This is an audio transcript of the Political Fix podcast episode: ‘Is Labour’s post-Brexit reset a victory or a betrayal?’
George Parker
Welcome to Political Fix from the Financial Times with me, George Parker. I’m afraid you’ll stuck with me for a while while Lucy’s off on maternity leave and we’ll bring you all the breaking news on that front as and when we get it.
This week saw Keir Starmer securing a historic Brexit deal for the UK with the EU. What does the deal mean? How has it played out politically? And who are the winners and losers? And later we’ll be looking at Keir Starmer’s deal on the Chagos Islands, signed on Thursday. Diplomatic coup or another example of the prime minister hauling up the white flag on the global stage? Joining me to unpack it all are my colleagues, Miranda Green. Hi, Miranda.
Miranda Green
Hello, George.
George Parker
Peter Foster, the FT’s world trade editor. Hi, Peter.
Peter Foster
Hi, George.
George Parker
And joining us from Brussels, the FT’s EU correspondent, Andy Bounds. Hi, Andy.
Andy Bounds
Hi, George.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Keir Starmer in audio clip
Ladies and gentlemen, Britain is back on the world stage, working with our partners, doing deals that will grow our economy and putting more money in the pockets of working people.
Kemi Badenoch in audio clip
This is not a good deal, it is a surrender, it is a sellout and I’m completely gobsmacked that this is what Labour has come back with.
George Parker
So Peter, it was the first EU-UK summit since Brexit took effect back in 2020, so it’s a historic moment in that respect. Was the deal itself significant?
Peter Foster
I think it was significant in the sense that it began the proper re-plumbing of our relationship. So it fell into two bits, really: there was the defence and security partnership and then the trade bit. The defence and the security partnership, it’s a legally nonbinding document. The EU has some other people, Japan and South Korea. But what it does is it starts the plumbing again.
So twice yearly summits between the foreign secretary and the EU high representative for foreign affairs; it puts the Brits back in the room and I think that gives us a diplomatic foothold. It also opens the door to us taking part in this €150bn loan facility for rearment of Europe. So in that sense, all good.
On the trade side, two components to that. The first one is relinking the electricity trading markets, which were severed at the point of Brexit. That’s important because we have a joint commitment to make a lot of green electricity in the North Sea between now and 2050 and we need to trade that electricity and the loose volume coupling arrangement that was put in place, when we left the EU because we left the single market, it doesn’t work. It’s never worked, it’s not gonna work. And actually the Brits got a win there. The commission can’t climb down.
And then the other piece is on the veterinary agreement to allow us to import, export foods without checks. That’s all great. Does it make a big difference economically? No, 0.3 per cent of GDP increased by 2040 — that’s a tiny fraction of the 4 per cent of GDP that the OBR says we’re gonna lose.
George Parker
So Andy, that was a great overview of the deal from Peter. Can you explain in a bit more detail one of the big sticking points of the negotiation — in fact the thing that kept them up until the early hours on the night before the summit, the fisheries agreement? How important was that and was it a massive defeat for Keir Starmer?
Andy Bounds
Well, the key thing about the fisheries agreement is the deal that was done at the time the UK left the EU was time-limited. So next year, UK waters would close to EU boats without some kind of deal. But obviously, it was always anticipated there will be a renewal of the deal in some form.
Now, what the EU said was, well, if we’re gonna do a reset, we want that issue sorted and off the table so it doesn’t plague future discussions. And 12 years is a heck of a long time. I think the EU wanted forever, basically, which they’re unlikely to get. But they’re very happy with 12 years.
On the flip side, I think the British can say, alongside, OK, you can come and catch our fish, but our fishermen also have access to the EU market if this veterinary and food deal gets done, which actually helps. So you’ve got a lot of Scottish fishermen, for example, who want to send their lobsters to France and Spain, where they’re much more popular than they are in the UK and therefore, once that deal’s in place, it should be, you know, an upside for them.
George Parker
OK. And the other thing, you could tell Keir Starmer was really trying to sell the retail elements of this deal, which was inevitably quite technical and was trying to explain how reduced friction at the borders would bring down prices on the supermarket shelves. The other thing he said controversially was that we’d all be able to use the e-gates at European passports when we go on holiday. Really? And when’s it gonna happen?
