

4:27

to when Starmer was first elected

4:29

Labour leader, his pitch was all

4:31

about unity, wasn't it? And actually

4:34

it's quite hard to remember that

4:36

now, but I remember at the

4:38

time, I don't know if you

4:40

shared this, I remember at the

4:43

time getting really irritated with all

4:45

my Labour friends because they just

4:47

kept going on and on about

4:49

we must unify the party, you

4:52

know. Because my reaction to that

4:54

is always, well, why should the

4:56

voters care about your party? You

4:58

know, that's not actually what you

5:01

should be doing. You should be

5:03

thinking about being an alternative government

5:05

with a decent prospectus. But anyway,

5:07

to win the leadership, it was

5:10

unity, unity, unity, unity. And for

5:12

a while after he was leader,

5:14

you know, that continued. And then

5:16

this submarine operation inside the Labour

5:19

Party machine surfaced to eliminate all

5:21

of the hard left. included, you

5:23

know, party HQ, and then once

5:25

he'd secured his very, very good

5:28

majority at the July election, of

5:30

course, was absolutely delighted, it seemed,

5:32

to have an excuse to withdraw

5:34

the whip from several of those

5:37

Labour MPs who were, you know,

5:39

from the Corbin ear, including John

5:41

McDonald, who, you know, was shadow

5:43

chanceless. They're pretty senior from Bencher

5:46

not that long ago. So it

5:48

has been interesting to see that

5:50

develop in terms of Starmer's attitude.

5:53

I don't, I don't, you don't,

5:55

I mean, is it sort of,

5:57

is it, is it a per,

5:59

Is it a purge of the

6:02

attitude? Not really, and it's not

6:04

a sort of, we'll close the

6:06

door on your way out, Anne

6:08

least Dodds, because lots of people

6:11

inside the Labour Party keep telling

6:13

me she'll be back. But there

6:15

also don't seem that fuss, and

6:17

I think maybe they should be

6:20

a bit more fast, because that's

6:22

a lot of Labour voters, actually.

6:24

Yeah, I mean, I've become fascinated

6:26

by this extraordinary metamorphosis that Starmer,

6:29

is undergoing and seems to be

6:31

in the middle of the way

6:33

in which he's changing as a

6:35

leader, wrote about it at the

6:38

weekend at some length trying to

6:40

figure it out. I'm not sure

6:42

I really got there, but you

6:44

know, must return to it at

6:47

some point because there are different

6:49

ways to view him and Danny

6:51

Finkelstein in the times has written

6:53

several times about this, having known

6:56

him since the early 1980s and

6:58

known him as a... as properly

7:00

a man of the left, not

7:02

even just sort of soft left,

7:05

somewhere between kind of hard left

7:07

and soft left originally in his

7:09

views, and pretty implacable on that,

7:11

but willing to adapt, someone described

7:14

almost as you know being mugged

7:16

by reality and then eventually moving

7:18

to the centre. As Danny describes

7:20

it, you know, he kind of,

7:23

he almost, he gets there in

7:25

the end, which is, you could

7:27

say, a centrist diagnosis of it.

7:29

But I know what I know

7:32

I know what he means. So

7:34

maybe what's happening to Starman now

7:36

on the international stage and with

7:39

welfare is just a continuation of

7:41

that process. I wonder though, something

7:43

bigger seems to be happening to

7:45

him really since Trump's inauguration or

7:48

certainly since the start of the

7:50

year I'm trying to figure out

7:52

is it real whether his party

7:54

will to your divided party point

7:57

in our question today's state whether

7:59

his party will tolerate it or

8:01

not and it is I mean

8:03

I think it's the right, I

8:06

think he's taking broadly the right

8:08

approach, but I would say that

8:10

with my view of foreign affairs

8:12

and defense and security, I would

8:15

say that, wouldn't I? And I'm

8:17

for welfare, you know, for changes

8:19

to welfare and I'm for, you

8:21

know, I'm a free marketeer, so

8:24

I'm pleased if he's heading in

8:26

that direction. But it is, it's

8:28

a gamble, it isn't an extraordinary

8:30

gamble in terms of party management.

8:33

I don't really think he actually

8:35

has any other choice, Steve. I

8:37

don't think there is an alternative

8:39

agenda to the one that he's

8:42

pursuing that is really viable. And

8:44

I said on this podcast a

8:46

few weeks ago or months ago

8:48

that his only real viable option

8:51

was to go the McSweeny route.

8:53

And this is not entirely blue

8:55

labour, but it's blue labour-ish. And

8:57

what fascinates me is the way

9:00

Starmer is really... Is it deliberate?

9:02

Does he know he's doing it?

9:04

Or is he a lawyer being

9:06

handed a new brief? I can't

9:09

quite figure it out, Steve. I'd

9:11

love your guidance on it, but

9:13

he's turning into something quite different

9:16

from three or four months ago.

9:18

I wonder whether he is. I

9:20

mean, I think, you know, it

9:22

has often been cited that after

9:25

Labour lost the Hartlepool by election.

9:27

He dropped his idea of being

9:29

a unity leader and followed the

9:31

advice of the winners Blair, Peter

9:34

Mandelson, that ilk. And the focus

9:36

groups acquired a much greater say.

9:38

Remember Deborah Materson was his head

9:40

of strategy. She was the great

9:43

focus group guru in the Labour

9:45

Party. landslide. But I do think

9:47

there are problems with that as

9:49

a leadership style. First of all,

9:52

I think he misread the Hartniple

9:54

by-election defeat. People didn't know who

9:56

he was then. It was lockdown.

