0:02

This is a Global Player

0:04

original podcast. It's a

0:06

good reminder to everyone, but particularly those in public

0:08

life, to obviously be careful about unsolicited messages that

0:11

they get. Because there's lots of bad actors that

0:13

we're seeing around the world who

0:15

are trying to cause damage to our democratic

0:17

processes. As I said, there's a

0:19

police investigation that's happening. It's important that

0:21

we work through these things in due

0:23

time. He's resigned from all

0:25

his various positions, including from the Conservative

0:27

Party whip. The important thing here is

0:30

we let the police investigate. That was

0:32

the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on LBC

0:34

this morning being asked about William

0:37

Ragg, who until last night was

0:39

a Conservative MP. He has now

0:41

resigned the Conservative whip, having found

0:44

himself at the centre of a

0:46

scandal, which involved his sending

0:49

not only sexually explicit material

0:51

of himself to an unknown

0:53

person, but also as part

0:55

of that, the numbers of

0:57

his fellow Conservative MPs to

0:59

a person who he says

1:02

was essentially blackmailing him. Yeah,

1:04

and when this story broke about William Ragg

1:06

on Thursday night, there was a

1:08

mixture of, I guess, sympathy, empathy

1:11

for what Mr Ragg had been through,

1:13

and anger that he had

1:15

released his colleagues' details, contact

1:17

details, to the person who

1:19

had solicited them. And today

1:21

we're going to go a little bit further

1:24

and try to find out where this story

1:26

originated from with the journalist who

1:28

first broke it a week ago,

1:30

Aggie Chambre, who's at Politico, and

1:33

try and understand what the Westminster

1:35

honey trap was all about

1:38

and how she realised it was going on. Welcome

1:41

to the News Agents. The

1:46

News Agents. It's Lewis. It's

1:49

Emily. Just to start then with what

1:51

we know today about William Ragg, he

1:53

has resigned the whip, which means that

1:55

he stays as an MP until the

1:57

next election, but he's no longer a conservative MP,

2:01

he is not somebody that Rishi

2:03

Sunak can count as one of

2:05

his parliamentary party. This follows his

2:07

resignation from that famous backbenchers committee

2:10

the 1922

2:12

where he also had a key role and

2:15

I guess it follows a certain amount

2:17

of anger or

2:20

frustration with the way Rishi

2:22

Sunak originally dealt with this

2:25

case of William Ragg who was

2:28

greeted with an overriding sense of empathy as

2:30

if he had been a victim, he had

2:32

and not as if he had been the

2:34

person who had you know shared

2:36

these confidential numbers that belonged

2:39

to his colleagues and so

2:41

this is Will Ragg probably taking the

2:43

upper hand now on a situation

2:45

that he felt he had to

2:47

control before it became too difficult to push

2:49

on with the current position. But of course

2:51

although Will Ragg is at the center of

2:54

it this is a much wider story we

2:56

know that lots of people apparently have been

2:58

contacted by this same person to what end

3:00

we don't know he he

3:04

clearly went further than others have done

3:06

many have talked about how they just

3:08

ignored it they realized that this person

3:10

was someone they didn't know but it

3:12

has raised lots and lots of questions

3:14

about how wise our

3:17

MPs and people who work at

3:19

the center of politics might be

3:21

how vulnerable our system might be

3:23

potentially to bad actors who might

3:25

try to use blackmail who might

3:27

try and use technology

3:29

whatsapp dating sites whatever it might

3:31

be solicit information from MPs not

3:33

just about themselves but about

3:36

their colleagues as well. Well

3:43

we're joined now by the woman who wrote the

3:45

story Aggie Chambre the West Minster insider host for

3:47

Politico. Aggie congratulations on the story it's been a

3:49

real sort of slow burn actually hasn't it over

3:52

the course of the week built up it

3:54

really has and even going back further than that I

3:56

mean we have been looking into this my colleague Dan

3:59

Blumenite for two months. So

4:01

kind of mid February was when we

4:03

first became aware of these very similar

4:05

messages. So he became aware of

4:07

a message first and said to me and I was

4:09

honestly, you're just sort of half listening to someone, he

4:12

was like, Oh, there's this weird message that I've seen.

4:14

And it says that this person had

4:16

met someone before in parliament, and they had a little

4:18

flirt. And it sort of did something in

4:20

the back of my brain, they didn't listen to it.

