Speaker 1The Telegraph The Conservatives are back in second place in the polls, with Kemi Badenoch's party reaching its highest ratings since the last general election.
Speaker 2With the Great Green Revolt in full swing and Restore putting up a firm fight on the right against reform, could the next election be a straight battle between the Reds and the Blues?
Speaker 1And will Andy Burnham's obsession with Brexit be Labour's great undoing? Welcome to The Daily Tea with me, Camilla Tominey.
Speaker 3And me, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Bear in mind, referendum, 17.4 million people voted. The highest turnout since 1992, the pretty much highest turnout general election. 1.3 million majority. And for Mr Burnham, the unelected Prime Minister, that vote would have given 400 seats to a Brexit party at that time. And he's saying that Russia today is going to influence this? I mean, come on, pull the other one, really.
Speaker 1Jacob, we've got David Davis in the house. Double D for me, as we like to refer to him. I had no problem with that campaign slogan, can I just say, as the only woman at this table.
Speaker 3Well, it was a woman's inventive slogan. I didn't know about it until I walked in the door. People said at the time it was a bit of a boob.
Speaker 2Oh, God. My goodness, the witticisms here really are.
Speaker 3It got resurrected during a Queen's speech because it was the member for Brecon, young lady, who was one of the girls wearing a T-shirt.
Speaker 1Yeah, I think it was the positioning of the Ds.
Speaker 3Well, maybe. But. She told the house, quite rightly, that I didn't know anything about it. It was their invention. So there we are.
Speaker 1I tell you what, politics is a lot less fun than it used to be.
Speaker 2But nobody would have noticed. If you just look ladies in the eye, you wouldn't see any slogans that they may be wearing on their clothes.
Speaker 1That's right. I know you're a man. You have no peripheral vision. We mean in the eye.
Speaker 2That's right. That's right.
Speaker 1We don't need any wandering eyes in here. We're starting with a kind of high note of a degree of amusement because politics can be fun. It can also be rather difficult and dangerous. And we're going to discuss MPs' security. Because of this review that is being carried out by the Home Secretary following Anne Widdicombe's killing and also some of the threats that have been made to Nigel Farage and others. Now, I know that you both knew David Amess very well. And it's the fifth anniversary of his death this week. I think all of us here, as somewhat outspoken commentators in public life, have had our fair share of, let's put it like this, online criticism. Weirdly, the worst I ever faced in terms of. Death threats and literally threats made against my children was over Harry and Meghan. Bizarrely, when you consider all of the sort of right-wing rhetoric I may have spouted in the past and, God forbid, supported Brexit and all the rest of it. Do you think that this is the right thing for Shabana Mahmood to do?
Speaker 2I think she's probably got very little choice. But I worry about it slightly because I think one of the great virtues of the British political system is our politicians are very open to the people that they seek to represent. Right. And live, other than the prime minister and perhaps the foreign secretary, a very normal life, that they're out and about in their communities, in the street. Therefore, people come up to them and can talk to them. And this openness, I think, is very beneficial. It means that most politicians are reasonably in touch with what's going on in their constituencies. And that the risk of security is that you make people slightly paranoid. You make them worry about it more than the reality that most MPs most of the time are, in fact, extremely safe. We're not living. We're not living a life of considerable danger. There are exceptions, and Nigel is one of them, and then you provide security for that. The murders of David Amis and Joe Cox were by loners rather than by people who were a structured terrorism organization. And that's very, very difficult to protect against because you can't have intelligence inside an organization. And the murder of David Amis had been. It had been spotted as being a strange man. And that raised all sorts of questions about how we deal with mental health and the protections that we have. But this isn't the IRA of old where they wanted to wipe out senior figures in the British establishment. You could find out who they were and you could protect them. I don't think realistically you can provide any serious level of protection to MPs, former MPs, etc. You're talking about over a thousand people.
Speaker 1I mean. What level of protection.
Speaker 2What level of protection is that going to be?
Speaker 1Zia Youssef of Reform has suggested that many more millions are made available to protect people even after they have been serving in office. In the case of Anne Widdicombe, of course, she wasn't a serving MP. She was then a commentator. She was obviously very high profile. David, you must have had your fair share of threats and things during Brexit or on some of the other causes.
