Has the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer been undermined by former top official? | BBC Newscast

Added: 2026-05-04

[00:00:00]Chris, I've come to Westminster to wish you happy birthday in person.

[00:00:02]>> Oh, thank you. Welcome.

[00:00:04]>> And I've brought >> Welcome back.

[00:00:05]>> Okay, >> this is terrific. So, not only are we in this episode back in the back in the original home of newscast and indeed Brexit cast, Cake Returns.

[00:00:17]>> Cake Returns. We're catch plank of the pod in its in its uh in its early years. Can I cut a slice?

[00:00:24]>> Please do. Um, it's chocolate and pistachio. That is terri. A very very fashionable flavor.

[00:00:30]>> Is that right? It's pistachio.

[00:00:31]>> Pistachio is so in right now. In fact, I think it's maybe post in. I think it's a bit too ubiquitous now.

[00:00:36]>> Oh, is it?

[00:00:36]>> Can I recommend though? You don't you don't eat any now.

[00:00:39]>> Okay.

[00:00:40]>> Wait till we've done the podcast. Then you can eat some.

[00:00:42]>> Fair enough. This is a test of willpower for the next half an hour.

[00:00:44]>> Some people react quite badly to hearing other people eating.

[00:00:47]>> Well, there is that. I'm just staring at quite a thick layer of pistachio.

[00:00:51]>> Awesome. Cuz I've been sitting here for a couple of minutes waiting for you to arrive. Not I'm not not criticizing obviously. Um, and the smell of the icing was just like wafting up my nostrils. So, it's gonna be quite hard for you to >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, it is.

[00:01:03]>> to concentrate. It is. And there's a lot to concentrate on in this episode of Newscast because we're going to talk about Ollie Robbins, Sir Ollie Robbins, appearing in front of Parliament to talk about Lord Mandelson's vetting when he was made ambassador to Washington.

[00:01:15]>> Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio at Westminster.

[00:01:18]>> Are they breadcrumbs on the top of this cake?

[00:01:20]>> No, they're crushed up bits of pistachio.

[00:01:23]>> So, what's the layered bit in the middle?

[00:01:24]>> Pistachio cream meth.

[00:01:25]>> Oh, I see. Right. Okay. I assumed I I assumed the top stuff was something else.

[00:01:29]>> I mean, details been a bit of a theme today, hasn't it?

[00:01:32]>> Um, insufficiently curious. So, goes the allegation in various directions, probably mine as well. Uh, it's Chris at Westminster. Uh so we're going to be talking about the big event that happened at Westminster uh on Tuesday morning which was Sir Ollie Robbins, former permanent secretary of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office appearing at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee chaired by Dame Emily Thornbury who were quizzing him on what he knew about the vetting process when Peter Manderson was getting ready to go to Washington. Um, before we dive into the details of the hearing, which was really gripping to watch, it was one of those ones that will kind of go down in history as a as a dramatic select committee to watch, let's remind people who Ollie Robbins is.

[00:02:11]>> Yeah. So, he was the most senior civil servant in the foreign office. He'd been doing the job since January of last year, and that's important in the timeline as we'll as we'll get to and we've we've reflected on in uh recent episodes. uh he used to be the most senior civil servant in Dexu the department for leaving the uh European Union which you might remember from the Brexit cast uh era and had previously rattled around in other civil service jobs. I think he was second permanent secretary of the home office.

[00:02:42]>> He'd been deputy national security adviser.

[00:02:44]>> Yeah. So he has been in and around government in the civil service sort of on and off principally on uh for years and years and years and was doing until a matter of days ago one of the most senior jobs in the British civil service.

[00:02:59]>> Right. Let's dive into this hearing which lasted for was it about two hours?

[00:03:02]>> More than that two and a half. Yeah.

[00:03:04]Yeah. I mean it flew by though because it was it was like watching a film unfold. Um and actually there was a debate afterwards in the House of Commons where a conservative backbencher compared it to A Few Good Men.

[00:03:14]>> Oh, right.

