Speaker 1The Telegraph Andy Burnham takes a tumble as immigration reform is stumped.
Speaker 2So much for a migrant crackdown. The Home Secretary's humiliation means that the hundreds and thousands that came in under the Boris wave will be allowed to stay. Let's be honest, this is a climb down on a supposed crackdown. There's no doubt about it. She's been in a war with people in the Cabinet, including Angela Rayner and indeed Miata Fanbulla and others who have expressed concerns that we're not going to look like we are being friendly enough to refugees. It's for people who are on the left wanting to feather the nest of constituents that are quite happy to have as many people come to this country as possible, provided they're not housed in their own front rooms. Is it true to say that the people who do politics A-level or indeed PPE at Oxford aren't the ones that you pick first for the sports teams?
Speaker 1I wouldn't pick them for Parliament.
Speaker 2No, that's true. That's right. Isn't it amazing after the Emma Reynolds thing, how many people point out, this woman went to Oxford and she didn't learn that employers were also workers. I don't know, just maybe for a block release course. Have you seen the footage of Andy Burnham? Playing cricket. Trying to play cricket in Antigua, trying to make a run, thinking he might be run out or indeed just the ball hits the wicket and he promptly falls over. Who was the Labour politician who fell over in the sea? Neil Kinnock. He fell over on the
Speaker 1beach, I think at Brighton. With his anorak on. The difference being that Neil, being a kind of an unreconstructed bloke, expressed his anger and waved a fist at the sea, whereas Burnham, who is a far cannier, colder fish, I think, just picked himself up and acted as, though it hadn't happened. But it had been raining in Antigua. So? So the ground was slippery. Hang on a minute.
Speaker 2If you're an Englishman and you cannot stay on your feet trying to get a run in cricket,
Speaker 1what's the point of you? The king wasn't happy standing in the pouring rain. I mean, whatever happened to stiff upper lip? I know he's old, but it should be second nature to him.
Speaker 2Umbrenagate, by the way. People are thinking he got a bit too angsty.
Speaker 1He did. I just think being a king, it's all about standing very still while someone cuts the ribbon on the supermarket. I just don't. Isn't that the basic job?
Speaker 2Would QE2 have angrily demanded an umbrella?
Speaker 1Most definitely not. She'd have raised an eyebrow and that would have been enough
Speaker 2to say bring in an umbrella. Also, she would have pulled one out of her Mary Poppins-like never-ending handbag, wouldn't she?
Speaker 1Well, she was a very sensible lady. Yes. She would have just carried one on her. There'd be a rain mac and a small tent in there somehow.
Speaker 2Definitely a headscarf.
Speaker 1But the thing that grinds my gears is ITV's 100 days, first 100 days with Andy Burnham. Now, of course, nothing's. So just to explain, ITV have done. They've done a show about what it's like to be prime minister in your first 100 days. Wow. Now, in terms of public interest, Andy Burnham's done next to nothing in those 100 days. He's just given speeches and demanded that some reports be written. So this is not Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Speaker 2Hang on, there's been little fixes and he's spread hope back across the country.
Speaker 1£2 bus fares. Now, to be fair to ITV, if we were offered 100 days with a new prime minister, we would take it. And I'm not going to criticise journalists for doing their job. But I do feel. that journalists tend to go a bit softer on Labour leaders than they do Tory leaders. Oh, not hard. Remind me, was there a first 100 days of Rishi Sunak? Or in the case of Liz Truss, the first three days? Whatever is the right proportion? It was just a lettuce.
Speaker 2No, I agree.
Speaker 1The first five minutes of.
Speaker 2No, but because inherently the right is seen as evil and therefore not worthy of any kind of warm appraisal whatsoever. And we're going to get onto that in just a minute because of Shabana Mahmood. What's the pin-up of right-wing Tories? But this is all connected.