Andy Bounds
Well, yeah, good question. Funnily enough, I actually tried to use the e-gate at St Pancras to get back on Monday night, and it was gonna allow me, but actually it refused. So I had to go through the old-fashioned way. But this is a member state issue. Like many things in the EU, it’s all very complicated, but, you know, borders are actually enforced by member states. It’s up to them whether they want to allow Brits to use the e-gates. What the Commission said was, there’s nothing to stop you using e-gates, but equally, there’s nothing to force member states to let you use them.
The big thing that will change is later on, probably next year, there’s going to be this new entry-exit system for the EU. Everyone’s gonna have to give their fingerprints when they cross for the first time into the EU from the UK. And once you’re on that system, then you should be able to use the e-gates anyway because it’s easier to track the movements and the old passport stamping will start to disappear.
George Parker
And Peter, very quickly, when do you think we will see prices come down in the supermarkets if indeed they do come down?
Peter Foster
Well, the supermarkets have been told that they might get a deal as early as the end of this year and we should see it implemented in the first two quarters of next year. Asking around, I don’t know what Andy thinks, but that strikes me as very, very optimistic.
I mean, the other kind of piece of this puzzle is although the link between fish and the veterinary agreement was severed — remember the EU saying no veterinary agreements as you give us the deal on fish — if we don’t do what the EU wants on the youth mobility arrangement — remember this idea that 18 to 30-year olds can travel freely back and forward under some kind of scheme — if we drag our feet on that, does the EU start to drag its feet on the SPS deal? You know, I think it’ll take longer than is advertised. Probably the end of next year would be more likely than the end of this year.
George Parker
And Miranda, on the broader point, and we haven’t really discussed this yet, it’s part of the price of getting this deal, the British have agreed to do what in the jargon is known as ‘dynamic alignment’. Basically, not just will we apply European Union rules in areas of foodstuffs and so on, but we will apply EU rules as they develop in future, straight on to the British statute book without any vote at all — the nightmare of the Brexiteers. How is that gonna play out?
Miranda Green
So that’s really interesting, because you would think that any step towards becoming, again, a ‘rule-taker’, as it was called during the years of the Brexit wars that we all remember with such exhaustion, you’d think that was a kind of explosive political moment.
But actually, I think one of the things that’s been interesting about this week is how little it’s actually affected the normal trading of blows at a sort of slightly lower level across the House of Commons, certainly. I mean, I thought it was noticeable that, you know, Nigel Farage hasn’t really been around this week.
George Parker
He’s been on holiday, in France, apparently.
Miranda Green
Yeah, so, you know, what more opportunity do you want to sort of play the old tunes about sovereignty being surrendered than a deal in which British business is saying, OK, we’re happy to become rule-takers and the government’s on our side, not on yours, Mr Farage.
And you know, also quite unconvincing responses for the Conservative party who have so many problems of their own. I mean, this was the week when the Conservative party slipped behind the Lib Dems in polling. So they’re not a sort of strong voice on this, although sort of Badenoch did, of course, try to criticise everything in the deal pretty much and to suggest that it was the beginning of a process that would lead to sort of free movement.
I think this is the interesting thing, is whether the fact that this deal this week is the start of ongoing negotiations. There’s so much, as Peter said, that’s still undecided, not least on the things that affect, you know, visas and young people’s travel, whether as these kind of forever negotiations continue, whether that actually does, you know, provide some more oxygen for the right. At the moment, I think it’s kind of the power is with Starmer because it looks pretty pragmatic, perhaps with the exception of the fish.
George Parker
It felt to me like a bit of a toe in the water politically for Keir Starmer, just to see how this landed, you know. I think Peter and I were discussing this earlier in the week and I think you, Peter, said it was a bit of a nothing burger in the sense it wasn’t this huge reset of the relationship that some people have talked about. But it does set in train what could be an interesting dynamic once you accept the principle of taking rules from Brussels and paying money to Brussels to take part and accepting some kind of backstop role for the European Court of Justice.
That does open up future opportunities, I guess, if you wanted to move closer, but what’s your assessment, Miranda, of why it didn’t seem to play out more than it actually did? I mean, you look at the polls, don’t you? The public seemed to have lost interest in the subject or indeed have thought Brexit wasn’t such a great idea.