[00:03:15]>> That that um film with Tom Cruz. Anyway, we'll come on to that later. Um yeah, so the start of this hearing very much was Ollie Robbins leaning into what had been happening in the buildup to both his arrival at the foreign office and the process of Peter Mandlesson's appointment. And we'll play a big chunk of of what he explained about the context that he walked into his office to. When I walked into post as permanent under secretary on the 20th of January last year, I wasn't walking into a vacuum. Um I arrived to a situation in which um a due diligence report had been undertaken into Mandlesen uh by the cabinet office uh assessing the reputational risks and his fitness for office. Um the prime minister had then presumably taken advice on his fitness for office. Uh the name had been submitted to the king as minister's re uh recommendation. The prime minister had made an announcement uh that uh Mandlesson was his nominee without caveats. Uh the British government had sought a formal diplomatic process for a host government accepting a nominee from the US government and that had been obtained before I arrived in post. He'd been given access to the building. he'd been given access to low classification it um from time to time for case specific issues he was being given access to higher classification briefing. So I'm afraid I walked into a situation in which um there was already a very very strong expectation and you would have seen the papers released already under the humble address uh that coming from number 10 that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible.

[00:05:01]>> Now none of that is new information but what what was going on there? Well, beyond our good friend Agrial that featured there, which is the the the sort of posh diplomatic speak for a the country that will be hosting an arriving diplomat being accepted as that country's um ambassador. Um, the point there is Olly Robbins saying painstakingly, look, by the time I turned up, because he arrived in January of 2025, Lord Mandlesson was effectively at departures at Heathrow airport, suitcase in his hand and plane ticket, you know, between his teeth. That was the gist of it. And saying, look, this was done. It wasn't just the will of the government, although it was, it was done. He was going. That was that and this was before the developed vetting process which has become so central had happened >> indeed. So so >> or concluded it was going on in the background.

[00:05:57]>> Exactly. It was before it had concluded that the will of the government was very clear. Of course, it is the role of the civil service to deliver on the will of the government. And then on top of that was the argument that we expected Ollie Robbins to make which was that this developed vetting process which in his career he's been around or about a lot.

[00:06:21]Um the in his view the central tenant of this process is one of confidentiality is one of respecting the fact that if you're going to ask loads of people who come in to work for the government that they're going to have this incredibly intrusive set of interviews that's going to crawl over all sorts of aspects of their lives. Um that there has to be a recognition for those who are willing to sign up to do it that the detailed information won't go beyond the person they share it within the interview. even if the conclusions of that crawl all over their life clearly does inform the system as to whether or not they get the job. And that's the crux of the argument that he makes, Ollie Robbins makes, which is that he was right not to be sharing this process and what he knew about it with the prime minister and which the prime minister thinks categorically he was wrong about. And I suppose the other implication of of what Ollie Robbins said there in that big clip that we just played is that yeah, the actual outcome of the vetting process was not central to the appointment of Lord Mandlesson, but yet it has become central in the prime minister and Downing Street and the government's case for why Ollie Robbins was dismissed. So he was sort of in a very uh elegant civil service way without actually pointing any fingers saying what you're hearing from Downing Street is is is wrong. Well, the the essence and for me the standout thing in all of the testimony was Ollie Robbins effectively saying these are my words not his but the essence of it was Downing Street might be banging on about the importance of vetting now but they weren't then. So he talked about for instance his claim that there was a live conversation going on about whether he even needed vetting uh Lord Mandlesson that there was >> oh yes because the the cabinet office was in his telling was saying do we even really need to get this guy vetted and the foreign office was pushing back saying well no the proper thing to do is do the vetting. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, has offered an alternative uh recollection of events around all of that. But yeah, that was um Ollie Robbins's uh testimony around that. He also talked about how the you know in the foreign office's phones never stopped ringing during this process with folk in Downing Street saying, "Is it is it finished yet?" Now, the argument I've heard from people in Downing Street is look, it's totally normal that private offices will chase things they need sourcing from other private offices. That doesn't mean you're asking them to rush. It's just you're emphasizing that it is an important thing that needs doing pretty quickly. And of course, remember the context of the timing. The context of the timing is that the tail end of January 2025 was the inauguration of President Trump into his second term.