Speaker 1I'm not just having a moan for nothing because he says in the interview with ITV, I cannot grieve for my father, which is very sad, and I cannot just go into the pub. And I get that. And that's interesting. I always find talking to ex-PMs fascinating because what life is like there is so interesting. But on the other hand, I do feel what Burnham is trying to do is turn being a prime minister into a phenomenon itself. Yes. That you're not elected to do something and you just get on with the job. And the interest. The interesting bit is what you do. Yeah. He's trying to turn the experience of being a prime minister into something like a reality TV show where he provides constant commentary on how he feels about the thing that he is doing.
Speaker 2There's a name for it. It's called prime ministerism. Oh, right. Because that's what he does with any kind of phenomena that he's involved in. He adds ism to the end of it. I'm a mayor of Manchester. Therefore, I am a proponent of Manchesterism. As a prime minister, I am a proponent. I am a proponent of prime ministerism as somebody who likes pork scratchings. I am a proponent of pork scratchings-ism. And this whole thing about being in the pub, by the way, he can go to the pub. Do you know what? I was with somebody only yesterday who said that they saw him at the Marcus of Granby in St. James's Park. So he's going to the pub and he's got John Healy there as chancellor celebrating a budget that everyone hated by drinking a pint and putting the glass on his head, which, by the way, one landlord pointed out was a breach of licensing laws. Really? He wasn't meant to go behind the bar and do that by downing pints. So he's talking nonsense. But on Manchesterism, in other words, we've got that new set of Collins' words of the year 2026. So should we channel our inner Susie Dent because one of them is relevant to the Daily Tea? Yes. It's mogging. Mogging. Now, does that mean when Jacob Rees-Mogg comes in and replaces you when you're on your hollybobs?
Speaker 1I assume. I honestly, when I first heard this word, thought it was. It was related to Jacob Rees-Mogg and that people were saying that Jacob, they turned Jacob into a verb.
Speaker 2Yes. What would it be if it were that? To mog, it would be to wear double-breasted suits, to only have instant coffee and to shun any sort of exotic food.
Speaker 1I think it is to be totally modest and superior at the same time. Yes. That's how I've always felt about Jacob.
Speaker 2But there is another word for that in Gen Z slang. It's the humble brag.
Speaker 1The humble. Yeah, but I'm saying he doesn't. He doesn't do it consciously. I will be very careful because he is a friend. But there's something about Jacob. On the one hand, he's never saying or doing anything which I feel is purposefully designed to make me feel inferior. But, oh, I feel inferior when I'm in his company. Yes. Socially and intellectually. Mogora, so to speak. I feel like I ought to bring him something on a silver platter.
Speaker 2Do you know what mogging actually is? No. Okay. Mogging, apparently, is a word used by Gen Zs and Alphas, meaning to outshine or outperform someone or something. So it is. It is that a little bit, isn't it? It is that.
Speaker 1That's exactly what Jacob does.
Speaker 2So why is it not being attributed to Jacob when clearly it is a Jacob-esque skill?
Speaker 1Because apparently it refers to AMOG, internet slang for Alpha Male of the Group.
Speaker 2Oh, my God. Has this been inculcated by incels? Is this something that Andrew Tate has created?
Speaker 1What's going on here? Well, I'm the only male in this group, but I'm not the Alpha.
Speaker 2It's basically a playful and ironic way when someone is upstaged. It's had a two-hour break. It's a 210% increase in usage in 2026. Mogging has firmly entered mainstream language this year, becoming widely used online and as part of everyday conversation. I do believe, by the way, that.
Speaker 1Not my conversation.
Speaker 2Lady Rees-Mogg, Helena, is writing a piece for The Telegraph today on mogging, which we should link to our show notes. A couple of other Collins words of the year. Let me test you on them. Do you know what car spreading is? No. Car spreading is the technology. Tendencies of manufacturers to build cars that are longer, wider, and heavier. Those 4x4s driven around the home counties by. Oh, yes, I hate those. Mums on the school run. Oh, this is a good one.
Speaker 1Fricy. Fricy, no.