Miranda Green
So in a sense, I think sort of public exhaustion on the whole topic helps the government. And I think the fact that the government has explained its number one mission is economic growth and if they present it in that way as pragmatic changes that business wants, you know, prices are high, the cost of living is hugely important issue for voters in terms of kind of the salience of issues, and, you know, if you couldn’t say prices are gonna come down in the supermarket as a result of this, you know, energy costs are too high, we’re doing this and this to tackle energy costs, I think politically, it’s not terrible.
But of course, because of the Reform factor in politics at the moment, it remains very volatile. And all the time, these sort of warming up of relations attempts by the government are providing future topics for Farage to fight on. So I think there is a sort of inbuilt risk in the process. But, you know, on dynamic alignment, rule-taking — I mean, is it not the case, Peter, you know much better than me, a whole bunch of rules are already being adopted by British businesses of necessity, because if you’re exporting to the market on our doorstep, you have to comply in practise.
Peter Foster
Yeah, no, indeed. I mean, Tory ministers having fits of vapours over giving up our right to diverge when they did absolutely nothing with the right to diverge because, you know, having a market on your doorstep with you doing nearly half your trade with means that divergence comes with a cost.
So, yeah. But by the same token, alignment doesn’t get you access. So yes, you do have to align. In order to export the EU, you have to follow their rules, but being outside the market . . . So if you’re a chemical industry, you don’t just wanna follow EU rules because they’re really costly and cumbersome, because the fact that you follow them doesn’t mean that when you show up at the border, have to show up with a piece of paper that proves you follow them, right?
Being inside the single market only works when you’re inside it. When you’re outside it, you lose the presumption of compliance. And therefore, actually the government’s gonna find that it’s not gonna get huge economic benefits until it starts to move through those red lines on single market and customs union.
George Parker
And that’s really important because someone like Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has suggested that we might dynamically align on rules for established industries like chemicals, you mentioned there, Peter, or the automotive sector. But that isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card as you’ve just . . .
Peter Foster
No, absolutely not. But I think the issue here is that there is no perfect equilibrium outside the EU. Once you start to get closer, the nexus of rights and obligations get stronger and stronger. So the closer you get, the more rule-taking you have to do, the more you get legitimate questions over not having a seat at the table, the more the EU demands you pay in.
And then you end up in a world, for example, like Switzerland or Norway. And I’m not actually sure for all of the acquiescence of the public that the British public is ready to be in the worst of all worlds.
George Parker
Now, Andy, we talked a bit about how this played out in the UK and there were screaming headlines in the Daily Express and The Sun about betrayal and so forth. How did it play in the European Union? Was this seen as a surrender by Britain or perhaps was it even a surrender by Brussels?
Andy Bounds
Well, it’s quite fascinating because, I mean, in terms of the media, there wasn’t a huge amount of coverage, right, in Europe. You know, Brexit is done as far as they’re concerned, and they’re sort of sporadic stories. Fish is obviously an interest to some neighbouring states like the French.
But within the sort of Brussels bubble, I think it was seen as the Brits actually did a great job and played a good hand. Many member states are very disappointed about this youth mobility not being a bigger commitment, right? There’s a sort of vague, you know, we’re gonna work towards a youth mobility scheme.
They really wanted to get their kids into British universities paying British fees, you know, which are about a quarter of what the European citizens are paying at the moment. So that aspect of it, the British sort of resisted. And of course, they did give up this cherry.
You know, we remember we used to talk about no cherry picking. Well, giving the UK access to the single market for energy again, which is in a mutual interest, is actually cherry picking and they’re allowing this cherry picking because they realised they need the UK because they all wanna get, you know, more flexible dynamic and electricity generation and exchange across the channel.
So I think it’s very interesting that, as we were saying, this sort of does lead to all these sorts of conversations. And I think overall, the Europeans will come away from this and say, look, we probably gave more than we wanted to, but we got our fish and we got a sort of closeness to build on, you know.
George Parker
I suppose the big question, Miranda, is whether you can build on this agreement, limited as it may have been, and whether it points us in a direction where the negotiations carry on, the public don’t pay all that much attention. And then the question will start to arise coming into the next general election, the Liberal Democrats are already posing at the moment, already, should Labour commit to going back into the customs union, for example, or even the single market?