[00:09:01]The whole point of sending out Lord Mandlesson is that he was seen to be the perfect candidate for charming the Trump administration. And of course, you want him there pronto because President Trump's about to start. And that issue of how much pressure was being put on the foreign office came to a head in this exchange where an MP on the committee is asking Ollie Robbins about a phone call he might have received and then Emily Thornbury, the chair of the committee, intervenes to clarify that it was quite a swary phone call. So I am obliged to tell you that there is some very strong language in this little bit of audio we're going to hear from today's committee. It is reported by I think it's Sam Coats that the uh Morgan Mcweeny the chief of staff rang Sir Phillip uh and said in terms stronger than those that I can use before the watershed.

[00:09:52]>> I think you should >> well I I'll just say that it was just to prove it with a with um terms stronger than that. Does that accord with your impression?

[00:10:02]>> Just approve it.

[00:10:04]Does it accord with your impression when you took over from Sir Phillip?

[00:10:09]>> Well, yes. I mean that that that gets to the crux of the argument not expressed in that language that broadly speaking Soly Robbins was making which was that the vibe at the time was not only is this has this appointment happened sort out the paperwork and let's get this guy on on his way but crucially >> so newscasters understand the subtleties here and there's a lot of subtleties was not saying that that pressure or that desire to get on with it had any bearing on the judgment he came to when the security vetting process concluded and he was briefed verbally and he didn't see any paperwork. He certainly didn't see the paperwork the government has since published a kind of pro-former version of around what the security veters had concluded.

[00:11:03]>> Well, yeah, let's take that apart a bit because that was the that was the next bit I wanted to get on which was the whole sort of tussle over paperwork. So, at the end of last week, um, you were telling us about how we'd seen this this template for the the vetting organization, UKSV uses that their officers use. And there's red, amber, and green. Yeah.

[00:11:22]>> For whether somebody can get their security clearance or not. And we were told that in this case, or it's been reported in this case, that basically all the red boxes that could be ticked on a vetting form had been ticked for Lord Mandlesson. Maybe they had a cross put in them. We don't know. Um but Ollie Robbins was saying he never even saw that document that has the tick boxes in it.

[00:11:42]>> Yeah. Two subtleties here to to to get across. One is exactly that the argument that he says he didn't he didn't see them. Secondly that that tick box uh of the traffic lights coming from UK security vetting is not the verdict if you like. It is the recommendation and then the foreign office come to a decision. But clearly there is a distinction between red boxes ticked and the guy who used to as a civil servant at least run the foreign office saying I have never in my career seen this paperwork before and then on top of that his view that when he'd been briefed about the conclusions of Lord Mandlesson's developed vetting that conclusion amounted to a leaning from the vet towards a recommendation of rejection rather than as the government says it >> that it was those ticked red boxes.

[00:12:41]>> Yeah. It's this new phrase that's entered our lexicon which was the recommendation was borderline but leaning towards denial. And I'm just looking at that cake thinking oh whether I want that cake right now is borderline but I'm leaning towards having it.

[00:12:53]>> Yeah. Whereas I'm saying >> which is a beautifully ambiguous way of saying did you have the cake or not?

[00:12:57]>> Well, completely. Whereas I'm saying I'm definitely having a a slice which is kind of where the government's view is on what it has seen in terms of the ticking of those um of those red boxes.

[00:13:08]So there is a there's a contradiction there. There's a how do those things how can those things possibly align? Now could it be that with hindsight neither side were sufficiently curious?

[00:13:23]So, was Ollie Robbins poorly briefed about what was really in those documents that he acknowledges he's never seen?

[00:13:30]>> Would it have been helpful for Ollie Robbins to not know everything that was in the vetting files? Either from a point of view of his responsibilities when it comes to the law and the secrecy of the files or if he was having to do a job that he was being encouraged to do under a lot of pressure. Does the absence or his him not seeing the documents or indeed knowing that red boxes had been ticked actually have any bearing on the conclusion he would have come to? If he believes having been briefed about the necessary mitigations that had caused those red box ticks was something that he could work around.

[00:14:06]Perhaps he would have still come to that same conclusion. And the impression left from all of Siri's testimony is irrespective of how those boxes had been ticked, he would have taken one heck of a lot of persuading and frankly didn't sound remotely persuadable >> that he would have communicated the specifics of that uh to Downing Street.

