‘Starmer Dipped His MPs' Hands In BLOOD’ | ‘PM Has Nowhere To Go But Home’

The obvious starting point is, Dan Hodges, if you're innocent, why wouldn't you just refer yourself to the Privileges Committee, do it, be cleared, and get on with running the bloody country?Because even the Tories, by the way, who were slagged off quite rightly at the end, didn't hold a vote.Johnson went and faced up to it.This man is duplicitous at the very least, isn't he?

Well, yes, I mean, he is duplicitous.And I mean, I think that's one of the two.That's one of the two main reasons why he played it the way he did yesterday.I mean, firstly, obviously, before the vote, we had we had two evidence sessions, actually, we had Sir Philip Barton, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, followed by Morgan McSweeney, obviously, Keir Starmer's former chief of staff, and their evidence confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt, although to an extent it's been confirmed for weeks, that Keir Starmer did lie on two specific cases.Firstly, when he said due process was followed, and Philip Barton very articulately and forensically demonstrated that due process hadn't been followed completely.quite the opposite, in fact.

And also the broader issue in relation to whether or not pressure had been brought to bear.And both McSweeney and Barton, in different ways, confirmed, obviously, pressure had been brought to bear.So the case against Keir Starmer had been proven.And that's one of the reasons why he didn't want to go in front of the committee.The other reason, though, is the political optics.And this, in a sense, goes to the heart of why this is so damaging for Starmer, because obviously the entire country well remembers Keir Starmer berating on a daily basis Boris Johnson, exposing what he regarded as Boris Johnson's sleaze, Boris Johnson's own lies to the House of Commons.

And when Boris Johnsonthat if at any point he does appear before the committee then it's...

But let me jump in.I get that and we'll do it forensically.Didn't want to go in front of the committee optics.Absolutely agree with you about the Boris Johnson thing.But the optics, Dan, From lying and forcing his own MPs through the lobby to be part of this cover -up, the optics are now even worse, because I would respectfully suggest that probably 80 or 90 % of this country think this man is a liar.So by not facing the music in this desperate -what -attempt -to -hold -on -to -your -job...

I mean, there isn't a legacy.He's trashed in my mud.I don't understand the decision -making.He's in a corner of his own making.He might as well put his hands in the air, shouldn't he?

Yes, but I mean, the reality is, in relation to, as you say, his broader political legacy, he needed to put his hands in the air a couple of months ago.I mean, if you remember, there was that weekend where a lot of people were speculating, he'd gone down to checkers, he was on his own.A lot of people were speculating this could be it.And that was kind of Keir Starmer's last opportunity to get out of this process with a degree of dignity.He could, in a sense, at that point, have got ahead of the scandal, basically said mistakes were made.They weren't all my mistakes, but I'm the prime minister.

I should take responsibility.And that could have gave him the opportunity then for a dignified exit.What we're seeing now We saw it with Boris, we've seen it with previous prime ministers.Keir Starmer has run out of road now.with this scandal.He's backed himself into a corner with both his lies and with his management of this crisis.

So what you're seeing is someone who just has nowhere else to go and no other cards to play.Because you were very, very accurate in your opening.The reality is that there's a lot of spin going around today, obviously from Downing Street for others, Keir Starmer's supporters, and obviously to an extent from some of Keir Starmer's opponents.But everybody in Westminster who has any experience in Westminster knows the truth about what happened last night.The size of the rebellion was too big.for Keir Starmer.

Yeah, there's a lot of, oh look, it was only 14 MPs who voted against and they're the usual suspects.Absolutely right.But as you said, it's the very high number of Labour MPs who abstained.We haven't quite got the details because obviously there will have been a couple who couldn't make it back.I think for example Yvette Cooper was in...

Yeah but there were 53 abstentions and I think we found out that three were travelling but those other 50 were back in the chamber an hour and a half later.

Now here's where the numbers are important.So you're looking at on what was effectively a confidence motion on what was a three -line whip and, crucially, was a Tory motion.Labour MPs do not like going through the lobbies for form's sake to oppose their party on a motion which has effectively been constructed by their opponents.That's kind of one of the unwritten rules.Despite that, over 60 MPs rebelled.Now, in terms of the practical reality of House of Commons party management, Stalmer's majority is is 140.