Speaker 3No, not during Brexit. I mean, well, there was rudeness, but it wasn't actually physical threats in any way. I'd be walking down a. tube or a train or whatever. I was in the public domain most of the time. I wasn't always being ferried around by cars. More earlier than that. I mean, back in the Thatcher and Major years, I was on an IRA death list for about eight to nine years, in fact, in total, I think. But, you know, we had a different attitude, frankly. I mean, bear in mind the death rate of ex-MPs hasn't changed much. It's just the nature of the attack. So you're quite right. A modern attack is impossible to plan against you. How can you plan? Against a madman, frankly, or a sole actor, as against the IRA and the like. But even then, you know, I was notified by the Met Police that I was on this death list. It was quite a small death list. I mean, it's quite significant. But I said, so what do you do? Oh, we'll check under your car. And that was it. That was the sum total of security, really, a short briefing. And about once a year, I'd get a letter saying, be a little careful. The risk is higher at the moment. And the first time I rang them up and said, so what? And they said, well, be careful about checking under your car. I mean, that was the sum of it, really. And bear in mind, you know, you had Airy Neve having been killed. A friend of mine, Ian Gow, was killed on his doorstep, blown to bits. But in some way, and understandably, I guess, Joe Cox, David, Anne, and we're going to have another friend. It's almost particularly horrifying. Because it's sort of, you know, knife to death or whatever. It's so personal. And I think also society today is more sensitive to these things. I mean, we used to just expect that. I mean, bear in mind, my predecessor generation of the commons was the wartime generation. So they took this thing in their stride. They expected to square their shoulders and deal with it. That's not true today. And it shouldn't be. So it's different. You know, it's different now. But it's been going on a long time, I'm afraid.
Speaker 1Yeah. Your father. Was on an IRA death list.
Speaker 2He was. I mean, he was in a similar position to David until suddenly they took it very seriously. And our house was full of armed police for a few weeks. And then the people were arrested, who then escaped from Brixton Prison. And that gave me. I'm never worried about my own personal security. Because it seemed to me that if the intelligence services knew that there was a specified threat, then suddenly things would change. There's nothing you can do. There's nothing you can do about the random threat unless you wish to live as a hermit. And my experience from what happened with my father was that when they realized there was an immediate threat and the people who were arrested were seen in a small village in Somerset, a population of 250 people, plus a couple of IRA people wandering around. Oh, my goodness, things changed. And suddenly you had the armed police living with you until these people were arrested. And then the next day the armed police went away. You remind me. I've actually had an event like that.
Speaker 3I'd forgotten. It was about two in the morning. Somebody knocked on our door, you see. And I went down to see who it was. And it was two policemen and a policewoman. And they said, we've just had intelligence that there's an Irishman in the area seeking out your house. And so I said, so what are you going to do about it? Oh, nothing. We just thought you'd like to know.
Speaker 1Well, great. I'd rather not know, thanks very much.
Speaker 3Exactly. The next day, half of Humberside Police turned up and equipped my house with every sort of button you can think of. But. Today, actually, things have changed a bit since you were in. Because when I go to have a coffee morning in one of my villages, which I do fairly frequently, now the house authorities insist that we go through a palaver of advertising we're going to do it, but not saying when and where. Get 150 applicants to come. And then we tell them when and where. And, of course, 30 turn up because, you know, you've given them three days' notice. Which does get in the way. You know, and by the way, there's a security man on the door as well, taking names.
Speaker 1But isn't that, I mean, that might be appropriate for 2026. I know it's not great. Because I think.
Speaker 3I mean, really. I mean, look, there is an element of risk. I'm six foot tall. I'm ugly. You know, I mean. Also, you were in the Special Forces once.
Speaker 1I mean, maybe you could kill a man with your bare hands, David Davis. But look, with a look.
Speaker 3With a killer stare, you know. That's just for ministers.