9:58

Boris Johnson was a war prime

10:01

minister. Not a tall surprise the

10:03

Tories gained that seat, but it

10:05

traumatised Kiastama, and I think he

10:07

overreacted. I think in the end,

10:10

party management has to be partly

10:12

about how you unify a party,

10:14

and you can do it in

10:16

different ways. Harold Wilson did it

10:19

by managing the left and right

10:21

and giving them both space. At

10:23

times with huge skill. At times

10:25

he became paralyzed, paranoid by the

10:28

efforts of doing it and the

10:30

government became paralyzed too. But I

10:32

mean it is a root to

10:34

do it. Blair didn't kick out

10:37

Corbyn and the half left. He

10:39

implemented policies which challenged their agenda

10:41

and sort of prevailed through argument.

10:43

And I think at the moment

10:46

Kistama doesn't fully know who he

10:48

is to be honest as a

10:50

public figure. I think he's got

10:52

strong feelings about employment rights because

10:55

of his background, about the law

10:57

because of his background, but on

10:59

other things he takes advice. I

11:02

think he's taking advice and it's

11:04

good advice from Jonathan Powell. I

11:06

think Jonathan Powell is a fantastic

11:08

figure to be a number 10,

11:11

but I think he'll be taking

11:13

advice from him, from Peter Mandelson.

11:15

I don't think he's got a

11:17

deeply thought through view of international

11:20

affairs. He might acquire it, but

11:22

it's very early on to acquire

11:24

it, and I don't think he

11:26

has. And on other matters, I

11:29

think he's given Rachel Reeves far

11:31

too much power over economic policy

11:33

making. And to some extent, Morgan

11:35

McSweeny is the party manager, whose

11:38

advice he follows and it will

11:40

be interesting to see how this

11:42

welfare debate devolves whether they are

11:44

really tough on those who are

11:47

critical within the Labour Party or

11:49

accept a degree of discussion. It

11:51

is a green paper. So that's

11:53

that's my view of him. I

11:56

still I think he's following advice

11:58

a lot. Some of it good,

12:00

some of it bad, but he

12:02

doesn't quite know yet fully who

12:05

he is as a public figure.

12:07

And I don't think his instincts

12:09

for unity was necessarily a bad

12:11

one at the beginning, and I

12:14

don't think that's why he lost

12:16

the Hartlepool by election. So I

12:18

know the Danny Finkelstein thesis, and

12:20

I slightly disagree with it, but

12:23

it is interesting Miranda, isn't it,

12:25

that... People tell me, you know,

12:27

I've spoken a lot to Nick

12:29

Thomas Simmons about this, who wrote

12:32

Harold Wilson's biography, and Nick Thomas

12:34

Simpson, I regard Wilson as an

12:36

impressive figure in Labour's past. The

12:38

keystone's hero of Labour Prime Ministers

12:41

is Wilson, but he doesn't choose

12:43

that way of managing a party,

12:45

does he? Seemingly so, anyway. Well,

12:48

he's not... had until the international

12:50

crisis came along, a kind of

12:52

public persona at all. You know,

12:54

Wilson's actually somebody who, I mean,

12:57

it may have been idiosyncratic, you

12:59

know, with the pipe and the

13:01

voice and all the rest of

13:03

it, but he had a persona

13:06

that projected well. And I think

13:08

Starmer part of the problem he's

13:10

had is... slightly being fuzzy around

13:12

the edges to the public and

13:15

actually, you know, the international moment

13:17

has given him definition. You do

13:19

need definition as a leader, I

13:21

think. I'm not sure I totally

13:24

find this transformation as mysterious as

13:26

Ian was saying, by the way,

13:28

because I think in a sense

13:30

if you think about who Starmer

13:33

is, he is sort of... from

13:35

and of the security apparatus. You

13:37

know, he is a security threat.

13:39

So I think that, I mean,

13:42

I'm sure you're right, Steve, about

13:44

having very good advice on foreign

13:46

affairs. But I also think he

13:48

sort of instinctively feels really comfortable

13:51

with that side of things because

13:53

it's decision-making, you know, within a

13:55

framework. that he's very used to

13:57

professionally and excel at professionally. You

14:00

know, trying to work out how

14:02

on earth you sort of keep

14:04

groups of people in the tea

14:06

room happy about your social policy

14:09

agenda when there isn't any money

14:11

to go around is a whole

14:13

different kettle of fish, isn't it?

14:15

You know, and that, it's a

14:18

whole different sort of skill set.

14:20

And also, I think, sort of

14:22

this comparison to Wilson, I think,

14:25

is, We haven't had much success

14:27

from Starmer so far. He may

14:29

be able to come up with

14:31

it on the kind of optimistic

14:34

this is what Britain's going to

14:36

look like in the future and

14:38

I can take you there. you

14:40

know and that also was part

14:43

of the Wilson ingredient wasn't it

14:45

you know white white heat technology

14:47

and all of that stuff and

14:49

also as one of my favorite

14:52

listeners to not another one points

14:54

out whenever we discuss political history

14:56

and he's a Tory very much

14:58

a Tory and not a fan

15:01

of Wilson but he always just

15:03

says people overlook this Wilson was

15:05

a as you know Steve, it

15:07

was a genius communication. I mean

15:10

he was a political giant in

15:12

terms of those speeches, rallies, public

15:14

halls, the command. The sheer energy

15:16

actually. And he wasn't alone in

15:19

that. I mean, but there were

15:21

some of his peers were, you

15:23

know, good and equally as good.