4:22

And a few days later, I was talking to a

4:24

Labour staffer, and they were like, I've got this weird

4:27

message and showed me their phone. And on the message,

4:29

it said it's from a different number, it had a

4:31

different profile picture. But it said, Hey, we met in

4:33

parliament, and we had a little flirt. And I was

4:35

like, hang on, that's really weird. Two

4:37

different numbers, we had a little flirt, what's going

4:39

on here. And so I messaged Dan and was

4:41

like, Hang on, I think there's something weird going

4:43

on here. And obviously, your mind, my

4:46

mind and me immediately went to spies, which

4:48

we can get on to, I'm not sure

4:50

I was quite right. But we basically started

4:52

and I went around and asked everyone I've

4:54

literally ever met in Westminster, have you got

4:56

a weird message from either of these two

4:58

numbers? Does anyone ask you if you've had

5:00

a little flirt? Exactly.

5:02

It was quite awkward saying to kind of contact

5:05

like, Hey, have you got a weird sort of

5:07

flirty message? But anyway, that's what I did. And

5:10

last Wednesday, we finally got to the

5:12

point where we found six people who'd

5:14

had these messages, we spoke to four

5:16

experts, produce this dossier, and the expert

5:18

says, No, no, this is dodgy,

5:20

that point published. And that's how we

5:23

got the story out initially. How similar

5:25

were the messages that these six people

5:27

shared with you, the original six, because the

5:29

original six didn't include William rag

5:31

did not include William rag. That's right. So

5:34

the thing was, if you looked at all of these

5:36

screenshots next to each other, there was it the sort

5:39

of way they spoke was very similar. And in a

5:41

way, it sort of almost seemed like AI, you know,

5:43

I would never say we had a little flirt. And

5:45

that was in three of the messages, I think. But

5:48

the other thing that was really striking about these messages,

5:50

apart from the fact that they were going to politicians,

5:53

journalists, staffers, was that they

5:55

knew little bits of information about them. So they

5:57

knew people's names, they knew who people worked for.

6:00

Both said we met on the

6:02

mid-buds campaign trail, which was an

6:04

actual by-election. Exactly. Exactly.

6:06

So this person was actually at, or we

6:09

met when we were doing Lisa Nandy's leadership

6:11

campaign together. And do you think they got

6:13

that information just from photos at the time, or do you

6:15

think they were on those campaigns? They

6:17

were in those rooms? I am

6:19

almost 100% sure

6:21

they were not in those rooms, partly because

6:23

even before we published that first story, one

6:26

of the people that we spoke to checked with everyone

6:28

that had been a volunteer on the mid-buds campaign trail,

6:30

and there was no one of this name. They were

6:32

going by names of Charlie or Abby. Since

6:35

then we've heard about them calling themselves Abby Miller,

6:37

who worked for policy exchange. That

6:39

person does not exist. There was another one of some,

6:41

they said, oh, we worked for William Ragg. That person

6:43

does not exist, although that was a bit more of

6:45

a complicated story because William Ragg at one

6:47

point said they did exist. The weird thing

6:49

about these messages as well was that they

6:51

became sexual very quickly in some cases. So

6:53

they'd sort of say, hello, we met in

6:55

this place. I know about your relationship breakdown.

6:57

We talked about X. Anyway,

7:00

here's a picture, and

7:02

the pictures were often explicit. And in

7:05

one of these cases, in the first

7:07

six, someone did respond because

7:09

they believed that this was someone they had

7:11

actually met. So they got into a sort

7:13

of explicit conversation with this person. They were

7:15

sexting back and forth. They actually arranged to

7:17

meet up, and the person who was Charlotte,

7:19

in that instance, never showed. But

7:22

this person was genuinely expecting to meet someone

7:24

in the pub. Let's talk us through sexting,

7:26

right? Because I probably come from a generation where,

7:29

badly, we never sent pictures

7:31

of our genitalia to people, right?

7:33

And I don't know how common that

7:35

is now. This was more than you bargained for,

7:37

wasn't it, Aggie? I mean, I just, no, but

7:40

I'm just trying to get my head around whether

7:42

sexting means, you know, as

7:44

you would say, sort of the more flirtatious

7:46

talk, whether you're literally talking about dick pics

7:48

on your phone. So in this

7:50

instance, and in a lot of the instances,

7:53

I am literally talking about them sending

7:55

dick pics. I mean, sometimes they were women,

7:57

so female genitalia as well. don't,

8:00

I mean, absolutely no judgment to any of

8:03

these people. And I very much feel strongly

8:05

that a lot of them are victims and

8:07

were really brutally tricked.