[00:14:28]He did say though as somebody who's who'd overseen a lot of these vetting processes before that he had in the past on being presented with the veter recommendations rejected vetting and in others where uh perhaps there'd been a uh a suggestion that it was fine that he'd come to perhaps a a more robust uh view. But in this instance, he felt it, you know, it could be worked with. And so that was what he suggested.

[00:14:57]>> And I suppose the whole point he was getting at in that section of the questioning was to rebut this allegation that he'd known something and concealed it from everyone else. He was saying there was there wasn't the thing to know that could be concealed.

[00:15:11]>> Yeah. So he repeatedly said that that there'd been a a misunderstanding of this whole process when people had said Lord Madison had failed his vetting. And there's two layers to that from in Siri's telling of it. One is the argument that says the vet said Lord Mandlesson's failed. Well, it's not really that they are recommending that clearance shouldn't be granted. They are not the judge and jury.

[00:15:35]>> So that's point one. And then secondly, of course, is this point that in his understanding because of how he was briefed, it wasn't it wasn't a red box.

[00:15:43]He'd never even heard of these red boxes. And it was more subtle and nuanced than that. Although he got a bit of heat from from Emily Thornbury and the chair and some of the other committee members because actually he couldn't provide a lot of evidence for these big assertions he was making both about the pressure or the dismissive attitude of Downing Street and the Cabinet Office towards the need for vetting in the first place or this conversation he'd had with his security guy where they were discussing the outcome of this vetting process. He there's not a lot of receipts. There's not a lot of emails. There's not a lot of minutes. There's not a lot of faxes.

[00:16:17]There's not a lot of text messages that back up those big things he was saying.

[00:16:21]No. Not that we've seen today.

[00:16:22]>> No. And then there is an argument around whether or not that is legitimate because you've got to be very discreet around paper trails, electronic or physical, around this stuff for all the reasons that uh Siri was making in the broader in the broader round. or does that to a cynic add up to being convenient that that kind of stuff is um is not there? But you know we were left with I think a sense as a viewer of a senior former now senior civil servant sort of mesmerized perplexed and discombobulated by how these last few days have have uh played out.

[00:17:00]>> Oh yeah. He even said I'm I'm struggling to come to to terms or get to the bottom of what actually happened here.

[00:17:04]>> Yes. and and and managed sort of gallows humor when the eenth MP thanked him for his time and he said his diary was empty you know there was there was no there was no pressure on his time I was intrigued though that he he did acknowledge that later in the process of the if process is the right word the sort of spectacular unraveling if you like of Lord Mandlesson's time in Washington and everything we've since learned he did say he had sought from the bowels of government a greater sense of what was what was in He tried to get his hands on it >> and at that point the system said no.

[00:17:38]Now on the one hand that I suppose you could say burnishes his argument that the system is very careful around this sort of stuff but then it also suggests that at that point he realized he could be more curious than he was willing to be earlier. True.

[00:17:53]My main takeaway from that though was him having a pop at the cabinet office who own the whole vetting system and they were the ones in his telling saying no you need a really good national security reason to be able to see these files. In other words, no, you're not seeing them.

[00:18:08]>> I also hear >> which backs up his point about how how secret these things are meant to be even from the people making the decisions. I also hear frustration from supporters of the prime minister who uh confronted by uh the humble address this desire that loads of this stuff is published because that's what parliament has has determined uh that the whole system is grinding away really slowly. You know, if you're the prime minister, publishing all of this stuff is clearly awkward.

[00:18:32]But your best case scenario is you just get it all out in one go. M >> um now clearly there are reasons why it takes time because there's a gazillion documents and the uh intelligence and security committee needs to take a look at them to see if there's any national national security considerations in publishing stuff etc etc but from the government's perspective and this is still the reality there's these deluges still to come where you and I on newscast and plenty of others are talking about Lord Mandlesson which they would be desperate for us to talk about almost anything else >> and also just in terms of things coming out into the public domain. Right at the end, there was, I know I keep using the word dramatic, there was quite a dramatic bit where Siri Robbins said, "Oh, the fact that this information leaked to a newspaper and has now been reported." He said that was a grave breach of national security and that maybe somebody needs to be prosecuted for that information getting out there, which I thought was again a very very strong criticism implied of the cabinet office and the people that are running that organization.