15:25

I mean I think the parallel

15:28

that Labour should worry about with

15:30

Wilson and it was there in

15:32

what... precisely what Miranda said, you

15:34

know a few minutes ago when

15:37

you talked about this unity project

15:39

and that I think helps explain

15:41

some of what's going wrong or

15:43

why they're having to improvise an

15:46

agenda at speed or adopt Morgan

15:48

McSweeny's agenda which he clearly has

15:50

thought about and it is blue

15:52

laborish because the priority was unity

15:55

and victory they were the point

15:57

a bit similar to Wilson in

15:59

that respect but Wilson did as

16:01

you say Steve had a had

16:04

a a theory of party management

16:06

and the style and an approach

16:08

to it. And the point was

16:11

this time was to get was

16:13

to get Labour United so that

16:15

it could win, not to do,

16:17

not to, not then unclear precisely

16:20

what it was going to do.

16:22

Various things were bolted on like

16:24

Ed Milliband's Green agenda, which I

16:26

think will disintegrate, but whole other

16:29

episode. And then everything that's coming

16:31

to it is having to deal

16:33

with almost as a piece of

16:35

improvisation. or take the agenda from

16:38

McSweeny and that's fine for the

16:40

moment but when you're really up

16:42

against it and it's fun at

16:44

the moment in a way because

16:47

the Tories are down on the

16:49

floor there is the latest phase

16:51

of an international crisis starmers getting

16:53

a decent press but when this

16:56

stuff's really really tough you know

16:58

if the economy actually goes backwards

17:00

which it may do because of

17:02

a trade war and a tariff

17:05

war if the Ukraine and Russia

17:07

situation is resolved but only in

17:09

a very messy way and then

17:11

this benefit stuff is happening simultaneously

17:14

then you really do need you

17:16

need a theory of party management

17:18

as you said Steve and actually

17:20

the British system rests on it

17:23

and it's it's not just Well,

17:25

is it an accident? It's an

17:27

accident of our historical development. It

17:29

is to do with the dominance,

17:32

it's to do with the first-past-the-post

17:34

and the way in which our

17:36

parties are internal coalitions. There isn't

17:38

really a parallel for it. Even

17:41

if you talk to friends in

17:43

the CDU or about their friends

17:45

in the CSU in Germany, it's

17:48

not really, and they also, they

17:50

have state politics. It doesn't really

17:52

read across, it doesn't read across

17:54

in France either, well, well, actually

17:57

traditional, traditional conservatism traditional conservatism, effectively

17:59

no longer exists. In the UK,

18:01

there are moments where it seems

18:03

to become the party system, but

18:06

it's there in the 1920s, it's

18:08

there throughout the 19th century, it

18:10

flares up again spectacularly in the

18:12

late 70s and then into the

18:15

early 80s were labour. splits or

18:17

sort of splits and politics seems

18:19

to break apart, then the Tories

18:21

have their turn at it. And

18:24

then of course we've just seen

18:26

what, you know, what's just happened

18:28

to the Tory party since COVID.

18:30

So it's something that you have

18:33

to, Steve, don't you think party

18:35

management? It just, you can't see

18:37

it as incidental. It's inherent in

18:39

the British system. It's absolutely central

18:42

to leadership in Britain for precisely

18:44

that reason, is that you've got

18:46

two big parties, one of which

18:48

normally governs alone sometimes with another

18:51

party. And they are broad churches

18:53

and you have to keep them

18:55

all on board one way or

18:57

another. And I think a really

19:00

interesting moment is coming up. with

19:02

Starmer and his cabinet, who I

19:04

think it's a more interesting cabinet

19:06

than it's often given credit for.

19:09

And on the disability benefit stroke,

19:11

Rachel Reeves' fiscal rule, I thought

19:13

it was very interesting to discover

19:15

that the cabinet meeting in advance

19:18

of the welfare announcement went on

19:20

much longer than scheduled because cabinet

19:22

ministers and... doesn't happen very often

19:24

these days, were challenging some of

19:27

the ideas in the welfare announcements

19:29

and so I gather with questioning

19:31

Rachel Reeves about her priorities more

19:34

widely and it wasn't just the

19:36

so-called soft-let, Ed Miller Band, Angela

19:38

Reyna, Luz Palza, people like, I

19:40

understand, Jabana Mamut who's facing real

19:43

terms cups in her justice department.

19:45

were asking some really challenging questions.