So what you actually do, you take around about 70 MPs, you double that because of what the effect they would have if they ever voted against him on various issues.And that's basically his majority gone.But more importantly, we are now into, and this is the thing that Keir Starmer knows this morning and Downing Street knows, and the Labour Party knows, The number of MPs required to force a leadership challenge is in the region of 80.That's broadly the ballpark we were in last night.And that has introduced a different component to this.One of the things that even ministers and MPs who have spent the last week telling me The game was basically up for him.

The one thing they said is, we don't see where the 80 names come from.If push comes to shove, to force a contest, well, we can very, very clearly see where it comes from now.And that of itself is going to change the dynamic.Because Starmer now knows, and the rest of the parliamentary party know, that if he does try and dig in, and he does keep digging in, there are very clearly the numbers there.to force a contest on them.

And I'd hope that some of them have consciences, Dan.Hate to be told a certain way to vote.And I suspect that a lot of the headlines today, they are now complicit.I mean, somebody said to me earlier, the thing is, you know, whether we were three line whipped or not, the fact of the matter is, you know, we need to put this behind us and get on with dealing with the problems in the country.The country is going to see this as we elected you, you know what the truth is, and you were more interested in holding on to your own political seat or your own survival in terms of politics than you were doing the right thing.and then the emails will start into the boxes and they'll go oh bugger if this man's leading us I'm gonna lose my seat anyway that is also part of this whole situation but just to bring it back because you've been totally involved in this I keep asking this question I think I probably asked you a Monday so if I did I apologize my friend is this man so arrogant with his majority or arrogant as a human being that he doesn't smell, doesn't feel, doesn't hear what's going on?

Or is he...And I can't...I'm not trying to be rude.Or is he just politically not up to it?Is he thick?Because there cannot be anybody with a bloody brain shell, Dan Hodges, that doesn't go, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

You spend your life only speaking when a focus group tells you what to do.What were you thinking, man?Mandelson was always going to be the end of the road, which is why I get caught online, you say, oh, it's conspiratorial.Is it?What has Mandelson got on this lot?Because my six -year -old wouldn't have given Mandelson that job.

He'd have seen the dangers.That's what I don't get, Dan, at all.

Well, there's a lot to unpack there, but to go back to your central point, I mean, there's a couple of things.As I've written today in the Daily Mail, one of the damaging things, one of the things last night, is it wasn't, last night was not just damaging for Keir Starmer personally, it was also very damaging for the Labour Party for the reason you just described and that others are reporting this morning.Up until yesterday this was Keir Starmer's scandal.This is now the Labour Party's scandal.He dipped his MP's hands in the blood yesterday.And as I say, the stain is going to take some time to fade away because of this.

They are all now complicit in this, those who voted with him.But on the broader point, again, this is something I wrote about.if you remember, Keir Starmer did an interview over the weekend in which he came up with the comment, you know, people don't understand, it's all being whipped up, my MPs, all my MPs support me, it's all being up by the media, there's the silent majority, they just want to get on, yadda yadda yadda.As I said, we saw graphically illustrated yesterday, that's just not the case.And that's why Keir Starmer and Downing Street and the Labour whips were blindsided by the size of the Labour rebellion.But the reason for that is, it's not that Keir Starmer's thick, he's a but I would, a man of very high intelligence.

No, he doesn't seem to use his intelligence, mate.No, but he's politically, he doesn't understand politics.And also, and this happens, we see this frequently with prime ministers.When you get to the end game, because people have to remember, it's not just Keir Starmer's job on the line, right?It's the job and careers of a significant number of people around him who are part of the Downing Street machine, right?And what happens is, It becomes like, it becomes analogous to that famous downfall video that always does the rounds on social media every time we get to a crisis of this, where you see Adolf Hitler screaming at his generals, you know, where is Steiner?

You know, where are the reserves?You know, the last days of the bunker in Berlin.And that's what we're seeing playing out now politically.He's got people around him who are genuinely not explaining to him what's going on.what the real political realities are, because they know, if they do set out to him in very, very graphic terms, what the political realities are, at that point, he is going to walk away and they're all going to lose their jobs as well.So he is suffering from a bunker mentality.

