Was Ann Widdecombe the victim of a political assassination? | The News Agents

Isn't it extraordinary that someone like Nigel Farage, security provided by the state.

That's one of the things for us in public life is the fear and intimidation harassment is now so great.

They have found some evidence in their investigation which is why it's quickly been passed to counter terrorism policing.

What seems clear is that the police are walking a tightrope between trying to be as transparent as they can but also trying not to see these situations inflamed.opportunity.

This is a global production.Breaking news to bring you.Counter -terrorism police are now leading the investigation into the death of Anne Whittacombe after, quote, new evidence and information has come to light.

Another head -spinning development in the murder of Anne Whittacombe, which last Friday looked like the simple death of an old person, but then became a murder, and now seems to be a murder.politically motivated, possibly an act of terror.

Yes.With new information, new evidence coming to light, the counter -terrorism police are now leading this investigation.How much should the police tell us about their investigation as it's going along?Is it helpful or does it hinder us ever understanding the truth?Welcome to the News Agents.

The News Agents.

It's Jon.It's meatless.And it is Monday lunchtime and just as we were coming into the studio there was breaking news and it was that the counter -terror police had taken over the investigation of the murder of Anne Whittacombe, which was shocking in and of itself.More shocking if you follow the arc of what has happened over the past few days because on Friday morning we woke up to the news that 78 year old Anne Widdicombe had died and you think well she's died of natural causes, you know someone who'd been in politics a long time, but a sad death and then kind of early afternoon it became speculation that she had been murdered then confirmed by Devon and Cornwall police.There was a suspect then released and then another suspect.Again the insistence that there was nothing that pointed to a political aspect to this and it was stressed that the person was a white English national.

And now we get this news that counter -terror police are leading the investigation.the investigation.

Yeah, they said this afternoon that they were re -arresting a suspect on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.This had been with the Devon and Cornwall Police, the local force to Ann Widdicombe's house.They had been leading the investigation and it looks as if the counter -terror police are now essentially sort of big -footing that and taking over.We're joined by Andy Hughes of the Crime Agents.Andy, just talk us through how you interpret this progression because a lot of people heard Devon and Cornwall say this doesn't look political and are feeling slightly cheated, if you like, by the fact that it sounds like it is now a counter -terror investigation.Presumably, the police only tell us what they have evidence for at any one point and new evidence has come to light, right?

So when they made that statement yesterday that would have been the truth.But clearly what has happened is either in the police interview of the suspect or inthe search of the home of the suspect or the devices of the suspect, they have found something that suggests that this is political.You just have to look at the definition of terrorism, which is an act of violence for a political purpose.So clearly they have found some evidence in their investigation, which is why it is quickly being passed to counter -terrorism policing.How it always works is a case like this, the local force, in this case Devon and Cornwall, will be in constant communication with counter -terrorism police, and then as soon as they have any information to suggest that it may be terror -related, this will then be passed completely to the counter -terrorism police and then they will take over and Devon and Cornwall will no longer be involved.

So this isn't a mistake, this is an evolution, is that what you're saying?

This happens all the time, it's just the difference is usually in terrorism cases the suspect is apprehended at the scene very quickly.In this case it took days for the suspect to be arrested.So they they didn't have a motive.They now seem to have a motive, which is why it's been passed to counter -terrorism police.

And I guess that that is going to feed again the possibility of conspiracy theories.Why weren't the police being straight with us?Why are we only learning this now?And I guess this is the result of the age we live in.in which the police feel they can't get on with an investigation just quietly working out what has happened because everyone's got an internet sleuth, everyone's on TikTok or whatever it happens to be looking at kind of explanations and so the police feel they need to give a running commentary of an ongoing investigation.

Yeah well we saw the consequences of basically rhetoric being allowed to fester online didn't we in the Southport riots and since then police have completely changed the way they communicate they now give constant updates so just to go back

Andy, the Southport murders was when those three young girls were killed brutally by Axel Rudikibana, whose parents had come to this country.He wasn't an asylum seeker himself, but was of a deeply disturbed background and whose behaviour had been flagged to the authorities when not much had been done about it.