[00:19:31]>> Yes. and with with the the clear view from someone steeped in this world that and again these are my words not his but that this wasn't your typical political leak where a journalist gets a early heads up on some policy coming out of such and such department because it might be in the interest of somebody to scupper it or whatever. I mean it kind of it was that up to a point but the subject matter being something that in his view puts on a totally different uh level and then of course you know in in in the from Downing Street's perspective in attempting to defend themselves they've put out in public all sorts of stuff but who knows whether it would have come out via the humble address it might have done um but maybe it wouldn't and irrespective of how it's made its way into the public domain it is there and in his view um would be better off not being I I I wonder if a skeptic might say in counter to that that the very nature of the instincts and mentality of someone in in his formerly in his position would be to would be to >> uh not necessarily be all wildly keen on all of this stuff seeing the light. One other thing has to remember which I thought was really interesting in the context of this because you might imagine someone in his position his former position would be super averse to any risk and he said very strikingly I thought um look all this vetting stuff is really important and the reason it's important is we have to attract people into public life or into working for the government. It's often not public in the in the outward sense, but to working for the government who have had interesting lives, who have had business careers, who've had associations with this country or that country >> and also whose lives and circumstances change and you got to accommodate that >> a change and are complicated and all the rest of it because if you don't do that, again, my words not his, but the sentiment very much his, you end up with a very narrow gene pool in government and that is not in the interests of the wider state. Right. Let's talk about the uh the Westminster bombshell that was detonated sort of halfway through. Yes.

[00:21:35]Um and this was in involves someone called Lord Doyle, Matthew Doyle. Um who used to be Karma's director of communications in opposition and then went into number 10 with him as like the top comm's guy in Downing Street. This is how Lord Doyle's name came up in the committee. And it was in the context of Ollie Robbins being asked by another MP on the committee, has this happened with anyone else? Was there an idea of another political appointee to an ambassadorship somewhere in the world?

[00:22:05]>> I think in my tenure as permanent under secretary, there was only ever one other uh serious proposal um made and I think that was in March 2025. Um >> what role?

[00:22:19]>> Sorry, >> what role? Uh there were several discussions initiated by number 10 with me um about potentially finding a head of mission opportunity for Matthew Doyle who was then the prime minister's director of communications.

[00:22:34]Um and the uh the I was under strict instruction not to discuss that with the then foreign secretary which was uncomfortable.

[00:22:45]I mean, there were about 10 things in that one answer that just made your eyebrows shoot up. And actually, even hearing it for about the 14th time today, I'm still kind of quite surprised.

[00:22:55]>> Yeah.

[00:22:55]>> You were speechless.

[00:22:56]>> Yeah. Um, what?

[00:22:59]>> That was my reaction. And I know this can sound very Westminster, very Beltway, very SW1, but uh, yeah, I could I I could not believe that. Um, and you know, let's unpack it a bit. So, a conversation is had between number 10 and the guy on the civil service side who leaves the >> Well, you know what? Let's let's do this like an old GCSE English parsing exercise. There were several discussions initiated by number 10. So, several discussions. It wasn't just like a chat in the pub by, oh, should we hire this guy? It was there was the thing going on here.

[00:23:35]>> Yeah. Then then there's talk and there were discussions with him. So that with the with the permanent secretary with the permanent uh under secretary >> um then they're about to to do the passing you've got the verbatim quote in front of you but the heads of mission that means being an ambassador.

[00:23:50]>> Yeah.

[00:23:50]>> That means being the chief British diplomat in a particular country.