8:09

I don't think I would ever send, make a

8:12

picture of myself to someone that I wasn't sure that

8:14

I'd ever met before. That is not something I would

8:16

ever do. And I am in my mid thirties, maybe

8:18

I'm a bit too old, but especially

8:20

in the instance with the first person, you

8:22

know, they believed this person was real. They

8:24

believed they had met them and they believed

8:27

this person fancied them and wanted to keep

8:29

talking to them about themselves.

8:32

Aggie, do we have a sense of what

8:35

ultimately these, whoever

8:38

was responsible, obviously we don't know, what

8:40

they wanted? I mean, we know, none

8:42

of these people you're talking about, the six that you

8:44

initially identified are MPs. One of

8:46

them was an MP. One of them was an MP, okay.

8:48

No MP. I mean, do we have a sense of ultimately

8:50

where they wanted this to go? I mean, they were sending

8:53

sexually explicit material. Was it just about blackmail? Really

8:55

good question. So I've talked a lot about

8:57

the initial six. We are now on 22,

8:59

I think, of people that we have explicitly

9:01

spoken to and verified that the numbers were

9:03

the same people. And that's on Grindr and

9:05

on WhatsApp as well. In

9:08

none of the first six instances, they asked

9:10

for any kind of work information. And in

9:12

fact, they haven't since either. There

9:14

was a bit of a sort of spurt

9:16

of these messages going around, Lib Dem and

9:18

Labour Conference. And in that instance, they were

9:20

sort of asking for gossip, to substantiate gossip,

9:22

who was sleeping with who, who might be

9:25

interested in sleeping with them. But

9:27

at no stage have they really asked for

9:29

work details. So the motive is still kind

9:31

of unclear. I mean, I think experts are

9:33

beginning to think it might be one

9:36

rogue person who's sort of interested in

9:38

the sexual aspects of it. But as you say, they

9:40

don't know who's behind it yet, and there isn't

9:42

a clear motive. But I think the other thing that

9:45

has come out as we've gone on is we

9:47

are aware of 22 people. And I

9:49

am not including Andrea Jenkins from

9:51

that, because I have not spoken to her directly

9:53

and I haven't verified the number. Neither has my

9:55

colleague, Dan. Every single other person

9:57

is a man. They are between about... 20

10:00

and their early 40s and they are all

10:02

and this is a deeply deeply subjective thing

10:04

to say But they are all

10:07

kind of good-looking from Westminster standards I mean

10:09

all the kind of people that have been

10:11

contacted there is really really really a profile

10:13

of them and they're all sort of at

10:15

the same Makeup. I mean they

10:17

are you know, as you say journalists politicians

10:20

as even a minister serving government minister in

10:22

there But but that's the thing that ties

10:24

them all together their age their gender and

10:26

also the fact that they're all sort of

10:28

good-looking And just to

10:30

go back to the Abby Charlie thing I mean

10:32

you talk about two numbers to profile pictures

10:35

you think it's probably one person,

10:37

right? Yeah, exactly.

