You’ve just hoted it back from Parliament. >> But what a week to be going on the road next week. >> We are on the road starting on Monday in London where we are going to have a special sort of question time non-trademark special. >> Yes. uh where we are going to be joined by Zia Ysef of Reform. >> Yes. >> James Cleverly of the Tories and Rachel Reeves’s right-hand man from Labor, James Murray.

>> Exciting. >> Should be a good ding-dong. >> Are you going to be Fiona Bruce and I’m going to be David Dimble? >> Why do you swap the genders? >> Just cuz it’s funny. >> For the hell of it. Yeah, >> just because it’s funny. >> Just imagine their faces if we did that and didn’t explain it. >> What? you. >> I’m just in a dress and >> well, we can do that.

So, it’ll be Emily Thornbury part two. >> Yeah. >> And then on the next day, the Wednesday, we’re going to be in Warrick with Jacob Reese Mock. Mhm. And then on Thursday, we’re going to be in the seaside town of Worththing where we’re going to be doing a royal special. >> Yes. Be wearing crowns with Lady Colin Campbell and Phil Dampia, both purveyors of royal gossip.

>> Let’s get on to affairs of state and PMQs. Now, this might be the last PMQs we discuss for a while, Tim, because controversially, what’s going on in the background here? What’s happening? It is widely believed that the prime minister is going to progue that is suspend parliament next Tuesday.

Don’t worry, he’s not panicked and called it a military coup. >> No, >> this is perfectly normal. We have local elections coming up. Parliament’s going to go on break. It will return like James Bond. It’ll be back in Octopusy. Don’t worry. >> Yes. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger. >> Yeah. Very good. Um the issue is the date on which it happens.

>> Yes. So there’ll be no chance for Bnock to scrutinize, >> pick up on whatever’s come out of that >> Mweeny’s evidence, >> right? if parliament is parroed. We’re going to get a decision on it tomorrow at Business Questions, but it looks likely, yes, that this may have been the final PMQs for some time. Yes.

And then he puts on the deadly serious face. >> Yes. But he’s a man who finds cracker jokes funny, isn’t he? I mean, >> I don’t know. He It just sort of speaks to he finds parliament itself absurd, I think. >> Right. >> I suspect he’s never been, you know, comfortable. >> Well, he’s above it, isn’t he? He’s above parliament. He is above it.

So Ollie Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday. He said this. I I didn’t feel under pressure personally in terms of my judgment. His words, Mr. Speaker, he went on he went on to say he went on to say, I have complete confidence that recommendations to me and the discussions we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of any pressure. Mr. Mr.

Speaker, on top of that, he was asked if any conversations led him to believe that Mandlesson needed to take up the role regardless of vetting outcome. He said, “I can say with certainty, it was never put to me in that way. No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.

What is unacceptable is that the recommendation of UK SV was not given to me before Mandles took up his post.” Now, some people came out of that and said, “Why did Kem ask all six questions essentially the same about the process?” >> Yes. >> Why didn’t she say have three questions about Mandlesson and then three questions about the cost of living? Well, that’s a that’s a tactical issue which the Conservative Party has to answer for.

But for those who say her questions were very much in the weeds that she’s trying to catch him out on a technicality rather than go for you are a busted flush, you appointed a friend of a pedophile. Why don’t you just go? You have no judgment. I think the explanation for that is this. The Tories only have one way of getting rid of K star.

They’re not going to get him out in a confidence vote. They’re not they’re not going to do that because Labour MPs they’re they’re not going to be like turkeys voting for Christmas, right? They’re not going to do that. The only way they can get him out is to somehow persuade him that he needs to go. >> Yes. >> And the path they’re taking is on this question of has he misled parliament? They’re trying to push and push and push him into a corner where eventually he can’t deny that he has said something inaccurate.

And then by his own standards set out when he was leader of the opposition, he then has to go. >> Yes. >> And this is the first time that Kemmy Bnock from the dispatch box said you need to resign. >> Mr. Speaker, I cannot accuse the prime minister of dis deliberately misleading the house. >> But everyone can see what has happened here.

>> This was not due process. >> Everyone knows the price of misleading the house. Will the prime minister finally take responsibility and go? >> Her comments were echoed as well by Ellie Chs of the Green Party. >> Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appointed Mandolen in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump despite knowing about his friendship with the pedophile Epstein and his links to foreign states.