[00:23:55]>> Yeah. Um, >> not like a trade envoy who goes on a couple of trips a year and has a nice time or not some kind of minister job in the Lords that involves some foreign travel, but yeah, going and being our man in. And then Sari very gently puts it that it leaves him uncomfortable which we can you know that that translates as a guy who runs a department full of diplomats is horrified that he might have to explain to those diplomats that he's finding a job for a comm's guy getting some bble if you like on the diplomatic chessboard >> or not not just a bobble but maybe a nice convenient excuse to move them out of Downing Street. Well, exactly. Which subsequently uh happened. Oh, and by the way, don't tell the foreign secretary who >> at that point was David Lammy, >> which in itself is extraordinary. Now, let's unpack a little bit of this. Um because uh Lord Doyle has uh I've been in touch with him. He's put out a statement. He's said it was the first he'd heard of it today. So, his phone goes bonkers. What?

[00:24:55]>> Um now, he has worked in foreign affairs before. He worked for Tony Blair when Tony Blair was doing his Middle East role. He worked for David Lammy in the International Rescue Committee, but it's still it's still, you know, it would still be uh quite the thing. And of course, you know, from Labor MP's perspective, it just leaves the impression of this center of government trying to find jobs for itself and and sort of farm people out in different directions. Now, it's not unprecedented that people in public life switch from one specialism to another, etc., etc., But I mean, criy, it's um it's quite the thing. And the twist >> No, go ahead. Go ahead.

[00:25:32]>> And the twist here is that Lord Doyle, who was then the director of communications, but was effectively got rid of this. This, it would appear, was the system aware of the fact that he was going to be got rid of trying to find an alternative birth for him. I think he made it, you know, he he was more keen on staying within domestic politics. He ended up in the House of Lords as a Labour peer, but not for very long because he was then suspended from the Parliamentary Labor Party after it emerged he campaigned for a friend to become a counselor who'd been charged with child sexual abuse offenses and that friend was later convicted. So, um yeah, I mean what a twist and turn. It's just quite incredible. Um you know, all within the last 12 months or so, all of that. Mhm. And so then this was followed by a debate staged in the House of Commons by the Conservatives because they it was one of those days where the opposition has control of the order paper for a couple of hours. Uh I would say there was a lot of sound, a lot of fury. It didn't signify very much. For example, they didn't manage to pull off what they did last time with the humble address, which was start a process that ended up being really damaging for the government. It was much more of a a talking shop.

[00:26:46]>> Yeah. So three hours of conversation. I think the conservatives are proud that they have shifted the dial on all of this stuff. I mean, not least the humble address and all all of that which um which they brought about. Um David Cameron, you know, has been doing a lot of advising of Kemmy Bono recently both in the context of what we saw yesterday in specifics, but I also hear in terms of prime minister's questions prep and uh and all that kind of stuff, which I think is just kind of one to watch. M uh you know does he does he fancy getting a bit more involved in public life? I don't know.

[00:27:19]>> Well, another comeback.

[00:27:20]>> Well, you know, who who knows? But he certainly he is an influential voice around Kem Benock and they and they >> Oh, and also his old chief of staff, Ed Lulean, was the last political appointee made as an ambassador.

[00:27:31]>> So there you go. There's the there's the symmetry the symmetry of today's news.

[00:27:35]>> Although everyone loved that appointment. No one complains about that.

[00:27:37]>> And he's and he's still he's still a diplomat and he's a former diplomat as well. So that's what he did before.

[00:27:44]>> Yes.

[00:27:44]>> Yeah. Anyway, I I sort I've diverted you.

[00:27:46]>> So yeah, I think the conservatives are pretty proud of of how they've played this and it's not the end of it. I mean, there's PMQ's on Wednesday. I wonder if in this iteration of this story that began last Thursday and as we record it's Tuesday night might be might be on its downward turn in terms of diminishing returns, but we've still got this next transop deluge of documents to come in the coming weeks. Do they come before or after the elections? Let's see.

[00:28:14]Probably after, but I don't know. Let's see. Um, which means we'll go around this block all over again. And is that then it of the deluge? Let's see again.

[00:28:25]>> I think at the end of today a few things. Um, Ollie Robbins sort of was insinuating that maybe he's going to take legal action against the government. I mean, he didn't say that, but so there's then a process there. And remember when Lord Manderson was fired in the first place, he then got like tens of thousands of pound payout.

[00:28:44]>> I think it's pretty likely a significant payoff going to come his way.

