Labour Is ‘Hijacking’ British Politics With Brexit Debate | Andrew Neil

After that Brexit referendum, both sides were so exhausted that they had no capacity to do anything.The Remain side could only fall back on a kind of, we was robbed, let's try and stop it approach, which was undemocratic.The Brexit side had been so surprised at winning and put so much effort into winning that they hadn't a clue what to do with it.And you were, around both of you, covering the politics at the time as well.That period from 2016 to 2019, basically the Theresa May years, was the most debilitating, terrible period in British politics that I can remember.The British political class was exhausted, rudderless, incapable of producing or doing anything.

And it took the December 2019 election to break the logjam.So do we want our politics to be hijacked like that again?

There's basically been a bit of self -indulgence on the part of Labour, but there's nothing to worry about because Keir Starmer, like him, wants to give Andy Burnham full -throated support at a by -election.Make him win because that's better for everybody.I wonder if we need to get out our sheet music and try and play the real waltz here, Andrew.I think if an alien had listened to David Lammy, he would think there's no problem at all in the centre of the British government, but that doesn't feel to be the case.

It certainly doesn't.It's a little bit blarney.Blarney from Lamy.Andy Burnham is such a wonderful chap.I've known him, you know.Wes Streeting, he's a wonderful chap.

We worked together with Tessa Jowell.Everybody remembers her.And Keir Starmer, he's getting on with the job.He's a wonderful chap as well.I mean, they sound like the Tories 20 years ago.Everybody's a wonderful chap.

Nothing's wrong.And we're all singing from the same song sheet.I mean, do they think we're zipped up the back?I mean, no one's convinced by this nonsense.And then he says, and of course, we're putting country before party.Oh, no, you're not.

British politics is being hijacked by the internal needs of the Labour Party.That's what now dominates our politics.And until that's resolved, the actual running of the country, the policies we need, the direction we need to go, will play second fiddle to the to the internal dynamics and politics of the Labour Party.We've got a by -election we don't need.We're going to have an election for a new mayor of Manchester that we don't need.We've got people who couldn't organise a coup in Westminster.

We've got Wes Streeting, who says he's doing a great job at the NHS and resigns from running the NHS.I mean, it would give the gang that couldn't shoot straight a bad name.

Is it acceptable, Andrew, that We could have a situation where Makefield, 75 ,000 people, could be determining who our Prime Minister is. I just wonder whether that's morally, I know it's constitutionally fine, but I wonder if it's morally, politically acceptable that he, say he manages to win this Andy Burnham, the feeling is he would beat Starmer in a leadership election if Starmer even fought a leadership election.There's some reporting in the Times that he might not even do that against Burnham.So you have 75 ,000 people being asked to choose the British Prime Minister.

Yeah, I mean, constitutionally, we don't choose a prime minister.We elect MPs, and whoever gets a majority, whoever's leading that is the prime minister.In the end, the prime minister is chosen and is held accountable to parliament.I think the difficulty comes if we change prime ministers in the middle of the parliament, and don't forget, the Tories did it often enough.if we do that, and it results in a complete change of direction.That's the difference.

I think when David Cameron stepped down, that was because he wanted a new prime minister who would implement the Brexit referendum.He was against the way the country had voted.Sounds fair enough.Gordon Brown taking over from Tony Blair, that was continuity.Brown wanted to do things his own way.But Brown had been there for the previous 10 years.

It had been the Blair -Brown double act.That was continuity.But if Andy Burnham thinks he's coming in on a radical prospectus, he does not have a mandate for that radical prospectus.Indeed, you'll remember the Ming vase strategy.of the 2024 election.Let's not be too radical about anything.

That's what the mandate was for.And, you know, Andy Burnham himself once said, when the Tories were in power, if they change prime ministers, there should be a general election.Well, let me let you into a secret.He's not going to say that this time.

It's even more different, Andrew, because actually, I can't think of another occasion, you'll know, tell me if I'm wrong here, where there's someone who's not in parliament, standing at a by -election on a promise to become Prime Minister directly.So the by -election, weirdly, it does elect a Prime Minister.I know not constitutionally, but in terms of the story, we all can see what's happening here.We're saying to these people in Makefield, if you elect Andy Burnham, he will replace Keir Starmer.So in a way, for the first time, perhaps ever in British politics, they are being asked to elect a Prime Minister.