And as I said, when he wrote, when he said in the Sunday Times,actually, it's all just, it's all just getting whipped up and the vast, the silent majority of my MPs back me, he genuinely believed it.And I guess he genuinely believes it believes it this morning, but the reality is the opposite, is MPs don't...

But the truth is you see, when you say, and I get why you're saying he genuinely believes it, there will be people in this country who say he genuinely believes what he says.I'm just astonished, I'm being straight with you here, that... for somebody that you describe as intelligent, whether you've got political nails or not, you know when you're lying, you know when you're up a creek without a paddle, and you know absolutely when you're going to be caught out.Can I give you some news which I'm sure you know about?Obviously we heard this earlier, there are rumours today, well in the paper apparently he's privately offered Angela Rayner a return to cabinet, which is interesting, which led us to speculate on whether he's going to bring back the anti -corruption minister found guilty of corruption in Baghdad, not Baghdad, Bangladesh of course, but On a serious note, there are rumours, Dan, of a reshuffle in about a week's time because he wants to start phase three of the government.I just want to play a little clip because last September, the timing is quite important, this was him announcing phase two of his new government, ladies and gentlemen.

Summer's definitely over and this morning we've got all the Number 10 staff together and talked through what Phase 2 of the Government is going to look like and feel like.So we're going to Phase 2, 1st of September 2025 in good spirits, confident and with conviction about what we're doing.It needs a more powerful Number 10 so we've added to the team with some really important new members.I've made a number of other changes, but this is about focus on delivery now, marching forward to the next phase of government.

So that was early September, Dan, 2025, phase two of this government's announcement.And the biggest announcement for phase two was the employment of Peter Mandelson as the new US ambassador.So I'm not expecting phase three to be any more successful than phase two.Are you?

No, I mean, I've got to be honest, I've kind of lost track of which phase we're on in so many of them.I mean, we've got, again, as you said, there is talk of a reshuffle.We reported on this the weekend.

Rayner, do you see that as likely?

No, no.Angela Rayner, well, unless you know, sort of allies of Angela Rayner, who I was speaking to earlier in the week, were very, very clear about her views of Keir Starmer and her views on a job offer.So I would be frankly amazed.

So she, in your opinion, she turned down any advances from Starmer?

Yeah, I mean, I am slightly, there are different reports about this.I can imagine Keir Starmer saying, Angela, you're a great loss to me in the cabinet.I'd like to look at ways to bring you back.I can imagine a conversation like that.That's not the same as saying, Angela, I want you to be my health secretary or something like that.And I would be very surprised if a conversation like that took place.

But again, we're beyond this now.state, you know, if Keir Starmer stands, if we see, and the country sees, and the Labour Party see, and the Cabinet see, Keir Starmer standing next week in the rubble, it's the rubbleLabour's local election catastrophe, having lost thousands of Labour councillors, having lost control of dozens of councillors, seeing heartlands like the last bastion of London breached by the Greens.They see him standing there amidst the smoking ruins of Labour's local government operation and see him again trotting out, well, we're now on to stage three and we did it with confidence and we might have something about energy prices and we might come out with something about kids using social media and we might have a few...

Yeah, but every time he makes an announcement, within about three seconds, X puts in a community note saying you're lying.I mean, the whole thing, it's almost like dead man walking doesn't do it justice, does it?

Well, again, you know, there was this whole strategy, he intends to move on.That strategy has been blown out of the water because he was obviously so badly weakened by the Mandelson scandal.over the last fortnight, that Downing Street's original strategy of publishing all the remaining Mandelson messages and documents, taking the political hit on that and moving on, he's too weak to do that.So we're now into the situation where the documents are going to have to be published the other side of the local elections, and the agenda the other side of the local elections will be dominated by Labour carnage on the doorsteps and at the ballot box, followed by yet more Mandelson.