Speaker 2It's a mixture of fruity and spicy. Okay. He's a bit fricy, you could say. Finally, you know what a hydration break is?
Speaker 1Oh, when you stop to have some water.
Speaker 2That's right. And why is it being popularised? Tennis? It was because of the World Cup this year.
Speaker 1Oh, yes, because they kept stopping to have water like children at school with their milk.
Speaker 2Okay, and this is another one which may or may not be associated with this current Labour government ghost job.
Speaker 1I don't know.
Speaker 2A job advertised by an employer who has no intention of appointing anyone to perform it.
Speaker 1Ah, that's actually very relevant and brings us nicely on to our next subject. Shabana. Shabana Mahmood has announced plans for indefinite leave to remain for people who arrived in the Boris wave and were exposed to the virus. We're expecting to get visas after five years, but now we'll have to wait up to 15 years in the case of some refugees, 20 or even 30 years. But she has carved out exceptions. She's carved out exceptions for people who came here to work in social care, including for people who came here and did no caring. Yes. It's a sort of special second chance visa for people who had the right intention but didn't actually do it. And that was in part because they were sometimes brought here for jobs that did not exist. Now, what Mahmood would say, did say in her statement in Parliament yesterday. Which you watched. Which I watched. I was there. is she is cleaning up a Tory mess. And it is worth pausing to reflect upon what a social disaster the Boris wave actually was. Yes. In this country today, one in every 30 people arrived between the years 2021 and 2025. Which is crazy. One in every 30. They arrived in response to. the pandemic and lockdown, which left many job vacancies, including vacancies of between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs in the care sector. The number of people who came to fill those jobs? 616,000. Crazy. Of the 679,523 visas that were issued between 2022 and June 2026, a staggering 413,711 were for dependents. Yes. So not
Speaker 2people caring at all, just the family members of those who were appealing to come here to be carers.
Speaker 1Et cetera. So what she has done is made it tougher for people who came for every other kind of job to get a visa, tougher requirements on your earnings, tougher requirements on the earning period. And she's framing it as you have to earn this now, because the left is saying this is retrospective and unfair. Whatever you think of it, people came believing they would be able to apply after five years. And now you're saying, no, you have to wait. And what she's saying is, well, because I have to balance the unfair impact upon the British people with the unfair impact upon the migrant's life. And so the formula she has come up with is you can earn this through doing work, through social contribution. You can also have years added to how long you have to wait. And so that's what she's saying. You don't have to wait for a visa if you do things like go on benefits. So she's saying that we're going to move from you automatically getting this to you earning it. But the carve out is for social care, even though that is arguably the most high profile and controversial element of it, especially given that many of the jobs had a very low bar for what you could get in on. And people didn't even hit that low bar because they were brought in, as I say, to do jobs that weren't actually there. And what she is saying is that people didn't even hit that low bar because they were brought in, as I say, to do jobs that weren't actually there. And what she's saying is not just that, OK, five years, just do the work for five years and then you can apply. But she's also saying if you came here and you weren't here to work, if you didn't hit that very low bar, you too could apply. Yes. If you do the work, that's the second chance element. So this is a very liberal policy that she's introducing.
Speaker 2It's basically saying, broken down, that out of the nearly two million people that came in on that Boris wave associated with social care, 1.4 million of them will be able to stay. And that is completely contrary, I think, to the British view.
Speaker 1It's contrary to what she herself said a year ago at a time when Keir Starmer referred to Britain becoming an island of strangers, how things have changed.
Speaker 2And she acknowledged that if she did water down the indefinite leave to remain plan, it would cost the taxpayer £10 billion because you'd then have to account for dependents and others coming and claiming benefits and not contributing to the system. That's seems to have now been blown out of the water. Oh, no matter. It's a little bit like we need to house migrants in middle class areas so that other areas take their share. Oh, Prime Minister, it's going to cost the taxpayer more. Oh, never mind. This is the same principle because this is politics and ideology over practicality and common sense. And we know, by the way, that the research on this was skewed because she's boasted, the Home Secretary, of having carried out a consultation. Has anyone in the history of the world ever been included in a government consultation? But who are these mythical people that are included in consultations?