10:39

And that was something that we suspected strongly

10:42

from the beginning But actually now we have

10:44

seen a set of messages Where

10:46

that's essentially confirmed because they message first is

10:48

Charlie and the person blocked them very quickly

10:50

and then they messaged us Abby 24 hours

10:52

later and the person said hang on you're

10:55

just the person I blocked yesterday and They

10:58

said yeah. Yeah. Well, I was sorry blocked

11:00

me. So that is the clearest idea that

11:02

we have We think it's sexual you don't

11:04

think I mean to go back to your initial

11:06

flicker Espionage. I mean do you

11:08

think it's anything properly? Malicious

11:11

about this in terms of somebody acting

11:13

against the state. No No,

11:17

but there are obviously I mean there

11:19

are police investigations open now There are lots of people

11:21

much cleverer than me working on it My

11:24

instinct at the moment and I believe the

11:26

instinct of experts is it's probably not But

11:28

it could have been and the fact that it's not hostile

11:30

state and the fact that whoever this

11:32

is And you've already alluded to it. I had obviously

11:34

I mean at least 22. There must be more Must

11:38

be more managed to get all of these

11:40

numbers One way or the other and

11:43

at least with one MP that we know

11:45

William rag managed to go quite far

11:47

down the train in terms of how this was

11:49

playing out to the point that he was giving

11:51

them other MPs numbers well

11:54

exactly in a way the motive is sort of

11:56

if we look away from the story for a

11:58

second people did engage numerous

12:00

people engaged one MP was effectively

12:02

blackmailed into giving out information in

12:05

terms of William rag. That

12:07

is sort of terrifying. And they did they were

12:09

able to contact these MPs. And as you say,

12:11

it could have been a hostile state, they could

12:14

have got a lot more from William rag

12:16

than just phone numbers. I'm not in any

12:18

way. What's that right? Or it's

12:20

just what's that criminal offence? Well,

12:23

the police are looking into it. So I don't know

12:25

where that will go. But there are at least

12:28

a lettership lease and that police are looking into

12:30

it. What would it be? I mean, I'm

12:32

trying to think what the is it enticement? Is it?

12:34

Is there an offensive of a honey trap? Is there?

12:36

Well, I think part of it is sending explicit

12:39

images on solicited, right? That's, that's

12:41

definitely something that they're looking into. And

12:44

obviously, rag has ended up at

12:46

the centre of it, particularly in terms of

12:48

the Conservative Party's reaction, because there are lots

12:50

and lots of MPs, conservative MPs who are

12:52

deeply, deeply unhappy, aren't they about what

12:54

obviously what rag has done, but also with

12:57

the Prime Minister's reaction, the Chancellor's reaction

12:59

to it, the fact that he's now

13:01

resigned the conservative whip, but he's

13:03

done so voluntarily, it wasn't taken from

13:05

him. So it's becoming it's an internal

13:07

conservative political issue as well. Yeah,

13:10

I think that's right. I mean, obviously, when rag

13:12

came out on Thursday night, I think there was

13:14

initially a lot of sympathy for him. And people

13:16

do feel like he was a victim and all

13:18

this. But obviously, things have

13:20

moved on since then. And yesterday, he

13:22

resigned from 1922. And then from PACAC.

13:24

And now obviously, he's voluntarily resigned the

13:26

whip. But I think some people are

13:28

saying he's leaving parliament anyway, it's not

13:31

like it's ended his career ahead of

13:33

time. Exactly. But you know, he is

13:35

leaving under a cloud. And I think

13:37

a few people are kind of questioning to our MPs,

13:39

as you say, kind of questioning why

13:41

he did it voluntarily. Do you think he's a

13:43

victim? Yeah, do

13:46

you not? Yeah, I think yeah, I do. I

13:48

think I think so. Yeah, but I think it's possible

13:50

to be we've talked about this with West Reading yesterday,

13:52

it's possible to be both things, right? Both a victim,

13:54

but also he has in handing over those numbers, he

13:57

obviously did a bad thing in

13:59

terms of the security. of other people, which is

14:01

clearly problematic. You're not naming the Labour MP,

14:03

but what was their response in all this?

14:05

I mean, when you broke the news to

14:07

them that they'd probably been a victim of

14:09

this thing. So this is actually something really,

14:11

really interesting. A lot of the Labour staffers, not

14:13

including the Labour MP in this, but a lot

14:15

of the Labour staffers basically say they have never

14:17

been in the same room as William Ragg. They

14:20

have never met William Ragg. They don't know William

14:22

Ragg. They are very, very, very unsure how William

14:24

Ragg would ever have got their numbers. And obviously,

14:26

you know how it works in Westminster. It's very

14:28

easy to get people's numbers in Westminster. Everyone's in

14:30

WhatsApp group chats. But these Labour staffers are confused

14:32

as to how William Ragg could have got their

14:34

number. So it doesn't seem like, and as you

14:36

say, William Ragg has been put at the centre

14:38

of the story, but he's responsible for giving out

14:41

all of those numbers. And I think that's something

14:43

my colleague Dan Bloom picked up as well, that

14:45

this doesn't quite add up. And obviously, there's the,

14:47

not obviously, but there is a Grindr element of

14:49

it as well, because at Lib Dem Conference, this

14:52

person who was Charlie at the time rather than

14:54

Abby, was messaging people on

14:56

Grindr and again, exactly, and contacting people

14:58

through that medium as well. So I

15:00

think William Ragg obviously has admitted to

15:02

giving out some numbers and the Tory

15:04

MP whose numbers he gave

15:06

out, obviously annoyed about that,

15:08

but I don't think it makes sense that he

15:10

gave out all the numbers. How much further do you

15:12

think this story could yet run? How

15:15

much do you think there's more to it? I mean, you've

15:17

just alluded to it there in a way that it doesn't

15:19

make sense. Ragg's at the centre of it for now, but

15:22

it doesn't make sense in the sense that he is at

15:24

the centre of it. He was just one person who was

15:26

contacted. Do you think there are other layers to it that

15:28

may yet emerge? Honestly, we've been working on this

15:30

story well for two months, but it's been published

15:32

for seven days. And every time you think you're

15:35

really close to getting an answer to exactly what's

15:37

going on, three more lines of inquiry spring up.