19:47

Now, does Starmer in a Wilsonian

19:49

way recognise that this in the

19:52

end is both unavoidable and possibly

19:54

welcome that you have a broad

19:56

church with challenging ministers? Or does

19:58

he perhaps under the advice of

20:01

Morgan Sweeney, who knows, sack some

20:03

of these dissenters in the reshuffle,

20:05

which will perhaps take place? in

20:07

the midst of the most bloody

20:10

public spend. around, irrespective of the

20:12

benefit cuts. There are real terms

20:14

cuts facing some of these cabinet

20:16

ministers because of Rachel Reeves' adherence

20:19

to her fiscal rules. So I

20:21

think that will be a very

20:23

interesting moment in terms of stoma's

20:25

party management. I think Tim will

20:28

laugh at this, but Thatcher's a

20:30

very interesting model because he'll laugh

20:32

because I'm always referencing. Steve, Steve,

20:34

Steve, you're going to have to

20:37

talk about Mrs Thatcher which I

20:39

know you want to do

20:41

more than anything because you

20:43

do every week after an

20:45

ad break. More than 15

20:48

years. Research shows that 74%

20:50

of listeners recall the brands

20:52

that they hear when listening

20:55

to podcasts. So if you're

20:57

a business owner or marketer

20:59

and you want your business

21:01

to be top of mind,

21:04

podcast advertising with ACAST is

21:06

the way to go. Run

21:08

podcast ads with ACAST by

21:10

visiting go.acast.com/MAC. Thank

21:16

you Miranda for reminding me about

21:18

the very important outbreak. Yeah, such

21:20

I find very interesting as a

21:22

party manager because obviously her reputation

21:24

became one of this sort of

21:26

iron lady willful leadership. But early

21:28

on, even though she kind of

21:31

viewed them with irritable disdain at

21:33

best, she had a kind of

21:35

balanced cabinet because she felt she

21:37

had to. She had the wet

21:39

in the cabinet, the economic wet,

21:41

as she called them dismissably. The

21:43

vegetables. The vegetables. The vegetables. The

21:46

vegetables. But... when she felt strong,

21:48

which was before the Falklands Wars,

21:50

when Labour split with the SDP,

21:52

she either dumped them, sent Jim

21:54

prior to Northern Ireland, which was

21:56

a punishment at the time, and

21:58

brought in people at Norman Tevitt.

22:00

So she had a real sense

22:03

of when she could assert herself

22:05

in terms of party management. And

22:07

it was done for a purpose.

22:09

I mean, Tevitt was one of

22:11

us. He shared the ideological verb.

22:13

Keith Starmer has been quite explicit.

22:15

There will be no starmorism. So

22:18

if he sacks these people, what

22:20

is the purpose of it? But

22:22

so I think she was a

22:24

very effective party manager actually and

22:26

people like Jeffrey Howe and Michael

22:28

Hesterton told me much later on

22:30

that there was cabinet discussion. So

22:32

I was interested in the stoma

22:35

letting the meeting run a bit

22:37

the other the other day. Cameron

22:39

was very interesting I thought because

22:41

he managed the Lib Dem relationship

22:43

Miranda really well didn't he? I

22:45

mean lots of people that coalition

22:47

wouldn't last and it ran the

22:50

full course whether he ran the

22:52

party as well. given that he

22:54

in the end gave in to

22:56

the Eurosceptics big time is a

22:58

different question. Yeah, completely. I mean,

23:00

we've got such limited experience in

23:02

this country of two parties governing

23:04

together, haven't we? There's sort of

23:07

Newtonian physics in politics, isn't there?

23:09

So once the kind of push-pull

23:11

of what happens inside one of

23:13

the main parties when they're governing

23:15

alone is really different to when

23:17

you put two parties... together and

23:19

some of that starts to operate

23:22

differently. I mean I remember speaking

23:24

to some of the people in

23:26

Cameron's government who were quite open

23:28

about the fact, I mean privately,

23:30

not publicly, quite open about the

23:32

fact they really enjoyed working with

23:34

their Lib Dems, new Lib Dems

23:36

colleagues and found them a bit

23:39

more congenial than some people in

23:41

their own party, you know, so

23:43

all sorts of different dynamics. sort

23:45

of came into play during that

23:47

era, but I'm really pleased that

23:49

we've got on to the Tory

23:51

party because some of the stuff

23:54

that's being written by people still

23:56

inside the Tory party but reacting

23:58

to the whole reform Nigel Farage

24:00

phenomenon and the growth of reform.

24:02

I do find extraordinary and we'll

24:04

have to discuss this with Tim

24:06

when he's back with us, but

24:08

Stephen Ian, do you not also

24:11

just find this whole question of

24:13

party management when you've got such

24:15

a potent threat threat? on very

24:17

similar ideological ground, or at least

24:19

on your wing of politics. You

24:21

know, I would have thought that

24:23

the unity principle that you've explained

24:26

brilliantly with historical parallel Steve also

24:28

should apply on the other side

24:30

of the political divide, but it

24:32

seems not. You know, you've got

24:34

all sorts of people, there was

24:36

a wonderfully, I thought, barmy piece

24:38

on the Conservative home website that

24:41

Tim founded recently. basically saying, well

24:43

the Tory party would be absolutely

24:45

fine if we could just get

24:47

rid of all the dreadful people

24:49

who are spoiling it. The Lib

24:51

Dems! So they actually sort of

24:53

have christened people inside the Tory

24:55

party who aren't Reform Light, the

24:58

Lib Dems and are calling for

25:00

them to be kind of purged.

25:02

What's going on? I mean, this

25:04

doesn't seem to be your path

25:06

back to... Well, I think it's...

25:08

I think it's... Let's say it's

25:10

been a... it's been a difficult

25:13

10 years. A donor who I

25:15

like a lot... But I remember

25:17

him telling me just in the

25:19

aftermath of the election, oh no,

25:21

sorry, in the run-ups of the

25:23

election, the key thing was to

25:25

get rid of all the socialists

25:27

in the Tory party. And so,

25:30

well, I just sort of make

25:32

the point, if you get, you

25:34

don't want to be getting rid

25:36

of people, actually, you need to

25:38

be attracting people at this point,

25:40

actually, otherwise there's almost no one

25:42

left. I mean, some of it

25:45

actually, weirdly, I was just taken

25:47

back in time, Miranda when you're

25:49

talking about the coalition there. Some

25:51

of it goes right back to

25:53

that actually and I remember having

25:55

this argument with Cameroon at the

25:57

time. Although I was actually put

25:59

austerity to one side, some of

26:02

the stuff that they were doing,

26:04

I was sympatico with. But you

26:06

could see from 2010, well it

26:08

started before 2010, you could see

26:10

the way that the modernises, Cameron

26:12

sometimes, and Osborne particularly, conducted themselves.