Speaker 1Over 200,000 people replied,
Speaker 2of which 73% were people currently in receipt of a visa or in the process of applying for a visa. Just a tiny proportion were actually British citizens. So you haven't asked the general British public about this. You've basically asked people with a vested interest in being given indefinite leave to remain. So on one hand, the policy seems quite right wing. It does seem like a departure from the kind of Diane Abbott-esque Corbynista era in saying to people, well, first of all, there is a number of conditions you just have to meet to even be considered to apply for this. And that is English to A-level standard, no criminal record whatsoever, an ability to earn over a certain amount. You have to also prove that you haven't claimed benefits for a certain period. So in that regard, it does seem more right wing than what has gone before when it comes to the Labour government. But let's be honest, this is a climb down on a supposed crackdown. She has basically caved into that. So it's not friendly to refugees.
Speaker 1I do want to say if you came here in an illegal route, you can end up waiting up to 30 years.
Speaker 2So you should if you came here illegally.
Speaker 1Yeah, I'm just saying that it.
Speaker 2The Faragean argument, which is which other country? There was a perfect video to illustrate this. It was filmed by Steve Edgington of GB News where he asked a series of people why they had come to the UK. And they included this very nice, quite elderly Filipino. Woman who turned around and said on camera, the reason I've come to the UK is that I get treatment on the NHS for free. I've got a heart condition. If I got it treated in my native Philippines, it would cost me thousands of pounds. So I've come to Britain to have the treatment for free. Yes. She was working. Okay, she was.
Speaker 1Fair enough. She was working.
Speaker 2But at the same time, to what extent is any of this sustainable? Is it sustainable to allow the vast majority of those who came in under the Boris wave to stay, albeit with conditions attached? And by the way, is it sustainable to support dependents who, unlike the Filipino women, aren't actually working and may be being an economic drag on the state at a time where we don't have any money and Labour are adding 306 billion to the national debt in this parliament alone?
Speaker 1Yeah. Well, it was also opposed by Unison behind the scenes, who of course represent a lot of social care workers. I think this point about the survey is very interesting because it goes to the heart of how politics works. Why is it that the public keeps voting for something at a general election and something very different happens when whatever party enters government? Well, watching the debate around the measures in parliament, I was struck by the number of MPs who stood up and said, I have a constituent. He is here on a visa. He has a wife and kids and he's very concerned about his future. The point being, if you're an MP, who writes to you about this stuff? Not someone who isn't affected. The person who is here on the visa and worrying about their indefinite leave to remain. So because being an MP is a little bit like being a social worker, you end up fighting the cause of the people who get in touch with you. And those are the people who want a more liberalised immigration system. And there was a moment when the penny dropped in all of this because, of course, it's a bit like a budget. The Home Secretary rushes through a whole raft of measures quicker than you can keep up. And all the detail is buried in a document that you're not given. And MPs are handed out right there and then. They're supposed to respond. And very often, they'll stand up and ask a question. And the Home Secretary will say in a supercilious manner, well, you clearly haven't read it. No, I haven't. I've just been handed a copy of it. So Sarah Olney, the Lib Dem, and the Lib Dems believe that these measures are regressive and too horrible and too mean and that sort of thing. But Sarah Olney stood up and she's made this point. I have a constituent. They have dependents. So that could be wife, husband, children. And what they want to know is, I've understood what you've said about the new visa regime for social carers. But what about everyone else in the household who's not employed in social care? Because this is what's running through my head. If the real controversy is not the workers that came, but the dependents, then if the policy is all about changing the visa requirements for the workers, tell me. At no point in her statement did she say what happens to the dependents. No. So Olney said, so I have this worker who has these dependents. What happens to them? And Shabana Mumud said, oh, they can stay.