Yeah, and everyone was saying this is an asylum seeker and that was allowed to fast air and then that basically created the uprising that we saw there and also across the country.So ever since then, police chiefs have always made a point of updating at every point.Ironically, this has happened in this case, but it doesn't stop people criticizing the police, does it?And I think the difference really now in the age that we're living in is it used to just be online keyboard warriors.Now we're seeing prominent politicians joining those calls.

Look, Andy, What we don't know, as we're recording at 10 to 2, far outweighs what we do know.What seems clear is that the police are walking a tightrope between trying to be as transparent as they can with the public, but also trying not to see these situations inflamed to a point where protests are happening.Protests are breaking out on the streets, as we saw in the case of Henry Novak, as we saw with the Southport riots two years ago.how do they do that?So they are being as fair as they can with the information they're giving out whilst at the same time not creating a climate of escalating tension.

Yeah, it's a tricky world that the police are living in now because no matter what they do, they're going to get criticised.And I'm sure this will be the case here.Conspiracy theorists will say that the police knew that this was politically motivated and just withheld that information deliberately and deliberately.you know, the temperature cooled down.But the idea that police sit in a meeting room and say, I'll tell you what we're going to do.We're going to lie to the public for a bit and see if as long as everyone calms down and then we will reveal the truth.

No, that's not how it works.

They might not say we're going to lie to the public, but they might say we'll keep the we don't need to actually go public with that.

Yeah, I mean, that happens all the time.That happens in every single investigation.They know way more than we do.And it's up to the police what information they release and when.Frankly, now they release way more information than they used to.They're now releasing the ethnicities of the suspect.

Do you think that's right?Yes, I do.I think it's entirely appropriate, especially in the world that we're living in, in this thirst for information.And also, if you don't give people the information, then other people will create it, other people will create this narrative.

Although it only tells you so much, doesn't it, if you know the nationality or even the religion of the person carrying out the attack when you consider, and I'm not joining dots here in any way at all, but you look at the case of what happened with the person, people, the two guys who attacked Keir Starmer's house and a firebomb on the porch and blew up his car.They were acting on behalf of someone else.You know, they were rent -a -yob.They were just being paid a couple of hundred quid to go and do something terrible.And we don't know whether, you know, the person who's carried out the murder of Ann Widdicombe was acting at the behest of somebody else.I mean, we just don't know.

So giving out some information might not tell you that much.It might take you down a completely different alley.

Yeah, yeah.Thugs for hire, I believe Sir Mark Rowley called them, the commissioner of the Met.And this is increasingly a problem for police.In the last year, there's been a 50 % increase in foreign states getting involved and hiring these useful idiots is what they're calling it.them, giving them as little as 500 quid to go and do something for them.We saw there's allegations that a lot of these attacks in North London against the Jewish community are related to this as well.

We're going to have to see where those criminal proceedings go.But this is a huge problem that MI5, MI6 and counter -terrorism policing are fully aware of and are worried about.

Just one other question, which I know is very live for a lot of politicians now, which is how much do they give themselves to the public and how much do they, you know, sort of shield themselves off?And I mean, there is a clip online, actually, of Anne Widdicombe.I think she was doing some celebrity sort of show where she invites somebody into the house.And it's very clear the shape of the house.You would be able to recognize it.She takes this person, a TV presenter talking about antiques into her home and shows them the library.

I mean, I guess there'll be a lot of questions actually about what politicians themselves do in terms of their openness, whether it's in their political work or just in something, you know, like reality television.

Yeah, I think they'll all be asking themselves that question.I think one of the key things here is a lot of people will assume that all MPs get police protection or protection.They don't.In fact, the incoming or the likely incoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, only got signed off protection last week.So he's been living his life without protection and he's a massively high -profile politician.So this is something that obviously MPs will be deeply concerned about.

Do you think there's public appetite to pay for that?That's the other thing, you know, politicians now know that there is so little trust, right, between the public and politics.They don't want to be seen to be taking public money for this stuff.

No, exactly.And well, this has been an ongoing battle.We've seen Nigel Farage, the leader of reform, he's been saying constantly that he's been asking the Home Office for money for security and that they've denied him.Is that right?We don't know.I'm told that it is very likely that he has asked for protection but we don't know that for sure because the Home Office don't confirm or deny.