26:14

was a red rag to a

26:17

bull to the Tory right. So

26:19

the way that they talked about

26:21

politics, the way in which I

26:23

remember going to an event which

26:25

a dinner where there were members

26:27

of the shadow cabinet there and

26:29

sorry members of the new cabinet

26:31

and they all made it was

26:34

a great joke was made of

26:36

them all taking off their ties.

26:38

Do you remember that the Tory

26:40

party was going tireless and they

26:42

were and they were revelic. Call

26:44

me Dave. Call me Dave. Yes,

26:46

but they were. this newling government,

26:49

they were absolutely reveling in working

26:51

with the Liberal Democrats and in

26:53

telegraphing this idea that they were

26:55

doing something so clever, they were

26:57

outflanking the labour and the centre

26:59

ground and that actually of course

27:01

in the end they would spit

27:03

up and chew out the Liberal

27:06

Democrats, that was always the nudge

27:08

nudge wink, wink, wink, so isn't

27:10

this sort of grand idea and

27:12

there was shifting politics on its

27:14

axis? Now that in itself was

27:16

hubrististic. as we now know, and

27:18

as some of us at the

27:21

time wrote, you know, calm down,

27:23

at the time, but what the

27:25

effect it had on the right,

27:27

and Tim, I'm sure if he

27:29

was here, would recall this as

27:31

well, because I remember as discussing

27:33

it at the time, it was

27:35

electrifying, actually, and it has a

27:38

lot of what then unfolded in

27:40

the middle of the decade and

27:42

subsequently flows from the absolute hatred

27:44

of the Tory right of that

27:46

modernizer experiment. and the way in

27:48

which something was happening to the

27:50

Tory party that they felt excluded

27:53

from. You know, the cool kids,

27:55

you happen to be of considerable...

27:57

means are having a great time

27:59

reinventing British politics and it just

28:01

unleashed things on the right of

28:03

politics. I used to write about

28:05

it pretty much every week and

28:07

the right were really furious and

28:10

it was easy to dismiss in

28:12

sort of 2014 and then certainly

28:14

15 when the Tories win the

28:16

election but it unleashes something something

28:18

goes into the Tory bloodstream in

28:20

that period simultaneously. I mean, this

28:22

is why I think Brexit was

28:25

always going to happen, and it

28:27

is, it's not just a failure

28:29

of party management, something very deep

28:31

was going on, post the financial

28:33

crisis and post the Eurozone crisis.

28:35

And look at what Farage is

28:37

doing, you just had, Eurosceptism, which

28:39

had always been there, was really

28:42

building, and it was building to

28:44

a crisis point. You put the

28:46

two of those things together that

28:48

I describe, that sort of burning

28:50

hatred or rising hatred on the

28:52

Tory right. It was very explosive,

28:54

and what it ended up doing.

28:57

Was it ended up helping to

28:59

create the conditions in which Cameron

29:01

as you say Steve had to

29:03

concede to the right and had

29:05

to concede the referendum pledge? Head

29:07

of the 2015 election and then

29:09

everything flows everything flows from then

29:11

so I suppose there's a warning

29:14

there from from from warning from

29:16

history from David Cameron's experience Steve

29:18

to your point about about about

29:20

and being being tough Yeah, I

29:22

remember David Cameron saying to me,

29:24

because I used to write a

29:26

lot in the sort of mid-90s,

29:29

when I was listening to the

29:31

New States, about Lib Labbery, because

29:33

Blair and Ashdown had this famously

29:35

close relationship, and David Cameron said

29:37

to me, you got it all

29:39

wrong Steve, it's me now with

29:41

the Lib Dems, you know, it's

29:43

Tory Lib. liberty or however he

29:46

pronounced and as you say it

29:48

was that it didn't develop I

29:50

mean it's so layered that period

29:52

because of course the right were

29:54

angry but the so-called modernises were

29:56

pursuing a very right wing economic

29:58

policy you know real term spending

30:01

cuts and yet the right were

30:03

angry with them I could say

30:05

so much more about what what

30:07

David care that that that David

30:09

Cameron passed to you Steve about

30:11

how this was the equivalent of

30:13

Blair Blair Ashdown. I mean all

30:15

the million million ways in which

30:18

that's a misdiagnosis of both periods

30:20

but anyway maybe we can actually

30:22

now be a good podcast to

30:24

compare Cameron and Claire Blair and

30:26

Ashdown and what that anyway that's

30:28

another one. So but Ian you

30:30

raise an interesting point here about

30:33

party management obviously we've looked at

30:35

the challenges facing Kia Starma in

30:37

relation to welfare in the first

30:39

episode and to some extent of

30:41

this one and his broader approach

30:43

to party management. And it is

30:45

a huge challenge for a Labour

30:47

leader, even if you opt for

30:50

the perjury, you've still got kind

30:52

of even a cabinet with very

30:54

varying views. But it seems to

30:56

me Kemi Beignon has got this

30:58

tougher issue with party management, which

31:00

let me put this question to

31:02

you. Take someone like... Robert Genrech,

31:05

who A believes it seems that

31:07

there should be some deal with

31:09

reform, as Tim does, now he's

31:11

a member of reform. And do

31:13

you as a party leader keep

31:15

someone like that within the tent,

31:17

even though it's obvious he aches

31:19

to be the leader? Or do

31:22

you in the end for party

31:24

management reasons? Take that someone like

31:26

him on? and end up saying,

31:28

right, okay, you're not in, you're

31:30

not on the front bench, you're

31:32

going on the back bench. I

31:34

mean, I mean, I use that

31:37

example as her, as an illustration

31:39

of her wider challenge of managing

31:41

a party, slaughtered at an election,

31:43

facing a party on the same

31:45

political terrain. I mean, how the

31:47

hell do you do this in

31:49

term? Forget about ideology for the

31:51

moment, but just in terms of

31:54

party management. Which way do you

31:56

lean? Yeah, good Lord, it's difficult

31:58

and I'm not going to pretend

32:00

that there is an easy answer.