Speaker 1Yeah, quite. But hang on a minute. I think because we're going to get on. We're going to get on in a moment to discussing the strangely polarized nature of our politics right now. And I'm talking about polarized on the left, polarized on the right, let alone versus left and right. But the online environment, the toxicity of social media. I mean, this is where the threats came to me. Bizarre emails, you know, strange videos being recorded by fixated individuals and all the rest of it. This is not something that we've had to contend with at all in public life. No. Before the advent of the internet.
Speaker 3I think social media. and personal fixations. big are are a modern syndrome we haven't really seen much of that historically but i do think
Speaker 2david's absolutely right about events that i wouldn't have security on the door for constituency surgeries because i thought that was intimidating to constituents and i certainly didn't want the police to be there because sometimes constituents came to see me to complain about the police and they they want to think that the mp is on their side not part of the establishment that will take an establishment view and you've got a constable on the door and suddenly it changes the whole relationship so i think there's an element of risk you have to take to do the job properly on the online thing i when people were going to the pub and saying if i saw that david davis i could xyz to him you knew perfectly well they didn't mean it it wasn't going to happen and it was an expression of anger and if you'd walked into the pub that moment they wouldn't have done anything of the kind they'd probably bought you a pint and said why have you said this thing now they put it online and it's treated as if this is a serious intention to do somebody harm it isn't in almost all cases and i think we've got to get a sense proportion about what social media is really expressing i i had this once i don't go on social media to look at people saying rude things about me which is good start yes but somebody rang up my constituent the office during an election campaign and said i'd just like to apologize for issuing death threat against this through smorgasbord this is the chief whip i take i was probably i was very angry at the time and i didn't mean it and my agent told me this i said well i didn't know he had until he rang up to apologize i you know it and that brought home to me had i needed it bringing home that this is just an expression of anger phrased by people who aren't feeling generally in public life and if they'd said if they'd watch somebody on telly and said my goodness i could shoot that fellow they don't mean it of course they don't yeah and we mustn't most vast majority
Speaker 1don't mean it it's been a
Speaker 3transition over the years in the days when there was no email and you got letters i would get about four rude letters a year when it went to email you could probably multiply that by a hundred yes and i used to send them back a copy of their own letter you know i i would you care to read this carefully and and give me your comments on your own letter you know yes generally write back and apologize particularly the emails i mean the letters sometimes were meant but the but the email said oh i was i was up late at night i did it at two in the morning yeah and and and jacob's absolutely right we and the police i'm afraid treat these things uh as though they are actual death threats when yes when they're when they're not very often i mean you've got to act on the real death threats of course you have but but you've got to be able to assess when people's just being angry or even drunk but don't
Speaker 1you think as well that in the era of more engagement i mean if politicians are going to be recording videos and doing mogul logs and i'm going to be inviting comments via community pages and you're going to you know actually the business of politics be it from a commentariat point of view or an actual elected politician point of view it's much more accessible than it used to be that's the difference right
Speaker 2up to point lord copper if we went back to the 1950s in a general election campaign we would be going around the constituency holding hustings meetings yeah later than that i mean more recently than that certainly in my time people would i haven't
Speaker 3been here since the 50s that's
Speaker 2quite people would come along and throw eggs at us if you go back to the uh 1870s and it's really interesting because it's been missed until people have started using ai to read local newspapers and they've discovered in the 1870s both the conservatives and the liberals employed thugs to go around and bash up other people's political meetings and physically assault people wow i know and so we think it's all terrible now and in the past it was rosy that's because we don't actually know the information of the past it was much worse in past there's much more violence in politics than there is now um it's just the internet makes it more public and spotted in a widespread way whereas and
Speaker 3more impersonal i mean you're talking about interaction with the public the most important interaction i have with the public is walking on the street yes people stopping me and talking to me about something have you seen this whatever you know yes uh and and it means something whereas uh a social media post yes really frankly doesn't at the end of the day