The prime minister resisted and then took a dismissive and extraordinarily incurious attitude to vetting, compromising national security. And now he’s thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a prime minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in government, but who’s repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down? Does the prime minister not recognize that the best thing he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?

>> On the issue of being too much in the weeds, I thought the simple point she made about the prime minister failing to follow the advice of the then permanent secretary Simon Casease back in November 2024, saying very clearly to the prime minister, “Do not appoint Peter Mandelen before you’ve done the vetting.

M >> is the kind of information that can cut through to the public. I agree with you that members of the public outside of the Westminster bubble are not kind of pouring through the he said, she said, prime minister said this, Ollie Robbins said that minutia like we are >> because we’re nerds. >> Okay.

But that general thing, the question must surely always come back to the simple premise of why on earth did you appoint such a controversial figure whose associations were well known against the warning of the top civil servant of the era who said absolutely don’t do it this way round. In that case, she has got him on not following due process.

She has, but I’m not sure many voters will follow her that far through this labyrinth to get there. It’s it’s too complicated. And I think there’s an alternative path which I would have taken if people had made me leader of the Tory party. >> Well, >> which is to say this is not about misleading parliament so much as it’s about misleading the Labor Party.

>> Now, when we had Morris Glasman on, for instance, there was a voice from the right of the party saying, “Never like Mandles.” And there have been dozens of people on the left of the party saying never like Mandlesson. I think what I would be doing is emphasizing that keep bringing it back to the question of new labor Peter Mandles and why you backbenches are still lending your support to this man who fundamentally doesn’t agree with share your philosophy.

>> Yes. >> Doesn’t like the historical Labor Party. >> Yes. >> Uh and has brought back all these people who you just hate. I think if I was thinking about in the future what’s likely to lead to a leadership election within Labor, I’d be emphasizing that. Now, some have begun to press that nerve because Ben Abisjecti, a Tory MP, asked this question.

>> Mr. Speaker, we know that the prime minister has been playing fast and loose with the ministerial appointments in his democracy. So, I want to ask him about the first one. >> Mr. Speaker, their booze mean nothing to me, Mr. Speaker. I’ve seen what makes him cheer. >> Yes. >> The prime min Jonathan Pal was appointed as the prime minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean territories on the 6th of September.

But throughout August, he held meetings with FCDO officials and was given access to classified information, including a meeting minute between the prime minister and the then foreign secretary sat next to him on the front bench today. So my question is very simple. When was Jonathan Pal appointed as the prime minister’s special envoy to British Indian Ocean territory? And what security clearance did he have upon that appointment? Let me say that Jonathan Powell is doing an excellent job for this government.

He is respected across the world and playing a significant part in dealing with the huge challenges that we face. >> He is on the mark there. People have pointed out, compare and contrast the handling of Peter Manslson with the handling of Louise Hey, former transport secretary >> who had a problem with her phone >> who turned out some time ago had misreported the theft of a phone yada yada yada who cares.

>> Strange that there seems to be a theme there. But carry on. >> Right. But the point is she was a softleft female minister. Yeah. >> Who didn’t click with the prime minister. And the prime minister in a fit of moral perfection said, “You got to go.” >> Compare that to the many ways in which they bent over backwards to secure the appointment of Peter Mandlesson.

Despite everything everyone knew about him, including, as Chem Baitnaugh pointed out, his links to businesses associated with the Kremlin, >> the due diligence document said Mandlesson remained on the board of the Kremlin linked defense company, Systemma, long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

The prime minister told us on Monday that he’d read that due diligence report. Why did the prime minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington? >> And this brings us up to another spectre at the feast, which is Matthew Doyle. >> Yes, Kemmy Bnock did refer to this idea that Downing Street and by implication the prime minister agitated for Doyle who is the former head of Downing Street communications to get some plum ambassadorial role.

Now that was something that Ollie Robbins claimed but today at PMQ’s the prime minister basically confirmed that >> Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as prime minister and other ministers. When people leave roles in any organization they’re often conversations about other roles they want to apply for but nothing came of this.

However, I actually think Ed Davyy when he followed up on the Doyle point was more successful than BNO because he also forced the prime minister to admit that that had been his personal preference, not just a number 10 thing. >> Mr. Speaker, I’m sure many of us in this house were shocked by the new revelations from Ollie Robbins yesterday.

He said number 10 told him to find a plum job for Matthew Doyle, another Labour crony friends with a convicted sex offender. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister was asked on Monday whether number 10 have proposed any political appointments other than Mandlesson. >> Perhaps the last few hours have joged his memory. Will he confirm today? Did he know his office was lobbying for a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle? And were they doing it on his authority? >> Mr.