32:02

And if Tim... was here with

32:04

us this week and he's back

32:06

next week, we'd be having, I'm

32:09

sure this would spiral off into

32:11

an intense argument about Kenny Badenoch,

32:13

Tim and I disagree on this

32:15

and you know, let's pick that

32:17

up next week and he thinks

32:19

that she is... failing and will

32:21

it needs to be removed or

32:23

will be will be removed and

32:26

you know I don't think I'm

32:28

misquoting him I think politics is

32:30

so febrile at the moment I

32:32

think you just have to stick

32:34

I just don't think I think

32:36

it would be mad for the

32:38

Tories to to shift again and

32:41

she I think on that generic

32:43

point I think she's weirdly she's

32:45

getting no credit for it at

32:47

all at the moment I think

32:49

she's probably doing just about the

32:51

only thing available to her, which

32:53

is to not do too much.

32:55

Because the thing that's happening in

32:58

politics, to which we don't know

33:00

the answer yet, we don't know

33:02

what the impact of Trump is

33:04

going to be. We're only two

33:06

months in. Already it's turned the

33:08

international system upside down, is doing

33:10

strange things to public opinion across

33:13

Europe. Reform is... effectively ahead in

33:15

the polls, just, you know, all

33:17

the parties are somewhere between 26,

33:19

27 and 21, 22, the Tories

33:21

at the bottom. So there's not

33:23

a lot in it. That is,

33:25

you can say, you know, it's

33:27

a miserable position for the main

33:30

opposition party to be in. But

33:32

we're in a period of extraordinary

33:34

change. And I'm reminded, you know,

33:36

I'm reminded a little bit of

33:38

the criticism there was of Ruth

33:40

Davidson for the first two, three

33:42

years of her leadership, and she

33:45

was effectively written off. present here,

33:47

you know, getting, you know, getting

33:49

very annoyed by this. But to

33:51

answer your question Steve, I don't

33:53

think, I don't think it is

33:55

a time to actually make a

33:57

definite choice. She's not in a

33:59

strong enough position to say put

34:02

up or shut up to generic,

34:04

but I think there are things

34:06

happening in politics. which could be,

34:08

I'm not predicting the end of

34:10

populism at all, we debated this

34:12

at length about why populism is

34:14

not going to disappear any time

34:17

soon because of voter discontent with

34:19

the main parties. I accept all

34:21

of that, but also look at

34:23

what William Haig wrote this week,

34:25

in a really interesting piece, saying

34:27

the Trump experiment is going to

34:29

have all sorts of unintended, unexpected

34:32

consequences. One of them could be

34:34

a revival for one or both

34:36

of the main parties, could discredit...

34:38

could discredit parties which are in,

34:40

you know, in alliance with Trump,

34:42

we'll see. So that's not a

34:44

very satisfactory answer to your question

34:46

Steve, but I would say don't

34:49

do anything rash or bold and

34:51

think that anyone particularly cares at

34:53

the moment. Wait. Can I just

34:55

gently disagree with a little tiny

34:57

bit of that? Of course. The

34:59

whole thing. In that... You say

35:01

she's cleverly... not doing too much

35:04

because the landscape will only reveal

35:06

itself to us as the Trump

35:08

experiment plays out. I think that's

35:10

absolutely right but in fact she

35:12

she's sort of slightly manically is

35:14

at least well she's not doing

35:16

anything because she's not in power

35:18

but in terms of what she's

35:21

saying she is actually unleashing a

35:23

lot of rhetorical kind of fireworks

35:25

like the anti net zero stuff

35:27

this week yeah so this week

35:29

she said okay well we just

35:31

can't keep the 2050 net zero

35:33

target. I was like, why do

35:36

that? I mean, apart from anything

35:38

else, we know the public and

35:40

what's more, almost all segments of

35:42

the public are actually concerned about

35:44

climate change and support it. So

35:46

they may not support the detail

35:48

of Ed Miliband's prospectus, but they

35:50

support the broad goal. And... Oh,

35:53

so what you mean, so you

35:55

should focus on, focus on, focus

35:57

on attacking labours in coherence or

35:59

as labours plan disintegrates. That's what

36:01

you mean. Why signal? And also,

36:03

if what's playing out is also

36:05

the British public really quite frightened

36:08

by Trump and everything... he represents

36:10

and says right through from I

36:12

want to absorb Canada in the

36:14

United States through to drill baby

36:16

drill why would you then stand

36:18

up and say oh climate change

36:20

yeah let's not worry about that

36:22

anymore when actually the whole country's

36:25

feeling the opposite it doesn't make

36:27

any sense and then the one

36:29

thing that's come out as a

36:31

quotable line from her speech this

36:33

week is well we're not just

36:35

in politics to to win which

36:37

you know I mean It's a

36:40

start winning. You can't do much

36:42

if you lose it. You can't

36:44

do much without it. So I'm

36:46

not, I'm not, I'm not convinced

36:48

about that, to be honest. On

36:50

the party management front, because we're

36:52

kind of diverting on to kind

36:54

of policy issues, is, I mean,

36:57

that speech, he did try to

36:59

balance it a bit, because of

37:01

course, as we've discussed before, there's

37:03

a significant section of the Tory,

37:05

reinforced by... Boris Johnson. And so

37:07

there was a big section in

37:09

her speech about how the Conservatives

37:12

will always be the party of

37:14

the environment and so. And you

37:16

can see the thinking of intent

37:18

to keep everybody on board, which

37:20

brings me finally, because I said

37:22

we've mentioned Farage, you discussed it

37:24

last week when I wasn't here.