And we don't know if the Home Office then has denied it?

Well, they just don't engage whatsoever, but I'm told from my sources in the world of public protection that he definitely would have asked.

And of course, if you are going to provide protection for someone like Nigel Farage or whoever it happens to be, a former Prime Minister, it takes a lot of close protection office, not just one person, because you've got to provide 24 -7 security and if they're traveling you need someone at the location where they're traveling to and recceing it and checking it.

It's probably a team of six people to provide security for one person.So you've got 650 MPs before you even get to the Lords and then you've got spokesmen and women who are just sort of aligned to a party but wouldn't necessarily fit within any kind of formal structure, right?

And that would require a fundamental rethink of what an open democracy democracy looks like if you are going to say that anyone whose head is vaguely above the parapet has to have close protection officers.

Yeah, is that the world we live in, right?That's the kind of conversation going on.Interestingly, a little bit of detail which you might find interesting is a source of mine in police protection.He tells me that every ex -prime minister gets full police protection by the Met from their public protection team.Back in the day, there used to be probably maximum two, maybe even three ex -prime ministers getting protection.Now there's nine, ten former prime ministers because of the turmoil that we're living in.

There's so many ex -prime ministers.This isall a huge drain on resources.This is not cheap.It's not two, it's like ten, right?Yeah, ten ex -prime ministers.

And it's going up.It'll go up very shortly as well.

Andy, great to have you with us.Thank you very much indeed.Well, let's speak now to the Labour MP Stella Creasy from Walthamstow, who's here to talk about political party, political funding.But Stella, let us start, if we may, with this subject, because you yourself have found yourself at times under threat.What do you make of what we've just learned about Anne Widdicombe?

I think it's terrifying.I think Anne Widdicombe was an extraordinary part of British public life for generations.Whether you agreed with her or not, you couldn't deny the force of her personality.She was a well -known figure.And so for her to be murdered is terrifying, because I think she always wanted to live a life where she was very open to the public, where she was somebody who would talk to people.Lots of colleagues have lots of anecdotes about bumping into her and how friendly she was, even if she disagreed with them about the things they were working on.

And that's one of the things for us in public life is the fear and intimidation and harassment is now so great.You face two choices.Either you resign yourself to the fact that something awful is going to happen, or you lock yourself away, neither is sustainable.

I mean, we've spoken to you before about some of the stuff that you've been through personally.I mean, you know, not counter -terror, but, you know, where you have been in the public eye and you found yourself under attack and, you know, people questioning your family under attack and questioning your parenting skill and all the rest of it.Is it just because, is there a point where you just think, Jesus, this is not worth it?

I think everybody has that limit.I speak as somebody who's currently going through a number of court cases to do with harassment.It's an ongoing now everyday part of life.And actually, frankly, on a basic level,it's really time -consuming.It's really time consuming having to write the evidence base, having to deal with all security implications of it.

And I understand and share people's concern that at the moment the security arrangements seem to be about that kind of lock us all away and keep us in a gilded cage.I don't want to do that.I want to be able to live my life.I love Walthamstow.I love being able to go out in Walthamstow and meet people.You don't want to constantly live with one eye over your shoulder or terrified about people knowing where you live and terrified about people inadvertently revealing that.

And I've had that circumstance come up with, you know, in recent weeks, actually, with political opponents, and I don't think people understand what it's like to constantly see, you know, the the death threats, the abuse, the harassment, of course, it's draining.I think What I worry about, though, is that the focus is on the behaviour of politicians rather than saying, actually, even if even if I were quiet, even if these people won and they silenced my voice, it wouldn't stop them because it would encourage the idea that that's how you win a political argument.

Stella, inevitably, this is going to inject a lot more heat into the whole question of security and the question of policing.And we should really start by saying, we know nothing, the three of us know nothing.But there is a sense, I think, particularly on the right, particularly amongst some reform colleagues, that the country was told quite early on that this wasn't political, or that they didn't think there was a political motivation behind this, maybe as a way of sort of dampening down any potential protests.I mean, is that just Is that a mistake by the police or is that a genuine sort of evolution of how policing works, that you say it's not political until suddenly you see evidence that it is?