Speaker, as I said earlier, Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service. For me as prime minister and other ministers, when people leave roles in any organization, there are very often conversations about other roles they may want to apply for. In this case, nothing came of it. >> David, Mr. Speaker, the House and the public watching will note the prime minister failed to answer my question.

>> The labor line on this is, and I I like it because it sounds like they’re channeling their inner trade union representative that whenever someone loses a job uh or moves on from a job, there is a conversation about where they might go next. Mhm. >> So the PM is framing this as essentially he asked, we said no or it was vaguely discussed, it went nowhere.

But that’s perfectly normal. >> Yes. And to be fair, that’s a strange line to take when Doyle himself responded to Ollie Robinson’s claims yesterday by saying he wasn’t aware of any lobbying on his behalf. Right. >> So that rather contradicts this idea that he was the one pushing for a plum job. Mhm. >> No, it seems as if the prime minister wanted a plum job for his own close mate.

>> It’s a non-denial denial, but either way, even if you want to be, and I think one should be charitable, both to Doyle and the government. He he left his job, asked, “Are there any others?” The government said, “We’ll think about it.” But no, so you could say no story here except that this is eerily similar to the Peter Mandlesson story.

>> Yes. and also >> another person who at some point in his life had an association with a pedophile. >> I mean, >> and and to be fair, we must emphasize this. He was friends with uh this person while he was accused uh of pedophilia, but not after his conviction. >> You might want to argue, Tim, that to promote one close friend of a pedophile to an ambassadorial role is unfortunate.

To try and promote two is downright careless. >> Yes. >> And indeed, possibly even a little incompetent. And of course I I just want to stress it didn’t actually happen. >> No, I know. But >> but in the in the eyes of the public, it’s about democracy. It’s about this is an administration which claims it’s egalitarian which claims that it’s just all about ordinary people and is trying to break down the old boys network and 14 years etc etc.

>> Well, it’s a government of service, Tim. >> It’s a government of service. >> This is a government in the service of the people and absolutely not one in the service of the prime minister and his own people. >> Absolutely not. When these stories add up, it looks like a government of friends. >> Yes, it looks like the sofa government of the Blair years, funny enough. Yeah.

>> But why is that? It’s because Peter Mandlesson is constantly >> choosing the chint. >> I think it’s partly because of the absence of philosophy. And I I this happened a little bit under Cameron, too, who was notorious for promoting friends and especially people he’d been to school with. >> Yes.

But I I think you do that when everything is about personal connections because what you’re not bound together by is a sense of mission or ideology. You know, when a when a party is motivated by ideology, you can take people from anywhere to be in that party so long as they share that ideology. That’s when you get genuine meritocracy within parliament, within politics.

I don’t care where you’ve come from. You agree with me. We’re on the same page. We’re going to fight and make this happen. When you have no idea what you want to do in government, you you’ve no you’ve no sense of why you get up in the morning. How do you choose who to hire? >> Yes. But >> you choose friends of friends and people who you get on with >> people who might be complicit despite their own reservations.

You have to have some loyalty there because let’s just move to your point about should BNO have made this about the more macro issue of the prime minister just being woeful. And this is what and we’re going to move on in in the next part of the podcast to talk about a kind of bubbling up of I don’t know circumspection around the prime minister’s choices and his future within the cabinet and on the back benches.

But I think the central point here is that for not just weeks but months now >> pretty much everyone in Labour circles is having conversations around just how unfit star is proving to be the question and and my point is that for the left of the parliamentary Labor party the lack of a philosophy is an element of that.

So the appointment of Mandlesson you could have gone with a career diplomat. There was a perfectly good one in place you could have stuck with. They chose to make a political appointment. But what were the politics of the person they chose? Someone on the right of the party, but who was also expressly picked in order to suck up to Donald Trump.

>> Yes. >> That’s the only reason people were were actually saying he’s really good at flattery. >> Yes. Well, to be fair, they were saying he was a negotiator and he was a player and therefore if we did have to do trade negotiations with the threat of tariffs looming over but for the few weeks he was in the job it was but for the few weeks he was in the job gave no impression that he was going >> toeto toe with Donald Trump and putting him in his place.

He gave the impression that he was getting on with him by saying everything he wanted to hear which is how Peter Mandlesson has advanced throughout his life. >> Yes. Uh, and at the time that many media commentators were saying, “What a clever thing to do.” But it doesn’t look so clever in retrospect after Greenland and Iran. >> No.