37:26

The problem for reform, it seems

37:29

to me, is and party management

37:31

for Farage. They present themselves as

37:33

an anti- politics party. But when

37:35

you win seats in the House

37:37

of Commons, you have to become

37:39

a conventional political party, in the

37:41

sense you face party management issues.

37:44

And it was inevitable that they

37:46

would have rouse with MPs and

37:48

so on. And Nigel Farage is

37:50

discovering you can't be a president

37:52

in British politics. You have to

37:54

be a manager of parties. So

37:56

he joins Kierstama, Kemi-Baynot and all

37:58

the others in facing all the

38:01

challenges. ideological differences, policy differences, thwarted

38:03

ambition, fueling anger, which makes leadership

38:05

so difficult just in this. area

38:07

of party management. Do you agree?

38:09

It's just it is the toughest

38:11

elements of leadership, keeping a party

38:13

together, but still conveying to the

38:16

media and the wider electorate, to

38:18

kind of coherent sense of purpose

38:20

and mission. Yeah, and I just,

38:22

to clarify, if I created the

38:24

misleading impression that I somehow think

38:26

it's going brilliantly for her, this

38:28

is some clever, brilliant. sort of

38:30

master strategy. I'm not saying that.

38:33

The Tories are pulling down in

38:35

the low 20s. They're clearly in

38:37

a mess and she's in a

38:39

really, really tough position. All I

38:41

was saying was that there's just

38:43

something counterintuitively that I think we

38:45

should keep an eye on. There

38:48

are forces unleashed that we don't

38:50

know how they're going to transform

38:52

opinion. And we also live in

38:54

a really feebrile age where leaders

38:56

can be completely, you know, the

38:58

old rule that once you are

39:00

written off. you know you have

39:02

six months to make an impression

39:05

on the public and then they

39:07

conclude you're an idiot or all

39:09

the future and that's it and

39:11

it's preordained I just don't think

39:13

in the crazy world we're living

39:15

in now social media the way

39:17

in which people consume the evidence

39:20

from the last 10-15 years actually

39:22

people will look again if circumstances

39:24

change I'm just you know I'm

39:26

just qualifying it on forage yeah

39:28

I think you're absolutely right Steve

39:30

he's he's finding out he's finding

39:32

out it's a very different business

39:34

from running a group even in

39:37

the European Parliament which is a

39:39

different form of party management but

39:41

almost no one was paying any

39:43

attention I mean I this is

39:45

the what's happening now with reform

39:47

will dictate whether or not they

39:49

have the potential to what I

39:52

think one of they either break

39:54

apart completely I think that's unlikely

39:56

or they get to 30 to

39:58

40 seats and become a permanent

40:00

Lib Dems of the right. And

40:02

then that raises questions about whether

40:04

there is some long-term pact with

40:06

the Tories or not and attempt

40:09

to divide up seats which could

40:11

go badly wrong or does this

40:13

grow and build into something which

40:15

can actually get to north of

40:17

200 seats or 250 or 300,

40:19

326 seats. So the playing for

40:21

enormously high stakes but everything I've

40:24

seen about forage. in his career.

40:26

I mean, politicians tend to, even

40:28

though if they learn and develop

40:30

the best of them, in their

40:32

fundamental characteristics, they tend not to

40:34

change. And Farage is an amazing

40:36

celebrity performer and not a team

40:38

player and not someone skilled at

40:41

party management, but let's see. Okay,

40:43

let's take a break. Hey

40:47

folks, it's Mark Marin here host

40:49

of WTO with Mark Marin on

40:51

ACAST. I've been doing this show

40:54

a long time more than 15

40:56

years Research shows that 74% of

40:58

listeners recall the brands that they

41:01

hear when listening to podcasts So

41:03

if you're a business owner or

41:05

marketer and you want your business

41:08

to be top of mind podcast

41:10

advertising with ACAST is the way

41:12

to go run podcast ads with

41:14

ACAST by visiting go We've got

41:17

to go. We've had a lot

41:19

on reform recently, just so Miranda,

41:21

I want to end what we

41:24

began by asking you about in

41:26

relation to welfare and stoma and

41:28

party management. Do you sense from

41:31

its early days, but the early

41:33

reaction to the announcement from Liz

41:35

Kendall, that in the end, this

41:38

will be relatively smooth for stoma,

41:40

he's got MPs who ate to

41:42

be ministers and they'll be loyal,

41:45

he's got a cabinet which is

41:47

only just... had a few months

41:49

in power and won't face resignations,

41:52

this could date very quickly, but,

41:54

or that disunity over this specific

41:56

welfare issue is going to be

41:59

a running theme for weeks to

42:01

come in a way that will

42:03

be quite destabilizing for Kiastama in

42:06

terms of party management. I think

42:08

it's got the potential to go

42:10

either way to be honest. the

42:13

international situation is the kind of

42:15

dark cloud hanging over everything and

42:17

I think a lot of it

42:20

will depend on how the March

42:22

26th Rachel Reeves spring statement lands

42:24

as well so if if Reeves

42:27

manages to God it's what lesson

42:29

that's in two weeks away I'm

42:31

sorry terrible with dates if that

42:34

lands well and the the massed

42:36

ranks of the Labour MPs can

42:38

see something on the horizon that

42:41

looks like a kind of coherent

42:43

destination for all of these different

42:45

painful reforms enabling a kind of

42:48

re-engineering of the public. sector and

42:50

state bureaucracy and all the rest

42:52

of it. Because remember before this

42:55

kind of reform row, this welfare

42:57

reform row, this week, last week

42:59

was the whole, you know, we're

43:01

Javier Millay with his, you know,

43:04

taking a chainsaw. Thank you. Thank

43:06

you. I'm looking in desperation there.