I think we're all going to have lots of questions.what has happened.The first and most important thing is to catch and hold accountable whichever horrific person has murdered Anne Widdicombe.All of us would support that.There is absolutely a need to recognise that in our politics now, the temperature is such that risk is very high for those people who have an opinion, who take part in things.And we've seen that in other parts of the world.

It's inevitable that it's coming here.

So it's almost better for the police to say it's not political to stop the potential for protests, if it isn't.

I don't know, what do you think?No, and I'm not saying that at all.I think, actually, I'm a great believer at the moment that we need to have a conversation about transparency.And I've said this about a number of recent high profile events, because partly because of social media, people will fill the void.And I think sometimes, frankly, our policing is probably about 30 years out of date when it comes to this idea that they've got the time and space to not say anything, rather than say, absolutely, we will be honest with you about what has happened.I'm a great believer.

In fact, we've just had a big fire in my local community in Walthamstow last night, hundreds of fire engines, hundreds of people evacuated.Inevitably, people are speculating as to the cause of it.A number of theories are circulating around my community.What I have said to people is, because, please don't speculate, when I have the whole truth, I will share that with you.However difficult that truth is, whatever the consequences are, because the alternative is an environment where people think I'm being lied to by the state, I'm being misled by the state about a risk that we may face.

So what do you do in this situation then?Because the police very early on said the suspect is a white male.

Yes.

And presumably they did that to be as transparent as they could to stop a sense of sort of the targeting of, I don't know, immigrants or asylum seekers or whatever.And there will be people who still think that that was unnecessary.

So, look, this is what I mean about absolutely, I think we have to change our understanding of how we communicate in an environment where trust is so low and information so quick to spread.But say less or say more then?No, I think we should be saying more, but we should also be giving people the confidence that they will hear a truth.It is for the Devon police to account for what their first initial, because obviously they arrested somebody else to begin with.So it does rather seem as if the investigation was going in a different direction, shall we say.They need to be accountable on that.

Well, I think we need to hear from them.is that we will hear an account because actually at the moment what you tend to get from the police is we're not going to say anything else and there's a difference between the important act of protecting an ongoing inquiry so that you can have a prosecution and making sure that you don't actually create further harm by having this vacuum into which wild conspiracy theories go.

Do politicians have sufficient protection from the police today and isn't it extraordinary that someone like Nigel Farage, highly controversial politician but duly elected as the MP for Clacton and you know probably re -elected as the MP for Clacton following this by -election, doesn't have security provided for him by the state.I mean I remember from living in America, quite ordinary people, congressmen and women or senators, would have security provided for them.

I find this very difficult as somebody who has been repeatedly threatened in the street.I've had people come up and tell my children I'm a child killer because they disagree with the work I do on abortion.And I've had the police tell me that the public have a right to approach me wherever I am at any point, whether my children are with me or not, because that's democracy.So I do think we need to have a better understanding about risk.But my concern is if we only focus on the politician, we fail to understand where the risk is coming from.The people who are escalating in their anger.

I mean, one of the things that is very frustrating, particularly as a woman,who gets regular death threats and abuse is you can track back.So the person who targeted my family and tried to get my children taken away had been making contact for months and escalating in his ire that I was somehow this terrible, evil person because he disagreed with my views.Nothing was done about that.Indeed, nothing was done about the fact that he tried to get my children taken away from me until I complained.There are signs, there is evidence about the people who fixate on politicians, the people who fixate on anybody in public life.

I'm sure you also experience this as well.We have to get much better at drawing the line between and applying consistently the laws on harassment to identify these people because I would...It's the upsetting question.Yeah, I would suspect that the people who are targeting Nigel Farage, let me be very clear, I don't think Nigel Farage should face abuse, intimidation, harassment.I want to beat him at the ballot box.I don't want him to be too frightened to put himself forward.

But in order for all of us to be in that environment, we have to recognise what incitement is.We have to recognise those people who then take the words of people and the inflammatory language and inflammatory ideas about anybody and twist that and what those patterns of escalation are.We've seen that with stalking.We've got quite good evidence now about how people develop these kind of fixations and develop the risk.We're not applying that to people in public life.And that's where I think the gap is.