>> Now you’re starting to think, >> oh, hang on. >> Okay. If he was going to make a political appointment. Yes. >> Perhaps he should have chosen someone of some substance who might have said to Donald Trump, “You’re wrong about some things.” Well, ironically, we interviewed somebody last week, Hannah Furnus and I, Robert Hardman, who’s just written another book about the Queen, formerly of this parish.

He seems to have been more instrumental in questioning Donald Trump when he had lunch with him for his book >> in saying, “Is it really a good idea to invade Greenland?” And by the way, that whole Canada 51st state plan, it might really annoy the king. And Trump turned around to him and said, “Oh, that’s a very good point, Robert.

Thank you for thank you for giving me that tip.” You know, do we know if Mandlesen had such conversations? Who knows? Tim, every cabinet has a safe pair of hands. And in Labour’s case, that safe pair of hands is Pat McFaden. >> Now, Pat who has been involved in Labour politics for so long, >> centuries, >> could be um eons.

And he looks it he looks like he looks like someone hired a cottage in the countryside, found an old old book under the floorboards, read from it in Sumerian, and he arose from the grave to serve in the Labour cabinet. >> Alternatively, he could be running the post office in Balamorei. But the point is this is lovely man by the way.

>> Lovely man. Softly genuinely very nice. >> I like him. A softly spoken Scotsman. Always enjoy having him on the GB News show. Said to me at Labour, “Like doing your show. It’s good to have some bands.” So, we admire him from that. He likes to take on the fight and that probably explains why he was chosen to go on the broadcast round this morning following Ollie Robbins’s testimony.

However, should we just listen to him having a chat with Sophie Ridge on Sky News? >> Ollie Robbins claimed that number 10 pushed for an ambassadorship for Matthew Doyle, former director of communications, now suspended Labour Pier. Is that true? >> It’s the first I’d heard of it yesterday.

Um I I don’t know what conversations took place between uh number 10 and the foreign office about that but it didn’t come to anything and I don’t think Matthew had the experience to become an ambassador. So I don’t know what uh you know if he was about to leave number 10 what conversations were taking place. >> I mean you know you’re doing the interview today you must have asked them did did it happen? Well, I don’t >> The implication is that it was Kama, right, that he asked he was like, “Right, let’s get this guy a nice poster.

” >> Look, it’s not unusual if someone’s leaving to say, “What do you want to do next?” Quite what uh he was asked what he wanted to do next. I I don’t know. >> I’m really sorry. Can I just normally I’m quite forgiving when people say I don’t know. In this situation when it was this time yes well what more yesterday morning you must have asked the question or if you didn’t ask the question it’s because you wanted to come in here and say I’m really sorry I don’t know I I don’t accept that.

>> No I always tried to prepare but >> so what did you do? Did you ask number 10 what happened? >> The important point for me is >> no sorry this is an important point for me. Did you ask number 10 what happened? >> So I’m told no appointment was made. >> Did you ask number 10? We know no appointment was made.

Did you ask number 10 if it is true that K star asked for an ambassadorship Matthew Doyle? I don’t >> Did you ask the question? >> I I don’t think uh he would have been right for such a post. I think it’s right that no appointment was made. >> Did you ask? >> I don’t know what conversations were held with. >> Did you Did you ask the question? >> What question >> did you ask number 10? If it’s true Karma asked for an ambassadorship for Matthew Doyle, did you ask that question? >> I don’t think Kier Stalmer would have asked for this. Uh I don’t know what

conversation >> did you ask the question? It’s a really s you know the answer to that question. Did you ask the question? >> I have not asked if Kier stalmer asked this. >> Okay. And why did you not ask that? Because you wanted to come on here and say you didn’t answer it. >> No.

Because I don’t think the prime minister would be in the position of picking up a phone on a personnel matter like that. >> Now his reaction there it’s difficult for McFaden isn’t it? >> To be fair he has links to Mandlesson because he has links to Blair and Brown. But at the same time to have him now be put in a very uncomfortable position >> because of the lack of judgment the prime minister has displayed.

>> Well, and and for it to start to give the impression that McFaten has no judgment. Exactly. Because what Sophie is imply suggesting there is you should have asked. >> Yeah. Why didn’t any of you ask? >> And so either he didn’t ask and so he can’t just straightforwardly say I didn’t ask cuz he’s embarrassed by it.