Speaker 1okay well taking the conversation forward then was brexit a turning point in any of this i mean if you think about the advent of the smartphone being around 2011 2012 like mass availability combined with a huge surge in social media presence for people and then this divisive campaign and vote that did see people in families falling out did see people saying right i'm never speaking to you again you think about how toxified the debate became between remainers and brexiteers it makes it all the more astonishing that we've now got a prime minister who wants to relitigate all of this well
Speaker 3i think let's start with before we get just to brexit is referenda referenda certainly catalyze sort of antagonisms you're talking about yes and i think a stronger example was the independence referendum in scotland where there obviously was intimidation from time to time and so on fiercely felt uh views um so referenda have uh you know a question to answer use of referenda um but the uh but right enough i mean brexit to this day i mean you know but broadly speaking there's not a debate on brexit there are two echo chambers you know who talk to themselves and and you know you you try to introduce a fact into the debate and it just dies because nobody will listen um and and that's a real problem i think that's a real democratic problem actually because at
Speaker 1the height of brexit you sort of never been more loved or more hated in equal measure right
Speaker 2yeah i think that's broadly true um that that that the people who were on your side on brexit were very very supportive and the people who weren't thought you were the devil yeah on that
Speaker 1subject what's your reaction because jacob and i just want to know if you discussed it yesterday to andy burnham suggesting that there was russian interference in the referendum result
Speaker 3well first thing i think it's a wonderful demonstration how of how mr burnham's politics are performative not real you know he got away as as as a mayor he got away with saying what he liked and nobody challenged him really i mean mayors are in a particular position you know i think a terrible idea by osborne but i mean the um and so he's used to getting away with just throwing things out secondly he said it on the rest is politics podcast can we
Speaker 1never mention that podcast again well except
Speaker 3except in critical terms so you've got two people there who are completely signed up members of the north london establishment who would of course you know have loved this would have slapped it up now where's the truth there's no fact behind it i mean number 10 have admitted it they've been in permanent reverse gear since since since it came up yesterday saying oh no no it didn't influence it bear in mind referendum 17.4 million people voted the highest turnout since 1982 that pretty much highest turnout general election 1.3 million majority and for mr burnham the unelected prime minister that vote would have given a 400 seats to a brexit party at that time you know so and he's saying that that that russia today is going to influence this i mean come on
Speaker 2pull the other one really so david you're telling me you didn't have a chip implanted in you by president putin and that was the only reason you backed brexit no i'm aware of it yes also also he then went on to mislead the house of commons which is really quite serious that's a very serious but he said oh i never said this and you can play the two things i hope we will actually play them
Speaker 4there is certainly misinformation disinformation that is emanating from russia into german politics as i heard yesterday and i've asked the question myself coming in uh to this role because i gave a speech to the un recently on this very topic i don't think we knew back then the extent to which there was state-sponsored interference in the british democratic process but i asked the question coming into downing street well was there interference in the 2016 referendum from russia and i've had the clear answer that yes there was he
Speaker 2definitely said it and then he says no i never said
Speaker 5anything of the kind over the weekend on the rest is politics podcast he implied that the referendum result was illegitimate because of russian interference where has this come from can i just
Speaker 4address the point that she said i implied no such thing in my comments on the rest is politics podcast i think she should go back and and look again it is a matter of record mr speaker that russian actors sought to interfere in the 29 general election and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time and this is just weird
Speaker 2there's a name for
Speaker 1that it's called gaslighting
Speaker 2i thought i don't know the word gaslighting i don't understand what gaslighting is gaslighting
Speaker 3means gaslighting before my time
Speaker 1gaslighting means no it's
Speaker 3not it's a film from the 1930s that is before my time jacob you know you know
Speaker 1something to be true because you've listened to the person literally say it and then they say i haven't said that trying to make you feel like you're going mad that's what gaslighting is i think there's
Speaker 2a much simpler word it's called
Speaker 3lying
Speaker 1lying okay and
Speaker 3and this comes back that he's got away with unaccountable comments for a decade and this is why So, I mean, I talked to Nigel Farage during the Makefield Barley. I said, how are you getting on? He said, it's very difficult to defeat a mayor. This is the problem. Mayoralties carry huge propaganda mechanisms which induce a behaviour in the mayors which is frankly dishonest.