So you originally came in here to talk about political donations.And it's not unrelated, actually, because the reason why we before the death of Ann Widdicombe, we started having this conversation about security was, I think some would argue, because Nigel Farage found that an easier subject to be talking about than the root of his money and donations.Not that he doesn't have a point about security, as you know, it seems this weekend has now proved.More than 60 % of Reform UK's donations last year came from one man, from Christopher Harbourn, from the cryptocurrency billionaire.How can thatmean, that's not illegal, right?

No.Would it be fine for Christopher Harbourn, for a crypto billionaire, to give Nigel Farage £5 million if he declared it?

What we've got with the Rycroft review, the government asked Philip Rycroft to look at foreign interference and foreign money coming into politics in this country and the impact it was having.And he came up with a number of concerns that are relevant to what you're asking about.First of all, about cryptocurrencies, because it's not cryptocurrencies in themselves.It's the fact that it's really hard to trace where the money is coming from to be sure that they meet the requirements we have at the moment around donations.The second thing was about limiting the amount that anybody who was based overseas could give.What Christopher Harbourn reveals is the frustration with the Rycroft review, which is that we only asked him to look at foreign interference and the impact of donations from overseas, because what Christopher Harbourn immediately said as soon as the Rycroft review was published was, where there's a will, there's a way, and he registered an address in the UK, so he could continue to give those sums of money.

I want to be really clear about two points, though.One, it would terrify me if our security was dependent on donors and donors largesse.Absolutely, Nigel Farage should have the right security for somebody in the public eye, but that should be organised by the state, because any politician should have that.It shouldn't be dependent on any political donor.Secondly...

Because then it means the richer you are, the safer you are.

The richer you are.And if this point is that we're concerned that people giving large sums of money distorts our democracy, well, if you're putting your life on the line in order to do that, that's very distorting.But secondly, I do want to be clear.Look, there are people giving money across the political spectrum.Actually, for me, this isn't a partisan thing.If you look at the data 10 years ago, 1 % of individual donations in this country were over a million pounds.

Now it's a third.So Christopher Harbourn is an extraordinaryexample of it, but he's not the only one.And for 16 years, I've been an MP now, and I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when people say to you, you're only doing that because of X lobby or because of Y lobby, not because you're actually voting for speaking for something that you care about, that you believe is the right thing to do.And that comes back to people's perception that it is increasingly possible to buy an MP.

Were you embarrassed?going back to 2024.I mean, it was all declared by Keir Starmer.It was declared.It was in the members' interest.But were you embarrassed as a Labour MP when the brand new government came in and started clearly taking money for clothes and for glasses and borrowing apartments?

Look, I came in in 2010.I came in post the Duck House scandals, which again were across all all political parties.I have been mortified for decades that we do not seem to be getting it, that if there is a perception that your decision making is being skewed by donations, it undermines democracy.My point is that is affecting all of us.I also want to be clear, I think it's entirely honourable to give money to a cause that you care about.I actually think capping and being clear about the limits about what people any individual can do would protect both sides of the equation because knowing some of those people who have given money there are good decent people who care very much about the Labour Party and thought they were doing the right thing.

All of us get covered in mud if we don't set clear guardrails and what you are describing is the mud.

So hang on you're saying you are approaching this from a non -partisan basis, and it's not about Labour, it's not about Tories, whatever.And you are saying individual caps.The Labour Party receives massive donations, not from individuals, but from the trade unions.But from the trade union movement.But the trade unions would be able to continue to give Labour vast sums of money.

Yes, because the trade union is not an individual.donation.The Trade Union, and it's been well established, the Committee for the Standards in Public Life looked at this, the Hayden Phillips Review looked at this, and we all agreed there is a vast difference between helping people collectively organise to donate.I am somebody who will defend your right to organise in the workplace, whether you want to have a voice or whether you want to collectively donate.That money is so tightly controlled.Anybody just has to look for a moment at all the rules about political funds.

funds for trade unions.You know where it's coming from, not like cryptocurrencies.You know how it's being determined, who's making those decisions, and you know what you can do if you don't want to be part of it.