Speaker 2Yes. But what have they done to earn their right to stay?
Speaker 1Their application is done. So the wife or the husband or the partner or whatever, their application will be considered at the same speed as the social care worker who can now do it after five years. And there is an exemption for kids that basically makes it very easy for them to stay in the country, too. And one may well say quite right, too. So that's the problem, you see, is the issue of the dependents. And there is a bias within politics towards doing the nice thing, because that sounds jolly nice.
Speaker 2Yeah, but it's not nice to those who suffer as a consequence because they can't access public services. I mean, this whole, what isn't there an acceptance on the left that you can have too much of a good thing? You can say, yes, you can say, immigration to this country over the course of the last 50 years has generally been good, been a good thing. You can say that in general, if you want to believe this and if that is your conceit, so to speak, that immigration is generally a good thing. If you're on that side of the argument saying economically, it's a good thing. Societally, it's a good thing. It's good for us to have a diverse population here. It's good to have people coming in, bringing skills from other countries to enrich what it means to be British. You can have that argument, but surely you must have a degree of restraint with that argument. You must have a You must be able to reflect on that all time figure of nearly a million in 22 to 23, 945,000 people coming in under the Boris wave and say, hang on a minute, that's just too much. Because if you want it to be a good thing, you've got to have proper assimilation. You've got to have proper integration. You can't have this massive flux where you then have communities in silos inside other communities with resentment building up. And then, oh, lo and behold, protests when yet more migrants come in, either legally or illegally. That isn't the way to do it sensibly. Similarly, the reason why, and it's ironic that it was Johnson's policy in the first place, that Australian points based system appealed to large swathes of the public, is it seemed not just more sensible, but resolutely fairer. What skills can you contribute that we do not have? And remember those occupation shortage lists? I mean, if we aren't training enough doctors and nurses. And our population is becoming older. And by the way, there has been a huge immigrant influx. Then we are going to need more people working in the NHS. If we're going to set up a national care service, we are going to need more carers. And if British workers aren't willing to do these jobs, we'll have to import foreign labour. But equivalently, at no point was there any points attributed, probably quite understandably, to dependents that weren't working at all or contributing and possibly claiming benefits in NHS care.
Speaker 1Yeah. So one thing the left never explained. One of the things the left never acknowledges is that people lie. So Chris Philp, the Tory shadow Home Secretary, pointed out that one pizza branch, branch of a pizza delivery company, had employed 78 people on a skilled visa. Right. The second thing they don't acknowledge is that there is a cumulative effect to being charitable. So this is my point, is whatever it's welfare debates, whether it's refugee debates, I watch and I see MP after MP stand up and say, I have this hard case. Yeah. He is depressed. Yeah. He needs a car. Yes. And that may well be. And I'm sure if I met that individual, I would give him the car. But if four and a half million people ask for a car. No. We're in trouble.
Speaker 2At one point, you've got to say no. But also, by the way, visas have been issued by all sorts of. I mean, investigations have been carried out into vape shops, barbershops, goodness knows what else, applying for skilled visas like they're Morgan Stanley. And it's just a news agent somewhere in Bradford.
Speaker 1There was a very funny moment when a backbench Labour MP said. How does the government define a vape shop? And the minister who was asked said, it is a shop that sells vapes. You know, that's the level. We're back to the question of what does PPE at Oxford get you in life? Oh, my goodness. But the key thing here for me is immigration is a numbers game. It's all about the numbers. And when you reach a point when there's too many people, it leads to depressed wages, collapse of services and a failure to integrate. And it becomes controversial and it actually pours doubt upon immigration itself. In principle, this is something the left just doesn't get. I was intrigued listening to Mahmood talk. And we need to discuss her political personality and the strange fetish that many on the right have had for her. Long found odd. She kept talking about rules based order. Citizenship is based upon a kind of social contract of rights and responsibility. I was thinking, no, it's not. I'm British, right? If I want to go and live in a caravan in a forest and never see anyone ever again. And never pay any taxes or never contribute anything to charity. I might be a bum, but I'm a British bum. Yeah, you don't you don't take it. That that's not what defines whether or not I'm British or a British citizen. And by the way, I will retain rights if the police choose to knock on my door and break in without a warrant in my sad little caravan. David Davis, some libertarian Tory MP, will stand up and defend me because I was born with these rights. Yes. My point of citizenship is it's not this weird social contract. The left imagines itself, imagines it to be. And likewise with immigration, I have no desire to spend billions of pounds on integrating people. I think that's considered a vast waste of money. If they don't want to integrate, it's entirely up to them. The question is numbers. The question is simply, if you take too many people, all these things become problems. And then we start to have to have this conversation, which can be applied retrospectively to the British people. Well, citizenship, of course, is a contract. So it's all about your behavior as well as the immigrants behavior.