15:39

So I mean, even yesterday we published

15:41

this story, we tracked down the person whose

15:43

photos were being used on WhatsApp. So the

15:45

profile picture on WhatsApp was this guy, and

15:47

then on Grindr's picture of the same guy

15:49

in three different photos. And we found a

15:51

Facebook account, my colleague Dan found a Facebook

15:53

account of the guy who it was. And

15:56

we're like, Oh my God, we found him. So he's a

15:58

guy, this guy had nothing to do with it. he'd

16:00

reported the stolen pictures to the police after we

16:02

contacted him. But that just, it's

16:04

just an example of how these things keep happening.

16:07

You think you're about to solve the entire mystery

16:09

and then more questions arise. So I think there's

16:11

much more to come. I think we still don't

16:13

know who's behind it. We still don't even know

16:16

what the motive is. And I think, yeah, the

16:18

story could still run and run. Thank

16:20

you, Jenbury. Brilliant to have you in. Thank you. This

16:32

is the News Agents. Louise

16:37

is in the Ronda Valley and you're through to the Prime Minister.

16:39

Go ahead, Louise. Morning to you. Good

16:42

morning, Nick. Good morning, Prime Minister. Hi, Ronda.

16:44

Sorry, Louise in the Ronda Valley. Oh, Louise. Hi, sorry,

16:47

Louise. I'm in the Ronda Valley. Louise, hi. Well,

16:50

I'm back with Kensington. That

16:53

is the clip that's gone viral today from

16:56

Richard Sudek's interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC.

16:58

And you can see how kind

17:00

of horribly awkward that is. And to

17:03

be frank, how easily that could happen.

17:05

You just hear the wrong bit and

17:07

you sort of give the caller the

17:09

wrong name. You call me Stretum

17:11

all the time. All the time. All the time. Yeah.

17:13

And when you moved to house, it got so confusing.

17:15

I know. But

17:18

I guess the point is, in

17:21

that interview, particularly the call with Louise, we

17:24

understand more about the Prime Minister

17:27

than you get at first from that slip of the

17:29

tongue. He reveals more about

17:31

himself and frankly, the

17:34

way he thinks of or talks

17:36

to the voter, wherever that

17:38

voter is, which is really,

17:41

really eye opening in terms

17:43

of understanding that relationship that

17:46

Rishi Sunek will have on the campaign trail

17:48

whenever that actually starts in earnest. Yeah, I

17:50

think this phone in with Sunek and Nick

17:52

Ferrari on LBC, he's done it a few

17:54

times before he does it with Stum as

17:57

well. And, you know, there were no kind

17:59

of like big lines. the political landmines that

18:01

went off, he didn't make any huge

18:03

mistake or anything like that. But as you say Emily, I

18:05

do think it was

18:07

quite revealing of him in

18:10

small ways and the way

18:12

that he interacts with people and the way that

18:14

he deals with political problems, which as you say

18:16

could become a problem on the campaign trail. So

18:18

that same caller later on, basically her

18:21

story, Louise's story, was that she has

18:23

been unwell, she's out of work and

18:25

on benefits because she's waiting for a

18:27

psychotherapist and she can't get one.