Oh, it's unprecedented.Well, it's almost unprecedented.I mean, when Harold Macmillan stepped down in 63, Alec Douglas Hume became his successor in a mysterious magic circle way that the Tories then chose their leader.Like Andy Burnham, he didn't have a seat in the House of Commons, so the Tories had to find him a seat.It was a Scottish country seat in the days when the Conservatives could count on winning seats in Scotland.And so they got him a seat.

And though they had chosen him as prime minister in advance, what they would have done if he had lost that by election—I think it was in Kinross in West Belshire, somewhere around there, who knows?But here we are having the whole—this is what I mean, the whole British political system hijacked because Labour among the 403 MPs it currently has, cannot find one that is suitable to replace Keir Starmer.So they've had to engineer a by -election to get the favourite son into Parliament, which they hope he'll win in Makefield.And then once he's in, he challenges Keir Starmer, and everybody assumes Either Starmer doesn't run and there's a coronation, or Burnham beats Starmer and Streeting.Either way, as I say, this system has been hijacked.The British people are curmudgeonly lot.

They have this strange view that politics is there to serve them.that they're not there to serve politics.But what Labour is asking the British people to do with this by -election is for the British people to serve politics, not the other way around.They might get quite a comeuppance.

How did we end up here, Andrew?Because our listeners are divided this morning.I mean, some of them, and we heard from David Lamy a bit there, suggesting it's sort of self -indulgent feverish politics and the cycle running away with itself.other people blame the media for sort of, you know, egging on politicians to go down this route.Some people say that the electionare just, you know, bored, don't feel satisfied with anybody.

How do you think we've got here?

We've got here, I think, for two reasons.One, the political class in general is pretty low grade.And I say that on both sides of the commons.The number of standouts, you could count on one hand.And when you have low -grade people, you have low -grade outcomes.That's what we've got now.

I think the second thing is, is that Labour got elected.on a very cautious manifesto, yet said it would solve the enormous problems it was inheriting from the conservatives.Well, the problems were pretty enormous.I don't take that away from them at all.But they couldn't be resolved on a conservative, on a cautious manifesto.And so what we have are politicians talking about policies which are simply not up to the job of dealing with the problems the country faces.

Nobody has an agenda for dealing with the problems we have, both at home and abroad.And I think that results in public dissatisfaction.The public know that what's being proposed isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.Keir Starmer tried to change that last week with his words about incrementalism isn't enough.Then we get a Queen's speech, which is nothing but incrementalism.People sense that our politicians are not proposing the policies that will resolve our problems, and the politicians themselves realize that, too.

And I think one of the reasons why Labour is such a mess now is it's dawned on the Labour Party, in just under two years of being in power, that what it was elected on is no way going to turn the country around the way it needs to be turned around.And that's why we're in this political self -indulgence to try and find a new prime minister that the Labour Party is currently going through.

So is Brexit, is rerunning the Brexit referendum, is rejoining the European Union the answer then?

Well, the fact that Brexit has come back on the agenda plays to my theme.Brexit is back on the agenda, not because the country is gagging to rejoin the European Union.There's a case for rejoining the EU, but that needs to be properly put, and the case against properly put, and the matter debated.If we want to go down that road, it will suck the life out of everything else in British politics, as it did first time round.But it's a bit like Scottish independence.The people of Scotland are gagging for independence.

It comes sixth, seventh, eighth in the issues they think are important to the future of Scotland.Brexit's in the same category.Brexit is back centre stage again because of the internal politics of the Labour Party.Streeting, Starmer, and Burnham all want to be leader of the Labour Party and want to be prime minister.One way of doing that is to be more European than anybody else, because they know the Labour Party is now in a very European, a very Europhile mood.It wants to get back into the EU.

So you appeal that way.We're streeting.comes out and talks about the need to get back into the EU, not just closer, back.Why?To cause maximum embarrassment for Andy Burnham, who said the same thing, but is now fighting a seat which was overwhelmingly for Brexit in the referendum and voted overwhelmingly for reform last week in the local elections.So that's why Brexit's back, not

it would be good or bad for Britain, but because it's become a pawn, a pawn in the internal Labour Party politics.