Miranda Green
I would hugely doubt that they will do that, to be honest. I mean, you know, I may have to eat my words, but I think that was such a firm commitment.
And with Reform breathing down their neck, I can’t see Labour ministers going for that in the next manifesto. But what it does offer is a sort of quite predictable line-up of all the parties on the spectrum around sort of hostility to Europe on one side with Reform and the Tories battling it out and the Lib Dems being the most pro-European party on the other side.
And Starmer’s party trying to say, well, we’re the pragmatists in the middle, just trying to improve the relationship, but not going back on our red lines. And of course, for pro-Europeans and also for business sectors, as Peter said, who haven’t yet got what they want from the process, there will be strong voices on that side saying, you’re not going far and fast enough.
And if we get close to the general election and economic growth is looking still, you know, decent economic growth is still looking still out of reach, I think there will be pressure from that side to do more.
Peter Foster
Let me just make a very distinction between the single market and the customs union. The customs unit in the next phase is much more easy to the point about, you know, does anyone really care about dynamic alignment to get cheaper supermarket goods? Single market is a different kettle of fish. Free movement I think is a problem, given the debate around immigration, that level of paying in, but also that level of rule taking in things like financial services when you’re outside the Eurozone. I think a single market is a very tricky space.
George Parker
But even going back into the customs union now, does it become more difficult now that Keir Starmer has his, as he would put it, hat-trick of trade deals this month, one with the EU, but of course then previously that one’s with India and the United States?
Peter Foster
I don’t think that EU, I mean, there is a rules of origin issue, but I don’t think it’s insurmountable.
George Parker
OK. Andy, one final question to you. Our colleague Janan Ganesh wrote a great column this week about how Britain would be negotiating with the European Union forever. Do you agree with that and does that fill you with great pleasure?
Andy Bounds
Well, it’s gonna fill the page of the FT and keep me employed. I mean, I do think that there’s kind of inevitable anyway. I mean this obviously takes it to another level, but you know, you talk about dynamic alignment, and of course the EU is always bringing in new rules, which Northern Ireland, for example, has to follow because it’s still in the single market for goods.
So therefore, you’ve always got this dilemma about do you copy what the EU’s doing or do you not, even if you’re not, you know going back into customs union and so on. So yeah, I just think there are so many issues where, you know, the two sides have to collaborate and have to talk and friction comes up. So I do think we’re entering endless process.
And obviously this long talks to get a veterinary deal actually done, as we say, it could take six months, could take one year, could take two years. And there will be fights along the way, right? The UK will want opt-outs for certain areas. They’ve gone further than the EU has and they will ask for an exemption and they’ll probably won’t get one.
But, you know, so we’ll be writing about all this stuff week by week, I would think.
George Parker
Andy Bounds, thank you very much for joining us and have a Westmalle Tripel on me.
Andy Bounds
(Laughter) I certainly will. Thank you very much.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Kemi Badenoch in audio clip
Yet another example of Labour chaos. They cannot negotiate, whenever they negotiate Britain loses. We should not be paying to surrender British territory to Mauritius.
George Parker
I think it’s fair to say that Kemi Badenoch wasn’t very impressed by Keir Starmer’s activities on the global stage this week. Surrender over the EU, and then on Thursday, she reckoned he was hauling up the white flag again over the Chagos Islands.
Kemi Badenoch in audio clip
The fact that Labour is negotiating something that sees the British taxpayer in hawk for potential billions is completely wrong.
George Parker
Yes, Keir Starmer finally signed the deal on Thursday to hand over sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after years of diplomacy. In exchange for £101mn a year, he won the right for the UK and US to operate their joint Diego Garcia base for at least another 99 years. And Miranda, it was quite a dramatic day, wasn’t it, with a last-minute legal injunction?
Miranda Green
It was extremely bizarre in the small hours, the Chagossians who feel very strongly that they have not been consulted about who should have sovereignty over their islands, managed to get a British court to sort of stop the government from signing the deal. That was then overturned by another judge and it went ahead.
George Parker
This was at 2.30 in the morning.
Miranda Green
Yeah, 2.30 in the morning.
George Parker
Lord Justice Goose. (Laughter) Who’d have thought it?