18:29

That will be a story that resonates with many

18:31

people I'm sure. And you

18:33

can imagine how a politician might react to

18:36

that, often with empathy, with solidarity, trying

18:38

to ask more about her circumstances. This

18:40

is how, as part of that conversation, the Prime

18:43

Minister reacted to it. Which thing that

18:45

you trust is this, Louise? I can't

18:47

say it's in Welsh but it's in... Right,

18:50

well actually... You can't say it in... I thought

18:52

it's in Welsh. I think that's an interesting point

18:54

actually, Louise, because it's the

18:56

Labour Party who run the NHS in Wales, as

18:58

you know, because it's devolved government in Wales. And

19:00

I think, you know, actually there's a very clear

19:02

contrast to what's happening between England and Wales. Like

19:05

across the UK, all NHSs

19:07

have experienced backlogs

19:09

from Covid. But actually... It's

19:11

the aha, isn't it? The light bulb. That

19:13

kind of gives it away, where he says

19:15

the quiet part out loud, which is to

19:18

ignore what Louise is clearly going

19:21

through, her voice tells us that she's finding this quite

19:23

difficult and quite hard to talk about and presumably

19:26

has suffered quite a lot of

19:28

trauma in trying to explain what her

19:30

circumstances are. And presumably has rung up

19:33

out of some desperation. Well, because

19:36

she doesn't think which authority I'm talking

19:38

to. She thinks she's talking to the

19:40

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which

19:42

she is. And that moment

19:44

that you can hear Rishi Sunak almost

19:47

find the arm's length distance between

19:50

her problem and his

19:52

problem, which is that the

19:54

Rhonda Valley is labour

19:57

run because labours in government in

19:59

Wales. And you can hear Rishi almost

20:01

kind of go, it's a

20:03

gotcha, right? Oh, don't worry, we're going to

20:06

be okay. This proves my point. This proves

20:08

my point, which is not really why she's

20:11

calling. No. And you can imagine a

20:13

more skillful politician, in

20:15

fact, a lot of politicians, maybe not even that

20:17

skillful, essentially saying, wanting to

20:19

find out, look, Louise, tell me about your

20:22

circumstances, exactly where are you, what is your

20:24

history of being with this? I'll talk to

20:26

my team, you know, we'll do what we

20:28

can. And then maybe, I mean, you still

20:30

could advise Louise who to go to, even

20:32

if it's something that you do not govern

20:34

yourself. And then maybe in parentheses, and this

20:36

is where the politics come in, you just

20:38

sort of happen to mention almost impassing that

20:40

Labour run Wales has worse outcomes and all

20:42

of these things. And we're concerned about it.

20:44

And we're pressuring them to do something about it. But

20:47

of course, that's no concern to you. Yeah, you're

20:49

just worried that your problem is about getting this

20:52

help for you, which is what might, which is

20:54

my concern as well. And we're doing everything

20:56

we can to ensure that happens, etc, etc. Next

20:59

caller. And I think you're completely

21:01

right, really, there is this sense sometimes

21:03

with Cunac, this has happened with these

21:05

other phone ins as well, where he

21:08

has his tone, his register is pretty

21:10

defensive. And this was shown

21:12

again, in a second call, and I thought this

21:14

was in some ways even more revealing.

21:17

And this is a call which actually I

21:19

think was potentially a tremendous opportunity for Cunac.

21:22

This is a call from a man, Jerry,

21:24

who said he had voted conservative in every

21:26

election since Margaret Thatcher's first election in 1979.

21:29

So this is an absolute story voter. And

21:31

he said for the first time, his current

21:33

intention was to vote for reform instead.

21:36

And we know that this

21:38

is a significant political problem for Cunac.

21:40

Jerry is like many, many conservative voters.

21:43

And so he was asking Cunac, why

21:45

shouldn't I? So here was an opportunity

21:47

being presented to him on a platter

21:50

to provide a fluent, passionate answer as

21:52

to why Jerry and potentially millions of

21:54

others like him shouldn't do so. Instead,

21:56

this is what Cunac said. First

21:59

of all, thanks for your support for the party

22:01

over so many years. That's fantastic. And

22:03

I'm sorry to hear about it, but all

22:06

I'd say is next election, there's going

22:08

to be one of two people, Prime Minister at the end

22:10

of it, me or Keir Starmer, on the two issues that

22:13

you mentioned, you should just come to a view on who

22:15

you think is more likely to deliver for you. And

22:17

on the issue of net zero, I don't know if

22:19

you remember last year, I stood

22:21

up and made a very significant speech changed

22:23

our approach net zero was very clear that

22:25

we can't rush to it in an ideological

22:28

way that saddles costs of 510 15 ground

22:31

on ordinary families like yours didn't think that was right,

22:33

changed the policy on it, of course, we're going to

22:35

get there. I've got young kids, I care about

22:37

the environment, we should do that in a sensible

22:39

way, especially when we're doing a better job on

22:41

it than pretty much anyone else. And when it

22:43

comes to tackling illegal migration, you know, I'm battling

22:45

the Labour Party and everyone else to get our

22:48

Rwanda bill through parliament. So look, I'm those are

22:50

the issues that you care about. I care about

22:52

them too. I've already showed that I'm delivering on

22:54

them. And I said, if you vote for reform,

22:56

all you're going to do is put Kia Starmer

22:58

in power, and then we're going to get no

23:01

action. Is that brittleness that we've talked about before?