43:08

Chainsaw was a word I couldn't

43:11

get. You know, we are Javier

43:13

Millay with our own version of

43:15

a chainsaw cutting through red tape

43:18

in white hall and the regulators

43:20

and all the rest of it.

43:22

you know if if if when

43:25

you get to the other side

43:27

of the spring statement Reeves has

43:29

sort of actually helped articulate a

43:32

way in which all of these

43:34

things that sound a bit rhetorically

43:36

overblown at the time hang together

43:39

as a sort of program of

43:41

delivering change with an upside, maybe

43:43

the back benches will sort of

43:46

grumble a bit, but sort of,

43:48

you know, keep, keep, keep, keep

43:50

together and maintain discipline. But I

43:53

think the fact that the welfare

43:55

reform thing this week is a

43:57

green paper signals a lot of

44:00

problems, you know, it's green for

44:02

danger. Because, because, you know, we've

44:04

got to get from this. to

44:07

a white paper which will have

44:09

much more concrete proposals in it,

44:11

how much of this do they

44:14

give ground on before that, then

44:16

you know every stage of the

44:18

legislative process you're going to have

44:21

a battle potentially. So I think

44:23

it could be, I think it

44:25

could be a real problem. I

44:28

mean, you know, I like Liz

44:30

Kendall a lot, I think she's

44:32

great, but I think she could

44:35

have one of the trickiest periods

44:37

over the next few months. She

44:39

will. I just don't think they

44:42

have to go for it. and

44:44

taking in all the points you've

44:46

made Steve about their vulnerabilities and

44:49

how you have to factor in

44:51

party management, you're absolutely right, but

44:53

on this broad agenda, the only

44:55

way that they bust out of

44:58

being in a mid-20s, high 20s,

45:00

and they only got 33 and

45:02

a bit percent at the election

45:05

to get to something more solid.

45:07

a much higher vote share, you

45:09

have to establish in the mind

45:12

of about 35 to 40% of

45:14

the public. And this is possible,

45:16

this is possible in the next

45:19

couple of years, that they are

45:21

a... that they're unpopular in certain

45:23

respects, but that they are sorting

45:26

out deep-seated problems and they're getting

45:28

on with it while everyone else

45:30

is shouting and complaining. I think

45:33

that's their early route. Yeah, and

45:35

my view is that in terms

45:37

of party management on one level,

45:40

Kistama has a landslide and I

45:42

say it's very early on when

45:44

government has most space to do

45:47

whatever it wants, even if it

45:49

hasn't thought it through fully, which

45:51

I don't think it has with

45:54

welfare. So, you know, for sure.

45:56

or he can get through what

45:58

he wants, even if there is

46:01

a rebellion. But I do think

46:03

this spring and summer is going

46:05

to be a huge test of

46:08

party management at every level. This

46:10

is a treasury-led government or has

46:12

been so far. I hear that

46:15

Kisama's trying to get hold of

46:17

an economic advisor. He needs one

46:19

fast. And that at beginning with

46:22

cabinet level... The public spending constraints

46:24

are going to cause huge tensions

46:26

are already doing so, way beyond

46:29

the Liz Kendall welfare agenda. And

46:31

this will be a test of

46:33

many things, whether Kistama challenges Rachel

46:36

Reeves at all, no sign of

46:38

that so far, but also in

46:40

terms of party management and the

46:43

purpose of government. And all of

46:45

this, these themes coalesce around a

46:47

challenge of leadership. But we better...

46:49

Stop. I know some of you

46:52

very kindly say, why do you

46:54

stop? Keep going. You don't have

46:56

to stop the podcast. But I've

46:59

got to get somewhere. So that's

47:01

why we're stopping. But thank you

47:03

all very much for listening. Do

47:06

leave a review only if you

47:08

like it, of course, five stars.

47:10

And tell friends, family, to subscribe.

47:13

And then, yeah, we are going

47:15

to keep rocking and going. Thank

47:17

you very much. And see you

47:20

all next time. ACAS

47:34

powers the world's best podcast. Here's a show

47:36

that we recommend. Welcome to the Daily Beast

47:39

podcast. I'm Joanna Cole's Chief Content Officer of

47:41

the Daily Beast. And I am Samantha Bee

47:43

Chief Content Officer of my house and home

47:45

and nothing else. Every Thursday we're inviting you

47:47

to the best dinner party you've ever been

47:49

to. You're going to hear all our spicy

47:51

tales. on what's happening in

47:53

politics and pop culture,

47:55

straight from from Beast Beast

47:57

And we'll be having

47:59

amazing guests too, those

48:01

sort of guests you've

48:03

always wanted to sit

48:06

next to and talk

48:08

to off the record.

48:10

Thank you for listening

48:12

and please you for subscribe

48:14

and share this podcast with a

48:16

friend you want to feel smarter

48:18

than to argue with. or if you're

48:20

sharing, feel free to share it

48:23

with all your weird uncles weird uncles,

48:25

too. Acast helps

48:27

launch, grow and

48:29

monetize their their podcast

48:31

ACAST .com.