Speaker 2No, it's not. But also, it's a typical labor conceit, and Andy Burnham is the master at this, of refusing to give figures. So we had this with Emma Reynolds when I said, how much are you going to cut the welfare bill by? I can't give you a figure now. We can't talk in arbitrary figures. We are going to table legislation which will introduce reforms, which will blah-de-blah-de-blah. And I thought, well, if you cannot put a figure on how much you should cut a bill that is going up by 30 billion by 2030. Yes. If you can't even say how much of the. Should be cut, let alone how much of the original should be cut, then literally, what's the point of you? You're crunching numbers in the Treasury. Similarly, in his 100 Days interview, we have Burnham prevaricating literally over whether or not the migration numbers should come down or not.
Speaker 1Because he can't tell if immigration is too high in this country.
Speaker 2He cannot tell.
Speaker 1It's around 171,000 net, which is too high, by the way. I mean, it's way, way down. I mean, Labour boasted it's cut immigration by 82%. Well done. But that's from historic highs.
Speaker 2There was nowhere else for it to go, Tim. We had David Cameron talking about tens of thousands. That was promptly abandoned. But what I mean is this whole all things to all men Burnhamism, which is I'm not even going to have the political courage of my convictions to take a position on whether immigration is too high or not. When we literally had Centre for Social Justice reports out in recent weeks saying that four in five new jobs. Had gone to foreign workers. You're wondering what's happened to the economy. You're wondering why we've got a youth unemployment crisis. You're wondering why we've got nearly one million needs. You're making it impossible for small businesses to survive in this country and therefore employ anyone British seemingly. Because unfortunately, as you say, mass migration of unskilled workers has depressed wages. That whole left wing experiment. Oh, it boosts the economy. No, it doesn't. Because we've had sclerotic growth now for the last 15 years. No matter. And you as prime minister cannot even take a position in an interview with ITV as to whether the numbers are too high or not, because you're too afraid of what exactly. Making a decision that might alienate some of your backbenchers. You've got a massive majority. So he's also being stymied by starmerism. This like I've got to just flap about in the wind because if I take a position on anything, Rachel Maskell isn't going to like it. Diane Abbott's going to stand up in the house and say something totally. Predictably socialist about giving everybody else's money to anyone she can find. It's just it's so lacking in kahunas.
Speaker 1It's depressing. I'm not sure it's that tactical. I go back to what we were saying at the beginning about Annie Burnham is trying to turn Burnham in number 10 as a phenomenon, trying to make it into a viral thing. And so everything is about starting conversations and having dialogues. Is immigration too high or too low? I mean, if it's for us to have debates
Speaker 2and dialogues, it's not for the. It's for the government to make decisions. Also, by the way, on kahunas, Mahmoud has bigger kahunas seemingly. Well, we thought she did. We thought she did. And now she's been castrated by the rest of the cabinet.