23:03

And the defensiveness of? Yeah, I think

23:05

you're right. I mean, here was an opportunity to say,

23:07

right, Jerry, how do we

23:09

get you back? Yeah, Jerry has gone to

23:11

the trouble of picking up the phone. He

23:14

wants to be told somebody

23:16

to woo him, to embrace him

23:18

to bring him back in comfortable about

23:20

it. Of course, he's not just going off

23:22

and doing it. He's saying, Rishi, this is where

23:24

I am. Tell me, I'm tell me I'm wrong.

23:27

But Rishi actually does tell him he's wrong.

23:29

I mean, in not very subtle ways.

23:31

And I think that is your

23:33

opening. That is your opening to say, well,

23:36

yeah, that's not going to work, is it?

23:38

And I'm doing this. And also, I think

23:40

Jerry's whole arguments in the longer version of

23:43

the question is that he's talking

23:45

about legal migration. And I think that

23:47

also gives you a window into Sunak's

23:50

priorities, because yes, the small

23:52

boat thing has been the thing that

23:54

he has consistently put on, you know,

23:56

every podium, every leaflet, every speech, every

23:59

campaign. And yet Jerry there is

24:01

talking about why the numbers have actually gone

24:03

up in terms of legal migration from his

24:05

pledge of 300,000 to closer to 800,000. I

24:10

think this all comes down to one thing,

24:12

which is that politics fundamentally, elective politics is

24:14

the art of persuasion. As Sunak

24:16

seems to believe that it

24:19

is self-evidence that voters and

24:21

conservative voters ought to vote for him. He

24:24

basically tells Jerry that he's stupid. He

24:26

basically says that if you do what you're doing,

24:29

you're stupid because all you're going to do is

24:31

get the real opposite of what you want. Instead

24:34

of leveling with him and saying, look, what can

24:36

I do? You tell

24:38

me, I'm humbly asking you, tell me what

24:40

I need to do to win you back. Here's a

24:42

few things that I think that we're doing that I

24:45

don't think maybe I'm not getting this across enough to

24:48

try and allay your concerns on

24:50

these matters. And by the

24:52

way, he could say, and the thing is about reform, Jerry, is

24:54

that ultimately, they are not a

24:56

proper governing party. They are not going to

24:59

deliver. They're telling you a load of things

25:01

that they want to hear. Well, he sort

25:03

of does, but he doesn't. He's

25:05

stupid. I

25:08

think the argument he's making is the

25:10

one that he would make to us, to journalists, to

25:12

anyone. He'd say reform aren't going

25:14

to get into power, so basically you're helping kiss

25:16

Darwin into power, which is what people say. He

25:19

sounds peeved about it. He sounds peeved that the

25:21

guy might have come to this conclusion. He's just

25:23

so generous, does he? You

25:25

use the word humble, I think.

25:27

There is very little humility. Completely. And

25:30

I think the thing that you forget, and it

25:32

must be really hard being a politician actually,

25:34

is just how humble

25:36

you have to be to the voter

25:38

the whole time for every single vote,

25:41

right? Because that decision lies

25:43

with, as you said, making people want you.