Or he did ask >> and he got a non-answer or something. So therefore can’t drop the government in it by saying what he was told. >> Yes. >> Either either way it it makes him look bad as well as the government. >> And let’s also reflect on Ed Milliban. We discussed this briefly yesterday, but there’s a moment when Ed Milliband is speaking to Good Morning Britain.

I think it’s Susanna Reed where he is doing a quick calculation about whether he wants to expend whatever political capital he has left. Yeah, you can see the cogs turning. >> Defending the indefensible. >> Yes. >> And that’s why he cannot bring himself to say that he supports all of the prime minister’s decision-m on >> Manden.

Look, >> it was a very risky appointment and and it turns out to be been extremely risky for all the reasons that we know. Sure, if I’m watching you, I’m not sure what else >> anyone needed to tell the person at the top of government about this individual that would have made it clear it wasn’t just risky. It was wrong.

>> What What else did you need to know at that moment? >> Look, it’s a fair point. I mean, look, it’s a fair point and he shouldn’t have been appointed. Um, and uh you know that that is right. By the way, um the Telegraph is quoting somebody saying that Miband is spineless for failing to support Star >> right >> in that way. But fair enough.

Iette Cooper now she had to cut short a foreign trip. >> Yes. To Parliament. >> She’s not happy either. >> No, she’s not. Um she told Parliament that she was concerned yesterday at the idea that they wanted Matthew Dobbership without telling the foreign secretary. She means lammy, but I suppose it reflects equally badly in general on the idea that cabinet ministers can just be shut out of decision- making. Yes.

>> Even when it involves appointments to their own department. >> Yeah. And of course, it reflects poorly upon the diplomatic service as well if they were even considering it, just dropping in a chum into that kind of job. >> The FT had a write up yesterday suggesting that it was a case of people keeping their heads down at cabinet.

People were looking at the desk and the PM was met in virtual silence. Sounds like one of our editorial meetings as I storm about the place uh giving orders. Angela Raina, what’s she been up to? Tim, your ginger favorite. Is she does she come above Emily Thornbury in the boy crushes on Labour MPs or slightly below? Just can you confirm because I know you’re fond of them both.

>> Yes, but I think Raina is more likely to become prime minister someday. tragic. >> So you’re induced by you’re you’re >> obviously obviously you’re attracted by her power compared to >> 90% of the crush is about power of course. Of course um she spoke at something called >> much about Tim Stanley doesn’t it? But there you are.

>> She spoke I just wanted her to be in charge of me. Um she spoke at something called the good growth foundation. Interesting speech. Good speech. She said there are more important questions out there other than Robins of course. Um but called on the government to go further to help people.

Now, it’s one of those speeches where she just repeated good stuff the government’s doing. So, technically it was a progovernment speech, but there was such a lot in there about how people are struggling >> and have been let down that makes you think uh nearly two years into the administration, shouldn’t shouldn’t we be doing a Trump and saying it’s all going amazingly well? So I I think there was a subtle nod there uh to people listening to say I know we’re not moving fast enough and I know that people are angry with us.

>> Yes, I must say that an organization in the UK called the Good Growth Foundation may be a breach of the trade description. >> There is an irony in all of this as much as I do admire Angela Raina uh and believe she is if anything overqualified to be prime minister of this country that here she in the speech is calling for faster bigger growth.

uh but she is responsible for for instance the renters’s rights legislation which is about to come into effect >> or the employment rights bill which businesses say is stifling growth. >> Yes. And I’m sure we will discuss both at some point because we really must because uh while the Mandles story is humiliating, embarrassing and makes us question the prime minister’s judgment.

Labour is quietly getting on with revolutionizing aspects of how this country’s economy works. revolutionizing or ruining a moot point. Um, our political editor Tony Diver, he’s well named, isn’t he? Because he has been doing a deep dive and he’s found he’s got some great stuff in today’s paper. Now, get this. I love this.

Love this quote. An MP told Diver that Sakir was now a quotes dead man walking and could be challenged for the party leadership. Quotes, how long can this zombie administration continue? They said it’s over for him. He can’t come back from this. Someone needs to put an arm around him and say it’s over. >> Some MPs have been speaking out publicly, including Imran Hussein, the Labour MP for Bradford East, um, who said that a culture created by Karma had divided his party.

Now, Imran Hussein, an MP, I always enjoy his contributions. He shouts them as if he’s unaware that there is a microphone available. And so it’s at the heart of this is a toxic and dismissive