Miranda Green
Yeah, not a regular on our pages; perhaps he will become so. But yeah, so it was a weird start to the day, but of course this has been coming for a really long time.
And this has a focus of intense diplomacy, not least by Jonathan Powell, who’s now Keir Starmer’s foreign policy and security chief. And in that meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, of course, there was nervousness beforehand when Starmer visited Washington as to whether Trump would kick off about the deal. And Trump sort of gave it his blessing.
So the whole thing has had a sort of fair wind for a while. I suppose it’s the question of, again, as we were saying with the EU deal, how does it land domestically and is it seen as a good deal for Britain to have that important defence capability of the base in Diego Garcia, which is important for various places around the world? And also this part of the deal, I think is a sort buffer zone to prevent China and other hostile powers coming anywhere near it, which seems to be crucial.
George Parker
I think you’re right. I was in the Oval Office for that meeting between Starmer and Trump and I think that was the absolutely crucial moment in this whole thing and a tribute to the work that Jonathan Powell had been doing for weeks behind the scenes to have Trump come out and say I think this is actually gonna be quite a good deal. I thought it was probably gonna take the sting out of the whole issue. We’ll come on to Kemi Badenoch’s response in a minute.
Peter, what did you make of the deal from a British point of view? Did it make sense?
Peter Foster
I think it did make sense. You know, it was one of the shabbier episodes in our late colonial tenure. And I think you know we were under legal pressure since the international ruling on the actual merits of the case that we owed them compensation and we’d behaved, you know, illegally and badly at the time, well . . .
George Parker
Let’s just go back to the 1960s, we basically were the colonial power.
Peter Foster
Yeah. In ’65, we just hoofed these poor people out, we left them in terrible conditions and we built our air base on it. And I think, you know, there was a reparation to be paid.
The most important thing is that both India — remember this is in the Indian Ocean — both India and America have given it their blessing. From a kind of geopolitical point of view, that’s what matters. It seems to me that — it’s £3.5bn, isn’t it, inflation adjusted, that we’re gonna pay — that’s a lot of money, but if that secures the base, which is incredibly strategic and important and keeps us in the game strategically, which is harder and harder for us to do given our size and given we are in the world, it strikes me as a deal that we should have done notwithstanding some of the howling from the Tories or from Reform about us selling out.
It just seems to me a sort of sensible strategic deal that’s been signed off by the Americans and it’s had the blessings of the Indians, let’s do it.
George Parker
And also, Keir Starmer pointed out at the press conference at Northwood, the command base where he announced this deal, they had the blessing, of course, of the Five Eyes partners and security partnership. So Britain, the States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia all endorsed it.
And then he made the point quite contentiously that the countries that opposed it were notably China, Russia and Iran. And he said it was surprising that Kemi Badenoch should find herself in the same column as those countries. What did you make of that comment, Miranda?
Miranda Green
But he, I think he couldn’t resist a dig at her on that comment. And you know, for him, it drew attention in a very convenient way to difficult decisions that Badenoch’s had to make in the last few weeks, where she has found herself in a weird position.
I mean, not least actually in the UK-US trade deal that was struck, you know, where you actually had the leader of the Conservative party who’s supposed to be, you know, the branding for the leader of the Conservatives should be the most Atlanticist.
George Parker
And free trade.
Miranda Green
And free trade in the country, you know, criticising the UK managing to do a deal with the US, which looked way off-target. And then again, he’s trying to say she’s off-target again. This is an important military objective that we have secured through this deal. How can she be against it? Like these countries who are clearly hostile powers who we’ve carefully kept away from the area for our allies in the anglosphere and beyond.
He’s quite enjoying drawing attention to the fact that opposing the Starmer government is putting her in weird positions for a Tory party at the moment.
George Parker
Absolutely. I’ve got her comments here in response to what Keir Starmer said. She said it speaks volumes about this shameful prime minister that he attacks me instead of owning up to another wrong-headed, wasteful and dangerous deal. Peter, do you think she’s finding herself on the wrong side of some quite big arguments here?
Peter Foster
I also just, yeah, and I just think it just . . . Keir Starmer’s lots of things. He’s stodgy, he’s boring, he’s a terrible performer and all of a sudden, shameful? He just, I don’t know, I just feel like, you know, Keir Starmer’s not that kind of prime minister and it all feels kind of very hyperbolic and over-egged and slightly desperate.