Speaker 1Yeah. I mean, she is against free movement with Europe, which is interesting. There does seem to be some red lines in her head that have vanished in Andy Burnham's. And this point about him making everything into a phenomenon. He did not come into this job with a plan. We should be asking right now about the health of the 10 year plan. Stalin gave us five years. Burnham is proposing 10 years. Now, we were told that we'll hear this before Christmas. Now, you think about the other conversations that we're waiting to hear the end of. Alan Milburn has got reports coming out on NEETs. Stephen Timms has got reports coming out on welfare reform.
Speaker 2Louise Casey has got 15 reports coming out.
Speaker 1Louise Casey has got a report on social care. We are going to get a spending review next year. And we're also still waiting. We're still waiting for a plan to show us how we get to 3%. Now, if this 10 year plan is going to come out before Christmas, how can it? Because it cannot make spending commitments, given that those conversations that Andy is currently having have not yet been resolved. In other words, the 10 year plan is gloss on panic. Yes. He had no idea he would be elected. He had no idea he would be prime minister. Yeah. And so he's come into office with a vague philology. He's come into office with a vague philosophy, but absolutely no plan of how to run the country.
Speaker 2Well, yes. How ironic, because he keeps on going on about these policies giving the public breathing space.
Speaker 1Yes. All he's trying to do is give him breathing space. The breathing space is all for him.
Speaker 2Because he can't make up his mind about anything, Tim.
Speaker 1Yes. I do think the right is trying to identify a kind of a grand socialist vision. And language like 10 year plan does suggest there is one. I think the reality is the reason why there was nothing in the budget. Is because they are literally just going to sit back and wait to see globally what happens with the economy. Yeah. And if there is some growth, they will spend it.
Speaker 2If there isn't, they'll tax it. Socialism is much easier if you inherit a great set of economic figures. Yes. Then you have got loads of people's money to burn. Yes. When there's nothing left, it's much harder to make those arguments. And that's why that budget announced absolutely nothing. Yes. But had the aura. of trying to suggest that the poor were being helped out in some way. Of course, it doesn't help out anybody to put 4p off a jar of gherkins and make it impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to employ everyone. And by the way, maintain the premise that anyone that runs their own firm or is a sole trader isn't, ergo, a worker.
Speaker 1Yes. What we can definitively say is Starmerism is dead. And Shabana Mahmood's statement was the end of it because she is the most right-wing, the most blue-labour minister. Blue-labour's dead? Blue-labour is dead. Yeah. She is the minister who Michael Gove described as gorgeous and fantastic and said that if you went on his computer, you'd find he'd spent hours looking at images of her. A little bit weird. So the fantasy that there was this right-wing version of Labour in the government has now vanished. And she has been defeated, as you said, by cabinet pressure, by the trade unions. But also, look at it from Shabana Mahmood's point of view. She is spoken of as a future prime minister. She does not want to burn her relationship. She does not want to burn her relationship with the left. And she sees the Boris wave as a Tory problem. Why should she do things that will alienate the left of her party in order to clean up after the Tories? Yeah. So I think what she has done is tragic because we all hoped there was some common sense in this cabinet. But politically makes perfect sense and is a signal to the rest of us. This is a soft left government and is going to continue to make decisions that are soft left.
Speaker 2But can I also just. Rana Kocan horses through another misconception. There is no such thing as a right-wing lefty. A right-wing lefty isn't a right-winger. It's a right. It's a left of centre lefty. Yes. It's not a hard lefty. Yes. But it's never a righty. This idea that somehow in a different world, Mahmood could run the Conservative Party. What are people talking about? OK, at best, a right-wing lefty is a centrist. Yeah. At best. Yeah. We can have lefties. We can have right-wing righties. But you can't have right-wing lefties. So all of this talk about Labour rights being blue, they're not blue. You can even have a debate about Blair when it comes to immigration. I mean, he might have been perfectly comfortable with people becoming filthy rich. He was also perfectly comfortable completely opening up our borders.
Speaker 1To be fair, there are individual MPs like Jonathan Hinder, who has recorded a video about mass migration, saying it destroys wages. So all the things that we would argue. I know, but he's in the Red Wall.