But the average union member who pays into the political fund and the money goes to the Labour Party, even though they might be voting reform, there'll be, I'm sure at the next election, there'll be huge discrepancies between the number of union members who have voted for reform against the bloc grant that has come from whichever union it is into the Labour Party.

I don't mean to put you on the spot John but are you a trade union member?

No, I'm not.

So you don't get the correspondence.I get the correspondence from my trade union that offers me the opportunity to opt out of paying into the political fund if I wish to do so.So actually, there is a very clear process by which if you do not want to be part of that process, you can be.That is in complete contrast to an individual who faces no guardrails at all on what impact their funding can have.And as I say, this is not a partisan issue.There have been large donations, All major parties are chasing people with major amounts of money to ask them to give money because we don't have state funding.

So it would be possible if a union decided that it wanted to be represented at the top to give to reform.

Well, they'd have to go through a democratic process.They'd have to go through the disaffiliation process.And indeed, we have seen some trade unions talking with their members about doing this.Trade union funding is a completely different, separate thing.And actually, what I worry about in this debate right now is because the same thing happenedin 20 years ago, when we first started looking at this stuff, is the debates and the concerns about trade unions, they get blamed for us not making progress on tackling this.

And I know they understand that.What we need to do now, I think, if I'm honest, is take the lessons from Rycroft, because you don't want to create a big loophole.What Christopher Harbourn does is create a big loophole.George Cottrell is a UK based owner, so is his mum.If we want to actually clean up British politics, we need to be consistent.How we do that, how we do that where people are comfortable about membership organisations, civil society organisations that help people collectively participate in politics.

I'm also sat here as a co -op MP, so I represent two political parties.What would be your cap for the individual?So Rycroft said 100 ,000.It makes sense to me to have a consistent cap, because if his argument is that more than 100 ,000 could distort a voice, then surely it's not actually about somebody's postcode.It doesn't matter whether someone's based in Basingstoke or Bangkok, if they are giving large sums of money that appear to be directing the outcomes, that's problematic.

Why not go the whole hog?Why not just have state funding of political parties and then you take it out of the hands of donors and you take it out.You're not going to get stopped in the street in Walthamstow saying you're acting on behalf of this lobby or that lobby because your party took 50 grand from whoever it happens to be.

That's a fair point.That is a separate debate as far as I'm concerned.We don't have state funding in this country.They do obviously in other countries.Other countries also cap individual donations in this way.So none of what I'm talking about is new.

I'm dealing with a situation we're in at the moment.I don't think frankly, there is public appetite to put money into political parties.So there is going to be a place for donations.I think most people understand if you cap donations, I'm not preventing donations.I've seen some of the conversation from some of the people in reform who said, well, this would stop us being able to fundraise.It's like, no, it wouldn't.

But it would mean your donor base would have to be more varied.And it would mean people could have more confidence that no one voice was trying to block out another.I think state funding is a separate conversation.For now, we have a system built on donations.If we're going to clean up British politics, it's not a silver bullet, let's be honest about it.There are lots of ways I'm sure that people could still manipulate it, but it would be a start.

And I think it would go a long way to helping people feel that we were serious about recognising what's going on.You know, You look at what Elon Musk has said, for example, about his involvement in British politics.Frankly, when Nigel Farage made his speech standing down, you know, when he was boasting about these people, it felt very clearly like he was revelling in this idea that somebody could give up sums of money.And it was, you know, up to the little man to suck it and see.

confident that the Parliamentary Commissioner will get to the bottom of this?Do you think the by -election that's been thrown into the spokes will stop this?

I mean, one of the reasons I'm campaigning for donation caps is I don't actually think we can rely on Count Binface to save us every single time.And obviously, if Count Binface wins in Clacton, then there is a question as to whether that parliamentary investigation will continue.But if he doesn't win and Mr Farage is returned, the process continues on.Is Labour supporting Binface?Well, we're not standing a candidate.I have to be honest, I'm very torn.

I'm very tempted by the idea that we'll get a 99P back to being 99P.Yes.Yeah, stop.Somebody who feels that's an important question.