I guess maybe in that particular, you know, rah-rah, you wave the union flag, bring back the Glories of the Falklands and you know, that very stereotypical view of what a Conservative voter believes in. She thinks maybe she’s touching those buttons. It just, it feels rather off-key to me.
George Parker
I just wonder whether it’s sort of a bit like me listening to Absolute Radio 90s, whether it’s just going back to the familiar old tunes, which maybe don’t sound quite so good anymore. Miranda?
Miranda Green
Well, they don’t if you’re also supposed to be the party of defence. If the objective of this whole diplomatic process has been securing the air base that’s so crucial to us and our allies, it’s way off-beam.
George Parker
I tend to agree. Now, let’s just turn quickly to a broader point. Peter, do you think Keir Starmer is actually proving quite effective on the world stage?
I think a lot of people will say he spent too much time on the world stage, but he seems to have a better team around him. He’s got Jonathan Powell, the architect of the Northern Ireland peace process, or at least one of the architects of that, working for him. He does seem to be delivering results, doesn’t he, on the international stage?
Peter Foster
I think he does. You know, he’s not a great performer, but he has managed to insert the UK into some quite difficult conversations, particularly over Ukraine. And I think, he deserves some credit for that. How well those insertions stand the test of time, we’ll have to see. We’ll have to see what kind of trade deals other countries get with the US in order to see how good was that deal that we did with the US. You know, was it a quick sellout or was it a bit of first-mover advantage? Hard to know at this moment.
Again, we’ll see where Trump ends up with Ukraine. I think on Ukraine, they do seem to have moved the White House to a less binary position on Ukraine, which Starmer will take some credit for. So yeah, I’d say that’s a fair assessment. He’s certainly doing better on the world stage than he is on the domestic stage.
George Parker
Exactly. So that gets us on, Miranda, to some of the other big events of the week very quickly. I know we’ve spent a lot of time on foreign policy here, but, you know, a week where the government did a U-turn on the winter fuel payments could have far-reaching implications for the government and a very controversial policy on prisons.
Is he in danger of neglecting domestic policy? And for all the successes he may or may not be having on the world stage, is it his domestic record, which ultimately is gonna do for Keir Starmer?
Miranda Green
Well, it will certainly . . . I think his domestic record will definitely decide whether he remains in Downing Street for a second term for sure. And the problems on the domestic front are easily as difficult as internationally, really. I mean, we had so many developments this week.
You know, the borrowing figures are not great, to put it mildly. We’ve got pressure on the chancellor in the run-up to her comprehensive spending review with the spending departments all saying, you know, well, centrally government likes to say, oh, they’re shroud waving. You know, they’re saying the cuts are much worse potentially than they will have to be. But actually they’re really severe already in some departments. And so other ministers are lining up saying, you have to prioritise us in the comprehensive spending review. A lot of them are likely to be disappointed.
You’ve had the justice minister Shabana Mahmood having to announce a huge change to sentencing policy, which will effectively be lots more people released early from prison, short sentences for even quite violent crimes, and a load of community sentencing, which may or may not work if the money’s not there for probation, for oversight, for rehousing, all of those things that make rehabilitation in the community possible. You know, the list of domestic challenges really does mount up.
And then there’s the overwhelming mission of getting growth back into the economy so that they have to keep making more cuts to the public realm. So, you know, you can see why Starmer enjoys striding around summits instead, right? I mean, it’s a lot more entertaining than having to listen to why the spreadsheet doesn’t add up across Whitehall.
George Parker
In the olden days, prime ministers would sort of start on domestic stuff and then gradually realise they weren’t able to do much and then they get on to the world stage. But he’s mainly by force of circumstance.
Peter Foster
Yeah, to be fair.
George Parker
To be fair to him, he has spent an awful lot of time on the world stage and I suspect next week we’ll be looking a lot more at some of his domestic travails.
Peter Foster
So his problem is that his narrative domestically is set by the fact that all the way through from the manifesto forward, it’s been a tactical and not a strategic approach. So again, the winter fuel payment, a tactical move to get out of the way. Actually, the sentencing reform, another series of tactical moves to deal with overcrowded prisons. There’s no strategy.