Speaker 1What is actually going on here? Because there's some really interesting YouGov polling following the Conservative Party conference. There was a bit of chat. Conference was such a weird thing because it was obviously kind of emblematic of a cheminaissance of sorts. She gives a second good speech and actually her oratory was better than it's ever been.
Speaker 3It's improving, it's getting better.
Speaker 1But the whole conference itself was slightly lacklustre. I don't think there's much cut through with the general public as with the policies because the Tories are constantly being. being outgunned by Reform and Restore on the right and also I think the Shadow Cabinet remains largely anonymous to people. No matter what's interesting from the latest voting intention from YouGov, Labour 24%, Conservative 23%. I think that's the highest that your party has polled in many, many months. Reform UK again going backwards 21%. Lib Dems 12, Green 11, SMP 3, Restore 2, Clyde 1. Whatever. And there was a lot of rhetoric. There was a lot of rhetoric. There was a lot of rhetoric at conference around are we going back to two-party politics? And I thought, well, that's wishful thinking from you Conservatives. You hope it's so. Maybe even Ander Burnham hopes it's so. But there are a number of contributing factors to this. One is this Brexit re-litigation because at the end of the day that is going to draw a very clean line down the middle, isn't it? Those who want to rejoin and those who really don't. And they could be Labourites, they could be Conservatives, they could be anybody across any ideological divide. Second of all, the implosion post-Zionism is racism of the Greens. If you're a moderate left of centre Labourite under no circumstances now are you going to want to entertain a progressive alliance? And then we have this reform and restore in a competition to use lethal force against boat migrants. Also, perhaps, making moderates on the right say I'm not sure about this. Therefore, by the time of the next general election is it going to be a straight fight between the Reds and the Blues? Or is that optimistic thinking from your perspectives?
Speaker 3Well, I'd love it to be so but I don't think it will be. I mean, the truth is there's going to be five parties in play in most parts of the kingdom. But what I think is happening and this was the importance of the showcase of a party conference is that people in Britain, actually people around the world, but people in Britain, are focusing on the fact that we have got some really close to insoluble problems. They're not actually insoluble but they're quite close to it. They're really difficult to solve. And they're beginning to think actually simple answers may not be the resolution of this. And what you saw at Conservative Party conference for the first time was laying out really quite carefully thought through ideas which had real appeal. I mean, simplification of the tax code, will cost very little but will have massive impact on small businesses and on you and me. Things like that. And I think that that's what's happening. It's underpinning. And I think that will help the major parties over the minor parties, if we can call them that, anymore. But it won't obliterate difference. I mean, take reform. I mean, I know reform very well. I mean, many of them are my friends. But the simple truth is they're about 15% of the electorate who'll never vote for a conventional party ever again because they've just got so much resentment, understandably, in some ways. The other thing out of it was I thought it was interesting with Kemi. And by the way, I was only there for one day, but it was like a Kemi cult, I must say, you know. Is that her analysis of what went wrong was the best analysis. You know, it was unflinching. Didn't care whether it was Labour or Tory that made the mistakes. It was unflinching. You compare that with Bernard's analysis, which would go for every old socialist shibboleth you could think of, from Thatcher to Brexit, you know. What about the pandemic? Oh, I didn't mention that. What about the financial crash? The big things that really made it, put it in trouble. Didn't mention that. So I think she had, by far and away, the best analysis. And never underestimate the British public. They can recognise a smart answer when they get one. And that was a smart answer.
Speaker 1If they were listening, David.
Speaker 3Jacob. Well, that's why it's 23%, not 53%. Because they weren't all listening, but those who were,
Speaker 2were listening. I think what David's saying is absolutely spot on. I think there is a portion of the electorate that doesn't want to come back to the Conservatives. But Andy Burnham is, to some extent, uniting the left-wing vote. That the Greens have become utterly fringe and ridiculous and deeply unpleasant.
Speaker 1Do you think they're going to continue to tank?
Speaker 2Yes, I do. I don't see how they get back. That they have got the support-- Zach Polanski's how they get partially back, I suspect.
Speaker 1What? Sack a Zach and get back.
Speaker 3But there is a slogan.