Speaker 2So there are constituency immigration righty lefties. But I think we've reached. But they're doing that for political expediency, Tim.
Speaker 1But I think we. No, no, no. To be fair, I think him, Dan Cardell, I think there is a small caucus of genuinely quite culturally conservative Labour members.
Speaker 2But I think ideologically deep down, they are pro-immigration and they are very. Oh, I don't know. They're uncomfortable with things, with phrases like hostile environment.
Speaker 1I think that's unfair. I think they genuinely do have a critique of mass migration. What I would say to them is, you're in the wrong party. Yes. Labour is. It's no longer the party of Jim Callaghan, you know, their hero. It's not anymore. It is the lanyard class. You're in the party of the. It is the public sector class. So you're just around the wrong people. I'm not sure where they could go to. I think reform is too economically right-wing. I think the Tories is just not a good choice. But there is this tiny, tiny caucus of people in Parliament who are economically left-wing, culturally right-wing, and they just don't have a party. And it's not going anywhere, and they never will get a party. It just. There is no kind of political purchase in this.
Speaker 2The other thing that always warms my cockles is a degree of champagne socialism. So just as lefties can't be righties, lefties can, however, enjoy the finer things in life. And we've seen this now with Andy Burnham, who's come under fire after his taxpayer-funded jet flew 29 minutes from Stansted Airport to Manchester to pick him up before his trip to the Caribbean. Now, is this how this is now going to work? And again, this contact I saw yesterday was saying this whole number 10 north and number 10 south thing is quite an interesting dynamic because you'd previously just have to deal with one office. Now you're dealing with two, and they're in competition with each other for the prime minister's ear. So we've now got a situation where this prime minister who wants to be half up north, half down south is actively costing the taxpayer money. I mean, did nobody tell him, was there no memo saying that to be prime minister, you largely have to operate from the capital because there's this. There's this place called Downing Street. Yes. Which is just near the Cenotaph where prime ministers have been hanging out for centuries. Yes. So we're now. And second of all, was there not a train? I mean, presumably this has been in the diary for quite some time. I think we've known about Chogham for a year and a half. Chogham? The Commonwealth's heads of government meeting in Antigua, right? Chud. Chud. So didn't someone say, oh, listen, you're going to have to come down from Manchester before you take that flight? You should be taking it from Stansted. Instead, he takes a private jet at a time when.
Speaker 1Well, there is a coach, you know.
Speaker 2There is a National Express.
Speaker 1There's a coach for about 15 quid.
Speaker 2Reminds me of that Divine Comedy song. But I just find this unbelievable when you again reflect on Fanbulla, the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband and others constantly banging on about net zero. Oh, it's crazy. And yet we get in private jets at the drop of a hat. I appreciate there are security reasons for prime ministers having to travel in this method. But from Manchester to London? Are you joking? I think the prime minister should have a private train
Speaker 1like Kim Jong-un.
Speaker 2Do you know the royal train, unfortunately, has been revealed to be extremely costly per journey and it would be the same if there was a prime ministerial train.
Speaker 1But there still is a royal train.
Speaker 2No, it kind of got put into sidings. I went on it once with Prince Philip. OK. It's very chintzy.
Speaker 1Does it have chandeliers and soft chairs?
Speaker 2It had armchairs that wouldn't have looked out of place on a set of Coronation Street. Tim, we need to decide whether we're going to do PMQs. Tomorrow, because it's the reserves. It's those on the bench. Louise Haig for the prime minister and Alex Burkhardt for Kemi Badenock.
Speaker 1Hold the phone, Louise. Isn't there something else happening tomorrow?
Speaker 2Oh, we've got to reflect on the midterms.
Speaker 1We've got to reflect on the midterms.
Speaker 2Trump-ism. Is it dead, alive or on life support? We'll be covering all that. Shall we do both? Let's do both. Domestic and foreign.
Speaker 1Tomorrow, 5pm. Indeed.
Speaker 2We'll be right back.
PodcastTranscript AI