And just taking that on its own level, does this screw Burnham?Because, as Kate said this morning, he's tried to get a reputation for himself as being sort of honest Andy, give a straight answer to a straight question.But if he's too straight that I want to rejoin the EU, he's going to lose to a reform candidate who can say, I definitely don't want to do that and immobilise a group of people who presumably don't want to do that.And so has Wes Streeting actually played the one card that ruins Andy Burnham?

Well, whether it ruins him or not, we'll see.But he's played the one card that certainly makes life more difficult for Andy Burnham.And, of course, straight Andy didn't last 24 hours.The moment he was in the battle, that interview he gave with ITV, he was all over the place, stumbling and mumbling, vacillating, oscillating, obfuscating, just like a normal politician.You know, the king in the North suddenly looked like just being a normal citizen like the rest of us there.And there'll be more of that.

elections.You know, he now gets the scrutiny of the national press, not the fans with laptops that the Manchester press is.And it's going to be difficult for him because he hasn't got well thought out positions on any national proper national issue.He's as enthusiastic about Britain rejoining the EU as West Streeting.But suddenly he's not saying that anymore because he wants to win a Brexit constituency.So he's just like the rest of them.

He's opportunistic.He will fudge and muddle things to his own advantage.And the by -election, I think, will reveal that.He doesn't walk on water.

Andrew, can you see a a legitimate argument for reopening our membership of the European Union.I mean, some of our listenersmany, I have to say, react pretty strongly, saying whether they voted remain or leave, just the idea of it is just so abhorrent.They don't want to go back, back there at all.But other people say, you know, circumstances have changed.We're in global conflict in a way that maybe we weren't at the time.

And the UK's economy is stronger than European economies.So maybe we have a stronger argument.for making things better for ourselves with better terms.Can you see any legitimate argument for reopening it?

Oh, I think you can make an economic case for Britain being back in the European Union.It's a difficult one.The European Union is now just the slowest growing part of of any advanced economic grouping in the world.It's not a success.It's descending into a mid -technology backwater.It's not in the forefront of any major technological change now.

On the other hand, there's safety in numbers.It's the biggest market on our doorstep.and why not be closer to it?I think in geopolitical terms or in defense terms, reconstituting NATO without America being such a dominant partner is far more important.If we're going to try and build a European defense capability through the EU, we'll all be speaking Russian long before that happens.So I think on defense matters, a post -America EU is still the way forward.

What makes me gulp a little bit is that I watched that referendum.I did all the big interviews for BBC television, the primetime interviews with both sides.And I saw how it really sucked all the bandwidth out of British politics.After that Brexit referendum, both sides were so exhaustedthey had no capacity to do anything.The Remain side could only fall back on a kind of we was robbed, let's try and stop it approach, which was undemocratic.

The Brexit side had been so surprised at winning and put so much effort into winning that they hadn't a clue what to do with it.And you were around, both of you, covering the politics at the time as well.That period from 2016 to 2019, basically the Theresa May years, was the most debilitating, terrible period in British politics that I can remember.The British political class was exhausted, rudderless, incapable of producing or doing anything.And it took the December 2019 election to break the logjam.So do we want our politics to be hijacked like that again?

Well, the problem is that it revealed a lot of the problems you've already pointed out, Andrew, which is that the Brexit as promised was never attainable.So the thing that they said they were going to do, they couldn't do.And therefore, everything that's followed from that, we've had endless negotiations after negotiations after negotiations.Boris Johnson cleared it up by saying, I'm going to do it again.Got a mandate.Didn't do it.

Keir Starmer for the last two years has been promising to renegotiate in a better way.I just wonder, should we not be sick to our back teeth of these characters saying a very complicated real world problem and thinking they've got a sloganised solution for them in any form has proved to be incorrect?

Well, look, I think that There are many major problems that Britain currently faces.Rejoining the European Union, which may in itself be the right thing to do, many people think it is, in itself does not resolve these problems.Because breaking news, many of the problems Britain currently faces areexactly the same problems that the European economies face.Exactly the same.Germany's GDP is no bigger than it was in 2019 before the pandemic.

Shall I say that again?Germany's GDP, Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, its GDP is no bigger than it was seven years ago.France runs an even bigger budget deficit and national debt than we do.Italy has had no growth.Italian industrial production now is lower than it was in the year 2000.So the idea that by rejoining this club, it's suddenly going to help make it possible for us to resolve all our problems.

There may be other reasons for doing it, but we're actually joining a club where the main economies have almost the exact same problems we do.With one added thing that we are now European leaders at, we have more political instability than any other European economy.even including Italy.