It's interesting isn't it, because you're talking about, and I'm talking about, you know, the pressure and how can he keep going and all the things that we're saying and the evidence that's just irrefutable, and then you think to yourself, there surely will come a time, irrespective of hisvic or his acolytes or the people that he's worried about losing, I don't think he's worried about anybody but himself, where he'll probably just wake up one day or turn around and go, I can't do this anymore.He's not going to ever say, you know, I've messed it up, but I don't need this and walk away.question by Emily Thornberry and the gang?Good question, that.

I would assume based on the evidence we've seen, the evidence that Morgan McSweeney gave, the evidence that Barton gave, and obviously Ollie Robbins gave, I'd be amazed if other witnesses aren't called forward because obviously there are multiple questions.But again, the reality is, I'm not entirely sure, it doesn't matter who is called before the committee, I'm not entirely sure what there's left to learn that we don't already know.

Yeah, that's really interesting and I think that's a really, really salient point.I don't know if you were listening earlier, you probably weren't, you're a busy man.You'll know Richard Maddox, the chief political editor of The Independent.You know one of the things that you said the seven times that he's lied was by saying that they had no idea.Did you know about this text message that he sent to the then Communications Director?Oh look, 11th of September 2025.

Hi Tim, I've been told by two sources now that Mandelson in fact did not clear vetting with MI6, but the PM pushed his appointment anyway.The problem was China, not Epstein though.Is there any comment?Reply, vetting done by foreign commonwealth in normal way.So when he stood up and he said in the House of Commons, I didn't know anything about it, almost nine months ago, the political editor of The Independent texted them and told them, for Christ's sake.

Yeah, I mean, that's been well done.I mean, we, on the Mail on Sunday, myself and my colleague Glenn,two days after that, we sent our own message and had our own communication with Downing Street because we had a slightly different take on the story.So at the take, the story that we published was that there had been a series of red flags in relation to Mandelson's vetting.Those have been raised.but that it had been communicated to those conducting the vetting that it was not politically convenient for those red flags to be acted on because of what Keir Starmer and Downing Street wanted the outcome to be in relation to getting Madison out to Washington.

And I think actually, on reflection, I think from everything we've seen, that does broadly seem to be what happened.It doesn't quite seem, from the evidence we've had, it's not actually as crystal clear that Peter Mandelson did fail vetting in the technical sense of the word.Because if you remember, there was all this stuff, there was this box and it was ticked, and it was a red box and it had a tick on it.The reality is, That was released by Downing Street, you know, this blank box that was released by Downing Street in the midst of when the scandal about vetting first broke, and was released by Downing Street and paraded as evidence Downing Street and Keir Starmer had been telling the truth.Problem is, no one who was given evidence throughout this process, be it Philip Barton, be it Ollie Robbins, be it the actual head of the UK developed vetting, Not only have none of them said they saw the form with a tick on, none of them have said they've ever seen a form that looks like that.So I think my feeling about what happened is it's broadly in line with what we reported last September.

There were red flags.and they were just sort of eased away by the system and massaged away by the system because, as we've seen, there was so much pressure to get Mandelson in place in Washington and at speed that it was just managed worse.

It's really interesting.We talk about all the details and we're doing it forensically, but in the end it comes down It comes down to judgement, it comes down to character, it comes down to just, you know, covering your own back and not putting the United Kingdom's interests at the forefront.You've covered politics for a long, long time.Question for you.We all, you know, two years ago, I was a Tory voter all my life.I lost complete faith in the Tories.

I've been very honest about it.I think the British public stopped listening.I think that's one of the reasons why Starmer ended up in 10 Downing Street.You covered the Boris stuff.you've covered this Starmer stuff in the height of the party gate allegations and Boris Johnson, I didn't ever think it could get worse.I don't know about you, but this is to me, this is different scale.

This is this is this is all about a person's complete either inability or derision or arrogance for systems that have been in place for years.And he's going to well, he's been found out.There's no way out of this.It's done.Done.

Yeah.I mean, I mean, my view is I don't know about a different scale, but it's certainly commensurate scale.I mean, I'm not one of these people and never was one of these people who said, oh, it's just a piece of cake.You know, and I, you know, I remember writing.No, he lied.No, he lied.

No, he lied.Absolutely.And at the time saying, you know, Boris Johnson has to go, he's lied.And crucially, obviously, he and those around him have been caught.They have been caught having parties at a time when others, all the rest of the country was making.