Speaker 2That's very good. But say they brought back Caroline Lucas. Very sensible, decent woman, very left-wing. But really, a respectable-- But green, not red. But green, not red. But she can get them back to 5%. She can't get them to 15% or 20%. But Zach Polanski-- He might get them to five seats. That's right. OK.
Speaker 1But that only benefits Burnham.
Speaker 2That benefits Burnham. That's right. Restore down at 2%. I think Restore has left the bounds of normal political debate with its ethno-nationalism. I don't think that is where the British public is. Reform is remarkably split. And I'm going to make a comment in defense of Nigel. Nigel, I think, is actually perfectly sensible. He's not an ethno-nationalist. He doesn't want to shoot people in the channel. He recognizes that politics is quite difficult. Oddly, the people who are causing him the most trouble-- other people they've got from the conservatives, Suella and Jenrick, who are trying to prove how tough and right-wing they are and are saying things, one of them particularly having been a great Cameroon. So he has to prove how tough he is. He's been on a journey. Not as tough as his wonderful wife, who would be much better at all this. Anyway, leaving that to one side, I'm a great fan of hers. She's a proper conservative. They're trying to prove how right-wing they are. And they're saying things that are becoming unpleasant. And the British electorate, whatever else it is, is good-natured. It's kindly. It doesn't want to shoot people in the channel. It doesn't want to say that Gladstone Small and Nasser Hussain aren't English. And I stick to cricketers rather than footballers.
Speaker 1They've got the zealotry of converts. It's quite interesting.
Speaker 3They have. I want to reinforce that point. I mean, I talked to lots and lots of people in industrial Britain during the Brexit referendum campaign. And a lot of them-- said to me, I'm going to give you a characterization of one. But this person was reflected hundreds of times. He was, in particular, this one was a painter and decorator. He had a painting decorating firm in West Yorkshire, right? From Barnsley or somewhere. And I said to him, so how are you going to vote? And he said, for Brexit. I said, why? He said, immigration. And I sort of steeled myself slightly to what came next. I said, don't you like foreigners? Oh, no, Mr. Davies. If I were a Pole or a Romanian, I'd be here making three times as much money. Sending it home so I can buy a house. I'd go back in five years and get married. I'd do exactly that. I said, so what's the problem? He said, Mr. Davies, he said, I haven't had a pay increase in 10 years. If I hadn't given him a job, my son would be unemployed. The arguments about immigration amongst the British working class are rational arguments. Yes. They're not bigoted arguments. No, they're not color of skin arguments. And that's what Jenrick doesn't understand. You know, he's like a compass pointing at wherever the popular vote is. He's not in-- he doesn't actually follow a real vote. He's not a real principle. And that's what
Speaker 1you're seeing here. I mean, it's such-- to link it back to the former conversation, we're now in the arena, I mean, of my wonderful co-host, Tim, having been trolled for saying that it was wrong for people to be racist. That's where we're at now. So we had perfectly decent, intelligent conversations about whether it was right for people on the right to be celebrating a British-Nigerian leader of a political party. And most people agreed. But actually, if you're going to have the argument that if people are going to come here, they need to contribute. They need to embrace British values. Our point was simply, well, this is exactly what Kemi Badenoch has done. So we've now got this very weird fringe on the right that doesn't think that she should be leading either a party or a country basically because she's black. We've got bizarre debates about whiteness and Britishness and Englishness. I mean, I genuinely thought we had left all this behind in the 1970s, and that's why I'm saying, that there may therefore be, if people are going so bonkers as to suggest, I mean, I'm now being described as a left winger simply because I'm saying, well, I don't really mind Badenoch in the same way I didn't really mind Sunak. I mean, are these people up to the job or not? That's all I care about. So I'm saying that could bring back a degree of moderation
Speaker 2to politics. I think 98% of the British electorate are with you. And the 2% who aren't are now with Restore. And they've always been there. They voted for the BNP. previously, they are not where the British public is. And therefore, I think Restore has put itself in a position where it's outside the mainstream politics. It won't form part of any coalition because nobody will go into coalition with them with these sorts of views. Reform really depends on whether Nigel keeps control of his party or not. Because as I understand it, Nigel's view on Englishness is the same as mine and the same as Clemy's. It's got a test.