25:45

And if they decide that they don't want

25:47

you, then it must really hurt,

25:49

right? Absolutely. Of course. He's

25:52

got tremendous pressure and he's working probably 18 hours a day and not

25:54

getting the results he

25:56

wants. And so, of course, it's easy for us

25:58

to sit here and come. Of course it is,

26:01

but at the same time he is in the

26:03

business of elected politics and in six to eight

26:05

months time He's gonna have to put himself before

26:07

millions of voters and his party right now right

26:09

now are Considering whether this guy is the guy

26:12

to lead us into that election of a catastrophe

26:14

And yet this is the attitude that he's presenting

26:16

to voters I mean it really made me think

26:18

of is the Tim Shippman piece

26:20

at the weekend in the Sunday Times where

26:23

the key line from That was his saying

26:25

apparently to his aides that he does not

26:27

understand why people can't see that

26:29

he's right and That

26:31

was precisely the vibe and precisely the

26:33

sense that he was conveying to every

26:35

single one of those voters particularly Jerry

26:37

Why can't you see that my argument

26:40

is correct the point of elective politics

26:42

is not that it's self-evident The point is you have

26:45

to persuade them I totally agree, and I think you

26:47

know if you go back through previous campaigning

26:50

PMs right so I'm going to put

26:52

Boris Johnson into that category and David

26:54

Cameron and I and obviously Theresa May

26:57

not Liz trust What

26:59

they have all believed? Fundamentally

27:01

is that they are right. I mean I think

27:03

you cannot go to the country You

27:07

think you're right, but it's about that

27:10

tone of empathy It's about the pause

27:12

that lets somebody explain their problem to

27:15

you fully Before you just

27:17

sort of stamp on it and go oh oh

27:20

You're wrong and there is there is another factor at

27:22

work with with this recently as well Which is we

27:25

talked about Cameron yesterday, and how he's filling the

27:27

void on foreign policy There is this narrative that

27:29

is also starting to build up That is that Cameron

27:31

people may have seen this if they're on Twitter

27:33

keeps doing these kind of foreign office Peace

27:36

to camera videos where he's explaining what he's doing

27:38

or he's doing these pool clips And it is

27:40

a reminder that for all of his political deficiencies

27:42

Which there were and his mistakes and so on

27:44

in his legacy which is checking in lots of

27:46

ways There is no two ways about it the

27:49

guy's a gifted communicator. Yeah, he's got better earlier

27:51

He's very very posh and of course he's been in

27:53

politics for way longer They remind us soon act only

27:55

an MP since 2015 Cameron was an

27:57

MP from 2001. He's been at the game way

28:00

longer but it's sort of reminding us of that. Right

28:02

at the very beginning on that fateful

28:04

Monday when David Cameron walked

28:06

into Downing Street and we suddenly, you know, sharp

28:09

intake of breath and we realised what was coming

28:11

next is that Sunak

28:13

has basically placed another

28:16

Prime Minister in the

28:18

public's eye simultaneously to

28:21

his own role

28:23

and so you are constantly judging

28:25

him not just by sort of

28:27

predecessors which is kind of, let's be

28:30

honest, easy for him like Liz Truss but

28:32

by the man who is literally sitting around

28:34

the cabinet table, who's literally on the

28:37

global stage, who's literally meeting the world

28:39

leaders, who's literally shaking the hands, who's

28:41

probably getting more policy done and changed

28:43

as we were saying on yesterday's podcast

28:46

than the Prime Minister himself is now and

28:48

so you have this, it's like watching

28:50

a sort of photosynthesis, experiments used to do

28:52

as kids where you have the control and

28:54

then you have the take away the sunlight

28:56

one, you know, you see what the person

28:58

who knows how to be Prime Minister is

29:00

acting and I think that sort of stares

29:02

you in the face. We'll be back in

29:04

a moment. This

29:13

is The News Agents. Before

29:17

we go we should just tell you what we're talking about

29:20

on the News Agents USA episode

29:22

tonight which is this

29:25

extraordinary move by the state

29:27

of Arizona where they have

29:29

essentially brought in an

29:31

abortion ban that comes

29:33

from a law passed in

29:36

1864. Just

29:38

to put that in context, this is

29:41

a law passed before Arizona was a

29:43

state, before women had the

29:45

vote and before

29:47

slavery had ended. This

29:50

is a near total

29:52

ban on abortion for

29:54

women in the state of Arizona.

29:58

Lincoln just gearing up for his real ex. I

30:01

mean, it is astonishing. It was what,

30:03

50 years before universal suffrage came in

30:05

and yet America wasn't 100

30:07

years old. Right. And

30:09

here we are. Here, Arizona is

30:11

about to implement a law along with

30:14

many other states and we've looked a

30:16

little bit already at what's happening in

30:18

Florida, which could see abortion

30:20

banned, women whose health

30:23

is in danger not helped

30:26

and people, doctors, medical

30:28

professionals convict it, sent

30:30

to jail. That is the

30:33

America that we are on the cusp of

30:35

seeing now. We're going to talk about that in a bit

30:37

more detail on News Agency USA. Look

30:39

forward to it. We should go for our daily kebab,

30:41

shouldn't we? We should be off for the kebab. Alright.

30:43

Come on Moody. More keys. Bye

30:46

bye. The News

30:48

Agents with Emily Maiklis, John Sopor

30:50

and Lewis Goodall.