[00:28:47]>> Um what are the consequences of just this horrible atmosphere between the government and the civil service now?

[00:28:53]>> I think that's really interesting. So yesterday you had a handful of retired or former senior civil servants watching down from the House of Commons gallery and you just got that sense of yeah where's that you know if you're a civil servant a senior civil servant or a more junior civil servant at the moment and you see what's happened. I mean >> that's you know and you're turning up for work every day to serve government which is your duty. Yeah, that that's tricky. That is and I think it explains why those in Downing Street have been going out of their way recently to heap praise on those civil servants um including Cat Little in the cabinet office who have been shephering this process around the humble address to talk about which is how this whole thing came to the prime minister's attention a week ago to try and emphasize that in their view that is how uh the civil service should work around the sensitivities of these um of these documents. Downing Street, you know, are having a hearty crack at saying that today the Ollie Robbins testimony vindicates their big picture position.

[00:29:55]And to be fair to Downing Street, there was a whole load of things being said um uh just under a week ago now around the prime minister lying and he must have known all along and all that kind of stuff. And you know, Downing Street's argument is not only has the prime minister said he didn't know, Ollie Robbins testimony vindicates that because he says, "No, he I didn't tell him because I shouldn't have told him."

[00:30:17]The thing is from Downing Street's perspective, I I think you know when you reflect on those two and a half hours modestly expressed you had a guy who was gently suggesting that the accounts that we've heard from the prime minister are not the whole reality that his reaction reactions in sacking him were unjust and out of proportion and unfair. Now, somebody who loses their job perhaps would say that, wouldn't they?

[00:30:49]>> But that's not an ideal position for a prime minister to be uh to be in at all.

[00:30:54]>> And my last last thought on this is watching Ed Milliban, the energy secretary who was doing the morning round this morning, chatting to all the broadcasters, and he's got and he's got a very interesting policy actually today about about energy prices, which maybe we'll go into one year. Um if there's stopping scandals that distract us from it. Um, and he basically had this whole sort of like worldweary thing of all the journalists were rightfully asking him questions about who knew what, when, what does this reveal about the government. And he was just sort of at the end of every interview just going, "Yeah, you know what? Like I've got nothing more to say. It was a bad decision. It was bad judgment, bad for the government, bad for the country, which this never had happened." You sort of realize this whole story that the scandal cycle has got a bit scrambled in that that would be normally the full stop to the scandal. a government going, "We've really mucked up here. We're sorry. This has been a disaster for us."

[00:31:45]That's what you would do once everything had come out. You've been accused of everything under the sun. Unfortunately for this government, from their point of view, that's what they did first.

[00:31:52]>> Yeah.

[00:31:53]>> And then all the stuff came out after that. And so it means that what do you do when your full stop is at the start of the sentence rather than the end?

[00:32:00]Nowhere else to go. And I thought I thought Ed Milliban this morning as well, particularly in his interview with Sky News was willing to say because the government and the prime minister now acknowledged that this was a spectacular catastrophic era of judgment to appoint Lord Manderson. You know, Ed Milliban was willing to say uh because it's his authentic view and we've known his skepticism about Lord Mandlesson going back 15 years to when he became the leader of the Labour Party um that he feared at the at the point of appointment of Lord Mandlesson that it might go wrong. Um, and he said, "And so did David Lammy."

[00:32:32]>> Mhm.

[00:32:33]>> Which again is articulating in public some of those conversations that were going on beforehand saying to Downing Street, "Are you blooming sure?" And of course they were. And they've been reaping the consequences of it ever since.

[00:32:46]>> Right, Chris? Good to catch up. Happy birthday.

[00:32:48]>> Thank you very much.

[00:32:49]>> Have we got some Agramlon that we're going to have a slice of cake now?

[00:32:51]>> Yes, I think we have. I think we have.

[00:32:53]Look at this. What was it? Pistachio >> and chocolate. And it has been massively distracting me this whole integrity of that holding up.

[00:33:01]>> This is like a really cheap version of bakeoff.

[00:33:03]>> Right. That's all for newscast. We'll be back with another episode very soon.

[00:33:06]Bye-bye.

[00:33:07]>> Great crumb structure but no soggy bottom.