Speaker 3Look at his attitude to Tommy Robinson.
Speaker 2Absolutely. Absolutely right. On those grounds.
Speaker 1But this is an interesting question from a member of our YouTube community. We do have such a thing. So do I.
Speaker 2You can be a member of me as well as of The Telegraph. All wise people will belong to both. I'm a fully signed up member of
Speaker 1you. Just wait till I start my podcast.
Speaker 3You'll be in trouble. Don't do it a month's time.
Speaker 1This is someone called A. Bruno the Odd. OK, fair enough. I like that self-confessed oddness description. With the Conservative conference being a great way for the public to see Clemy's vision for Britain, will she keep pressing the prime minister on illegal migration to take this away from reform? Because the Boris wave did take some credibility away, something I think Boris has not been fully held accountable for. And somebody did point out on email that the words immigration and small boats were conspicuous in their absence from Clemy's speech. Now, clearly, she, too, is trying to pivot towards the moderates, perhaps the people who went to the Lib Dems last time around because they'd had it up to here with the Conservatives. I mean, she needs to be robust on immigration, but not fall into the reform and restore trap. But equally, she can't fall into a kind of wishy-washy, far too moderate, let's let everyone in Cameroonie trap either, David.
Speaker 3No, of course. And she wasn't. I mean, I get quite annoyed by people saying, why didn't you mention immigration in our speech? You talk about health care or something, you know, this sort of test, you've always got to talk about immigration is sort of daft.
Speaker 1Well, you do in a leader's speech where people haven't trusted your party to keep the borders closed.
Speaker 3I don't think you have to. I mean, she had such a long shopping list of things she had to talk about seriously. You know, everybody knows her view on illegal immigration and indeed on immigration generally. So I don't I don't hold to that. But look, of course, we're going to have to compete with reform on this subject, as is Labour. And I mean, blunt, I'm going to say something outside my party's interest. I hope Shabana actually gets a grip on this properly in the next few years. I mean, she's doing not bad for a Labour MP, frankly, to resolve it because it will always annoy people and it will always make people feel that they're not in control of their own country. All quite perfectly legitimate concerns. So, you know, I think I think I think Cammy's got the balance about right.
Speaker 1But you've always argued, that you don't think general elections are fought on immigration. You think they're fought on the
Speaker 3economy. Well, mostly they're fought on the economy. What they're fought on, broadly speaking, is sort of familial self-interest. You know, I might vote on whether my kids can go to university or whether they're stuck with a long term mortgage and no job for having or whether they can get a house or whether my mum can get a place in hospital.
Speaker 1Whether I can get my child a job or whether that job is going to be taken by a migrant. All of that are drivers, which is why I gave you that
Speaker 3parable about the immigration and job and pay. You know, those are the primary ones. And the reason I said that to you in the past was way back in 2005, I was Shadow Home Secretary. 80 percent of the public said that the immigration was the most important subject. Didn't have the small boats then. It was just immigration generally. Mass immigration under Blair, remember. And 80 percent of the public says it's the most important subject. Thirty five percent of the public, say that we had the best policy on it. Very unusual. And it made no difference at all in the actual election. That was because it was fought on the economy and so on. So it depends on the time. And I think whoever talked about the Boris wave, I'm afraid is right. We let them down on that. No two ways about it.
Speaker 1I mean, he hasn't accepted enough responsibility. Priti Patel came unstuck because she was in denial of it.
Speaker 2We made a terrible mistake. I think there's no two way about it. I think you can explain why we made the mistake. Part of it was Hong Kong. Part of it was Ukraine. But the biggest part of it was post-Covid. We thought that nobody ever wanted to work again and that they'd all gone on furlough. Some had retired early. And if we didn't get in lots of people, we would have no economy. It's always the Treasury getting everything wrong. The Treasury is the worst institution in this country that competes with the Bank of England for incompetence.