Before we talk about short shorts and images, there's a there's a substantive government policy that's just worth reflecting on briefly.Labour's Justice Secretary David Lammy wants parents to face harsher repercussions if they let their children commit crimes.He wants to strengthen parenting orders which can force parents to address their children's behaviour through counselling and guidance or can lead to fines.It's a response to the Southport murders where parents of Axel Rudekamainen were told they failed to act on his erratic and violent behaviour.Andrew, I mean, You probably heard him on this program.He doesn't really want to be banging up parents for the sins of their children.

And I'm sure that won't happen very much.But it's an interesting moral argument at stake.At what point does the state, and Rudi Cabana is a good example of this,should the state actually say, being a parent isn't just a question of physically having a child and hoping it all turns out well.Being a parent means you're responsible for what that child turns out into.

I don't want to be banging up parents, because that would hardly help the children if their parents were in jail.But I do like the drift of this policy.I think David Lammy is right.I think it is time we got back to making sure that parents did take responsibility for their children.We've gone too much the other direction.It's part of our obsession with big government and the big state.

We think the state is more important than the parent, everything from breakfast clubs to taking away the two -child benefit cap.No, no, the parents can't cope.The state will step in.The state will do it.No, we should be building up the importance.of parents acting as parents and taking more responsibility for their children.

That was true.It happened in previous generations.We've lost that in recent years.And I think we'll be a better country, a more socially cohesive country, if parents started taking full responsibility for their offspring again.

And if you see your kid, teenage, late teenage kid, moving around the house with a knife, going on social media platforms and acting in a hostile fashion.You find material in their room that suggests they bear society ill will and you fail to do something about it.Is the state entitled to punish you in some form for that negligence?

Well, I think if you do nothing about it, at this day it is, at least there has to be some incentive for you to do the right thing.Because as a parent, you are failing your role as a parent.You're failing the child, the youngster, and you're failing society.Because clearly, in the description you just gave, thatperson is a danger to the wider society.So there's a triple responsibility on parents to do something about it.

the child is out of control, I'm well aware that can happen, then you have to seek help from the authorities.That is also your duty as a parent.

It'll be really interesting.I think it's subject to a consultation, this policy, so we'll see where it ends up in the end.But it's certainly something to keep an eye on that the government is working on at the moment.Andrew, we've got about a minute and a half left and we thought we'd end, given we have such a short period of time.with some shorts, some short shorts in Pippa's house.She says short shorts are always referred to as Glen Hoddles.

I'm sure lots of you will be able to conjure up.

I can remember the Glen Hoddle, yeah.

Exactly, be able to conjure up what that looks like.But Andrew, when you saw Andy Burnham, Man of the People, in his running kit at the weekend, did you think, yep, that works or no, thank you?

I felt sorry for Andy Burnham because it always happens to me too.When I go for a run, there's a Sky News crew waiting around the corner, ready to hijack me before I can get to the car, which is only half a mile away, and then I can drive back home, which is what I believe Andy Burnham did.I think it's got a wider lesson in this.I think what it shows is that British men, do not do casual.They do not do casual well.Go to any Mediterranean holiday resort and you will have no problem picking out the British men.

You know, on the formal style, the Savile Row suit, the mourning dress, all the rest of it, British style.is the acme of style across the globe.When we go casual, we just don't know how to do it.The Spanish know how to do it, the Italians do, the French do as well, Germans know how to do it.so much, Americans not so much, the British men do.useless, and Andy Burnham just proved the point with these shorts.

certainly do where the British men are just not good at...I mean my goodness on the beach and the Med you can still see some of the men with black socks and sandals.

Is that not better than the budgie smugglers of the French though?I don't wear them anymore.Let me tell you something, Andrew.It is illegal in France to wear anything other than trunks in a swimming pool.

It was the same in Germany.It was a hygiene thing.

It's a hygiene thing.You have to wear the tight -fitting trunks in France, otherwise you get nicked.

Well, I've not been nicked either physically or by the police by not wearing budgie smugglers.And I don't wear them because I think it's a public service.

Well, I'm glad that we've covered all our bases this morning.I'm not going to make a joke about what is or is not covered by short shorts.Andrew, thank you very much.Great to have you with us.

You too.Thank you.Bye bye.

Bye bye.Have a good day.