And what did for him was the picture of the Queen sat on her own and her husband having served this country are completely and I was very well aware of that.I should say this I was very vocal at the time politically I was very annoyed as he moved to the centre and it was all about green issues and Carrie and all that but you're absolutely right all those critics for years who said not over the detail will let himself down spot -on but at least he put himself in front of the Privileges Committee.I'd like to make that point.

Yeah and also crucially what did what what did for him was obviously his lies were exposed.

Yeah.

And we saw this is part of why the Labour Party collectively is now contaminated, because we saw Starmer's allies roaming the TV studios yesterday, trying to literally trying to downplay this and say, this isn't anywhere near as important as it was.It is, it is.In fact, in terms of the detail, we've got a situation.Firstly, obviously, the heart of it is Epstein, one of the world's most notorious and evil sex traffickers.We've got him at the heart of this.We've got a situation where this is one of the biggest security scandals that we've seen.

We've now seen how Mandelson was fast -tracked, how the vetting in relation to him was fast -tracked or concerns were massaged away, how he was effectively railroaded into post by Downing Street, despite the fact we now know, obviously, He was compromised in relation to his links with Epstein.He also, it's been detailed, we've reported it, just about every other paper has reported it.He was compromised in relation to his business dealings, both in terms of companies that had direct links to China, but also direct links to Russia.He was on the, I reported, we reported, he was on the board of a company, a Russian company that was, quote, it put to me, riddled with Russian spies.And he was, quote, put in place where he had access to the most sensitive intelligence we have.Philip Barton said in front of the committee yesterday, this is

directly damaged our relationship with the United States, our most senior ally.And it's currently the subject of an ongoing investigation by both the British police here and the European Fraud Office.So I'm not entirely sure how much more serious this scandal could be.

I couldn't agree more.And you know, we can sit here and we can pontificate and wonder and talk about when and if, but it's so tawdry.and it's so lacking in, it's interesting you talk about the difference between what Boris did, there was the sort of bad morality, I think everybody else was going through the hell of Covid and he seemed to be bucking the trend and laughing at us.This is about national security, this is about lying obviously, but it's, there's so much more and I, listen, I know a lot of people think this is conspiratorial, Dan, just to finish, I start as I finished, I finish as I started, I cannot, I cannot understand, I listen to their policies sometimes, I listen to their excuses, I just don't understand how they've got to this point.I can't help but think that the power that Mandelson has over the Labour Party, or had until very recently, was so complete and it just begs the question how?What's he got?

What did he have that even after two public humiliating resignations he's brought back into the fold?He's seen going through the back door at the time of the reshuffle and he ends up with this plum job when in essence you wouldn't have let him through any door if you'd just taken two seconds to read about him.

But I think to answer your question, I think it actually goes back to how Keir Starmer conducted himself in opposition.And Keir Starmer in opposition, somebody who I think even his allies would accept is effectively a political vacuum.He put at the heart of his political project the idea that he would be different morally.government.You know, he would be morally superior.His government would be morally superior.

There would be greater transparency.There would be greater openness.There would be greater candor.There would be no cronyism.There would be no corruption.There would be no sleaze.

There would be no lies.And over the course of the two or three years in which he was prosecuting that argument against the Tory party, as I say, I think he genuinely came to believe it.He genuinely came to believe he was the good guy and the Tories were the bad guys.And that then, therefore, that extended to whatever he did, whatever he, Keir Starmer, did was good and right and moral and legitimate and acceptable.Acceptable solely because it was him, Keir Starmer, that was doing it.So he literally got himself into it.

Start to believe your own publicity, right?Exactly.I'm doing it.It's me that's doing it.I'm a good person.I know I'm a good person.

The country knows I'm a good person.The country knows I'm completely different to all those evil, nasty, sleazy Tories.Therefore...There can't be anything wrong with this because it's me, Keir Starmer, that's doing it.

Dan, thank you.I'll make you laugh before we finish.I've got to let you go.Reg has just said, please read this out to Dan.I think rather than phase three, we should just get him phased out completely, which is probably...

Well, that is going to happen.

Dan, thank you.Great work.Read the mail today, peeps.