Stop on that.Like, seriously, would you, are you going to send Labour, you know, door knockers and people to help?

People will go and campaign.There isn't going to be a Labour candidate.So, you know, obviously we would expect Labour campaigners to go and campaign for a Labour candidate.As Rachel Reeves has said, if Nigel Farage wants to spend his summer fighting a bin, that's his call.Yeah, but I'm not asking about him.I'm asking about your party.

It is hard to call what will happen in that by -election.I suspect many of us think that if Mr Farage wins again, then there will be another by -election becauseof the outcome of this parliamentary commission, and in which case I would certainly expect Labour to contest that election.But at this point in time, because it's very clearly being done as a way of evading that investigation, and again, that's mud for all of us.If we look evasive as politicians, then absolutely all of us are damned by this.

I'm going to have another go at this question.Are you hoping for a Tatton style outcome in 1997, where Neil Hamilton stood against Martin Bell and lost?

Not just hoping, but will you be helping?You are outing me as a fan of British politics and the role of people like Count Binface, because I do believe we should, you know, keep our feet firmly on the ground.And I think what Count Binface does is keep us firm on the ground.

So Stella Creasy, I'm voting Binface.

Well, I don't have a vote in Clacton.

Yeah, but you would.

But I have, you know, I have talked about Labour friends of Count Binface, yes.

Labour friends have kept in place.

There we are.That's a bumper sticker.Stella Creasy, thank you very much.Thanks.

Before we go, we're going to tell you about the latest development of Sir Ollie Robbins.He was, you might remember, sacked by Keir Starmer at the height of the Mandelson vetting scandal back in April.And there was a big question over whether he had kept concealed from Keir Starmer the state of the vetting application that had been done around Manilson before he went off to Washington as our ambassador.Today, he has launched a legal challenge.He is requesting a judicial review of the Starmer decision, arguing that the firing was unlawful and unreasonable.

Yeah, I mean, so Ollie Robbins was the head of the Foreign Office, the senior civil servant or the permanent undersecretary to give him his full title.And it was seen as the most brutal piece of, I will do anything to save my own skin.so Ollie, you're out.And putting all the blame on Ollie Robbins, when to an awful lot of fair -minded people, even Labour ministers at the time, who thought, you know what, Ollie Robbins was simply doing your bidding, Sir Keir Starmer, and was just trying to get what you wanted done, and you, Keir Starmer, had chosen to ignore.the advice, which had been given by a previous cabinet secretary, that you should have vetting of Peter Mandelson before you announce that he is going to become our next ambassador.But that had already been done.

Ollie Robbins kind of just tries to get it through done quickly.And now the Sarma government for that decision will be subject to a judicial review.

Look, this is Keir Starmer's last week in the job.And you would have, I guess, hoped in that position as Prime Minister to go out to, you know, the accolades and the soaring oratory and the sort of very nice farewell.This is going to sound totally different because Robbins is arguing in his submission to court that Starmer has no statutory authority to dismiss the head of the diplomatic service.There was no fair procedure involved in the dismissal and it was irrational.And for a top lawyer, as Keir Starmer is, for the former head of the DPP to kind of confront some of these claims.Obviously, it will be litigated.

We don't know the outcome.There is a lot in the balance right now.So I guess it's going to be a slightly sobering exit for somebody who was right at the height, right in the centre of the legal profession for so long.

You know, since that sacking, I haven't met anyone who's thought, oh yeah, no, that was fair.That was fair that Starmer did what he did.I think he lost huge amounts of support as a result of that one single decision.There were an awful lot of other things where Keir Starmer lost the party and lost the public, but I think in onein government, that was the feeling that, no, Starmer, you've lost the plot here.

Honestly, to be fair, and to just kind of keep this even handed, I have talked to people who say that Robbins made the wrong call on that, and that there is no way that you should be keeping that from the Prime Minister at such a delicate time with such so much in the balance.So look, we don't know where this will go.

Well, our learned friends will get rich on it when they're judging the legal merits one way or another.We'll be back tomorrow.We'll see you then.Bye bye.

Bye for now.The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity.This has been a global production.