Miranda Green
They literally have said, haven’t they, there won’t be any prison places available this autumn unless we completely change our strategy.
Peter Foster
We imprison at an absurd rate. We have by far the highest prison population, better population in Europe. It’s completely bonkers, but there’s no big argument about why that is and why that needs to be fixed on taxation. Again, you know, they’ve had a horrible first Budget, the national insurance increases have hit investment, hit hiring.
You know, and Keir Starmer is not a guy who tells political stories. The only person who tells those stories is Nigel Farage. And I think in the absence of a political story, if Keir Starmer was actually doing really strategic big things domestically, you could get around the fact that he’s such a weak performer politically. But the challenge is that he doesn’t have a lot to talk about. It’s all about incremental, make the trains run a bit, tiny bit better. And that, you know, that doesn’t put fans on seats.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
George Parker
So we’ve just got time for our stock picks. Peter, who are you buying or selling this week?
Peter Foster
I’m gonna buy Angela Rayner because I think she is somebody, you know, to talk about Nigel Farage and who tells stories, she’s someone who has a story to tell and she speaks to the kind of wider, the left behind, the wider reconfiguration of the country that I think would give Labour a much better chance against the kind in the populist area that we live in. So I’m buying her clever little leak of her telling Rachel Reeves to raise some taxes.
George Parker
On FT readers?
Peter Foster
Yeah, you know, just . . . Well, yeah, sorry about that FT readers, but you know.
Miranda Green
£3bn-£4bn on FT readers.
George Parker
Ah yes, I thought it was very interesting that the leak appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and I was speaking to someone close to Angela Rayner and said, well, if we’d leaked it, the last place we would have leaked it to was the Daily Telegraph.
Peter Foster
Oh, the old double bluff, George!
George Parker
I was like, yeah, it’s the first place you would have leaked. I’m not saying that’s what happened, so I should say that disclaimer. Miranda, who’s your stock pick?
Miranda Green
Well, I . . . So I regret this decision, but I think I am gonna have to sell Shabana Mahmood. I actually think she’s very good and a sort of interesting, strong politician, probably with a good future ahead of her, except that she’s the one having to preside over, you know, these early releases from prison, a bunch of headlines that we’ll probably see going forward about soft sentences, inverted commas, and actually whether people feel safe or not.
Given the kind of crisis in the criminal justice system and the loss of trust in the police forces, I think it’s gonna be almost as important when it comes to polling day at the next election as whether people feel better off or not. And I think actually this is a sort of underexplored area of disquiet among the electorate. And if she’s unfortunately the person presiding over this huge change in sentencing policy, I think she’s gonna be politically vulnerable. George, what about you?
George Parker
Well, I think I’m already quite low on Kemi Badenoch stocks, but I’m afraid I’m gonna . . .
Miranda Green
Sell even more.
Peter Foster
Sell even more.
George Parker
I’m gonna sell even more. I mean, honestly, how on earth do you get yourself into a situation as the Conservative leader did this week, where on a matter of national security — we’ve just been discussing the Chagos Islands — where you’ve got Donald Trump, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Australia and New Zealand as well, and the prime minister all saying, this is a good deal to be on the other side of that. I don’t know, I sometimes wonder. So I think I’m gonna have to sell Kemi Badenoch.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
So that’s all we’ve got time for this week. Miranda, Peter, thanks for joining.
Miranda Green
Thank you.
Peter Foster
Thanks, George.
George Parker
And that’s it for this episode of the FT’s Political Fix. I’ve put links to subjects discussed in this episode in the show notes. Check them out, they’re articles we’ve made free for Political Fix listeners.
There’s also a link there to Stephen Bush’s award-winning Inside Politics newsletter and you’ll get 30 days free. And don’t forget to subscribe to the show. Plus, do leave a review or a star rating, it really helps to spread the word.
Political Fix was presented by me, George Parker, and produced by Lulu Smyth. Flo Phillips is the executive producer. Original music and sound engineering by Breen Turner. The broadcast engineers are Andrew Georgiades and Rod Fitzgerald. Manuela Saragosa is FT’s co-head of audio. We’ll meet again here next week.
[MUSIC PLAYING]