Speaker 1My first question when
Speaker 3I ceased to be a cabinet minister in the House was to put to the poor unfortunate Treasury minister, could the minister tell the House, when was the last time the bank or the OBR or the Treasury got a financial forecast right? And of course, the whole House fell about laughing. It never happened.
Speaker 1Sure. But final question, might this Brexit question be the tie that binds the right back together? So let's look at our own again, YouTube community poll on it. Should Britain rejoin the EU? 80% no, 9% yes, 11% keep out, but have closer ties. If he does go with this scheme of either rejoin in the next Labour manifesto, or even closer alignment without any public say whatsoever, then that, as I say, is going to be a clear dividing line. And that could be the catalyst for some kind of right-wing union against such a measure, couldn't it, Jacob?
Speaker 2Well, first of all, can I be sceptical about self-selecting polls, that they have no value at all? I know. Well, hang on.
Speaker 1I know they're not,
Speaker 2but thank you for that. I mean, they're great and they're fun, but they're utterly unilluminating. I want to go back to a point David made much earlier, and that is that people underestimate the intelligence of the British voter. That if you look at the last election, the British voter voted for Lib Dem in seats that would elect a Lib Dem, Labour would be Labour, and Green where it would elect a Green. The next election, the question is, what will voters be thinking? Because if they're thinking what we want to do is to stop a hard left coalition, they will vote for us in some areas and reform in other areas. And whether we like it or not, we will find that a coalition of the right is created by voters, and they will vote for whoever is most likely to win. And I think there will be sufficient information by then so they can make a good guess seat by seat as to where their vote is most useful.
Speaker 3Yes, I can see that. The other criticism I'd make of polls is not whether they're self-selecting, but also they reflect the day and what the public know on the day. And the reason such a divide, if there is a Brexit divide, and if Labour make a promise on going back, then what will happen is that we'll start to discover the price of going back, which has not been talked about yet. Joining the euro, that went well for Greece, didn't it? Yes. Open borders again. Well, that can be given where we are. No one's going to vote for open borders. And depending on whether you're measuring gross or net, £20 to £35 billion annual bill. Yes. And when you start talking about that, this will be a lead weight around Burnham in the public mind.
Speaker 1Are you two prepared to go back into bat for this? Are you two prepared to reinvigorate the Leave campaign if needed, and work across party, including with Reform & Co.? Well, I am.
Speaker 3But look, for reasons I've already given, I mean, I don't like referenda, frankly. I know. Because they embitter people, right? But if it comes to a fight over whether we go into union or not, you know, then, I mean, because there are so many things it would cost us. But if it's a fight over that, likewise. Last time, I will go with Labour members, what would have become Reform members like Farage, and people are like, of course, if that's the fight.
Speaker 1Because it's the tie that binds the red and blue wall. And you need those walls to be together in order to literally have a fortress against the left.
Speaker 2I mean, I think what Burnham is doing is trying to unite the left by taking up increasingly left-wing positions and by playing the Europe card where the left is all on the same side. That has the high risk for him of uniting the right. And I think that is happening to some degree. And I think voters, I mean, David's absolutely right. There is no way voters are going to vote for free movement of people just as we're getting migration under control because of reforms made by Rishi Sunak.
Speaker 1So he's made a catastrophic error. I think so.
Speaker 2I mean, I see why he's doing it, but I think his calculation is wrong and that he will find that this is very damaging to Labour's prospects.
Speaker 3Yeah. If your primary aim is to. Unite the left, there is a risk that you'll unite the right-wing vote against you. That's the risk he's not calculating at all. But again, it comes back to what I said at the beginning. He's had mayoral politics. It's kindergarten politics. He's now in university class and it's quite difficult. And you'll find he's found out on a daily basis that the Daily Tee will be talking about him every day on this basis.
Speaker 1Yes, we will. And on that note, chaps, we're going to leave it there because we've got more Daily Tee coming tomorrow with, I believe, the return of PMQs. What? fun, Jacob, and thank you for being with me for the last two days. We've had fun, haven't we?
Speaker 2It's always a pleasure, yes.
Speaker 1And Tim Stanley will be back in the hot seat tomorrow, 5pm. you
PodcastTranscript AI