{"id":126109,"date":"2025-05-23T19:59:08","date_gmt":"2025-05-23T19:59:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/126109\/"},"modified":"2025-05-23T19:59:08","modified_gmt":"2025-05-23T19:59:08","slug":"is-labours-post-brexit-reset-a-victory-or-a-betrayal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/126109\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Labour\u2019s post-Brexit reset a victory or a betrayal?\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is an audio transcript of the Political Fix<\/a> podcast episode: \u2018Is Labour\u2019s post-Brexit reset a victory or a betrayal?<\/a>\u2019<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Welcome to Political Fix from the Financial Times with me, George Parker. I\u2019m afraid you\u2019ll stuck with me for a while while Lucy\u2019s off on maternity leave and we\u2019ll bring you all the breaking news on that front as and when we get it. <\/p>\n

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\u2019ll be looking at Keir Starmer\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Hello, George.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Peter Foster, the FT\u2019s world trade editor. Hi, Peter.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Hi, George.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>And joining us from Brussels, the FT\u2019s EU correspondent, Andy Bounds. Hi, Andy.<\/p>\n

Andy Bounds
<\/strong>Hi, George.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

[MUSIC PLAYING]<\/p>\n

Keir Starmer in audio clip
<\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

Kemi Badenoch in audio clip
<\/strong>This is not a good deal, it is a surrender, it is a sellout and I\u2019m completely gobsmacked that this is what Labour has come back with.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>So Peter, it was the first EU-UK summit since Brexit took effect back in 2020, so it\u2019s a historic moment in that respect. Was the deal itself significant?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>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\u2019s a legally nonbinding document. The EU has some other people, Japan and South Korea. But what it does is it starts the plumbing again. <\/p>\n

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 \u20ac150bn loan facility for rearment of Europe. So in that sense, all good. <\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019t work. It\u2019s never worked, it\u2019s not gonna work. And actually the Brits got a win there. The commission can\u2019t climb down. <\/p>\n

And then the other piece is on the veterinary agreement to allow us to import, export foods without checks. That\u2019s all great. Does it make a big difference economically? No, 0.3 per cent of GDP increased by 2040 \u2014 that\u2019s a tiny fraction of the 4 per cent of GDP that the OBR says we\u2019re gonna lose.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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 \u2014 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?<\/p>\n

Andy Bounds
<\/strong>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. <\/p>\n

Now, what the EU said was, well, if we\u2019re gonna do a reset, we want that issue sorted and off the table so it doesn\u2019t plague future discussions. And 12 years is a heck of a long time. I think the EU wanted forever, basically, which they\u2019re unlikely to get. But they\u2019re very happy with 12 years. <\/p>\n

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\u2019ve got a lot of Scottish fishermen, for example, who want to send their lobsters to France and Spain, where they\u2019re much more popular than they are in the UK and therefore, once that deal\u2019s in place, it should be, you know, an upside for them.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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\u2019d all be able to use the e-gates at European passports when we go on holiday. Really? And when\u2019s it gonna happen?<\/p>\n

Andy Bounds
<\/strong>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\u2019s all very complicated, but, you know, borders are actually enforced by member states. It\u2019s up to them whether they want to allow Brits to use the e-gates. What the Commission said was, there\u2019s nothing to stop you using e-gates, but equally, there\u2019s nothing to force member states to let you use them. <\/p>\n

The big thing that will change is later on, probably next year, there\u2019s going to be this new entry-exit system for the EU. Everyone\u2019s gonna have to give their fingerprints when they cross for the first time into the EU from the UK. And once you\u2019re on that system, then you should be able to use the e-gates anyway because it\u2019s easier to track the movements and the old passport stamping will start to disappear.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>And Peter, very quickly, when do you think we will see prices come down in the supermarkets if indeed they do come down?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>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\u2019t know what Andy thinks, but that strikes me as very, very optimistic. <\/p>\n

I mean, the other kind of piece of this puzzle is although the link between fish and the veterinary agreement was severed \u2014 remember the EU saying no veterinary agreements as you give us the deal on fish \u2014 if we don\u2019t do what the EU wants on the youth mobility arrangement \u2014 remember this idea that 18 to 30-year olds can travel freely back and forward under some kind of scheme \u2014 if we drag our feet on that, does the EU start to drag its feet on the SPS deal? You know, I think it\u2019ll take longer than is advertised. Probably the end of next year would be more likely than the end of this year.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>And Miranda, on the broader point, and we haven\u2019t really discussed this yet, it\u2019s part of the price of getting this deal, the British have agreed to do what in the jargon is known as \u2018dynamic alignment\u2019. 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 \u2014 the nightmare of the Brexiteers. How is that gonna play out?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>So that\u2019s really interesting, because you would think that any step towards becoming, again, a \u2018rule-taker\u2019, as it was called during the years of the Brexit wars that we all remember with such exhaustion, you\u2019d think that was a kind of explosive political moment. <\/p>\n

But actually, I think one of the things that\u2019s been interesting about this week is how little it\u2019s 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\u2019t really been around this week.<\/p>\n

George Parker<\/strong>
He\u2019s been on holiday, in France, apparently.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green<\/strong>
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\u2019re happy to become rule-takers and the government\u2019s on our side, not on yours, Mr Farage. <\/p>\n

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\u2019re 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. <\/p>\n

I think this is the interesting thing, is whether the fact that this deal this week is the start of ongoing negotiations. There\u2019s so much, as Peter said, that\u2019s still undecided, not least on the things that affect, you know, visas and young people\u2019s 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\u2019s kind of the power is with Starmer because it looks pretty pragmatic, perhaps with the exception of the fish.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n

That does open up future opportunities, I guess, if you wanted to move closer, but what\u2019s your assessment, Miranda, of why it didn\u2019t seem to play out more than it actually did? I mean, you look at the polls, don\u2019t you? The public seemed to have lost interest in the subject or indeed have thought Brexit wasn\u2019t such a great idea.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>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\u2019t say prices are gonna come down in the supermarket as a result of this, you know, energy costs are too high, we\u2019re doing this and this to tackle energy costs, I think politically, it\u2019s not terrible. <\/p>\n

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 \u2014 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\u2019re exporting to the market on our doorstep, you have to comply in practise.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>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. <\/p>\n

So, yeah. But by the same token, alignment doesn\u2019t 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\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009So if you\u2019re a chemical industry, you don\u2019t just wanna follow EU rules because they\u2019re really costly and cumbersome, because the fact that you follow them doesn\u2019t mean that when you show up at the border, have to show up with a piece of paper that proves you follow them, right? <\/p>\n

Being inside the single market only works when you\u2019re inside it. When you\u2019re outside it, you lose the presumption of compliance. And therefore, actually the government\u2019s gonna find that it\u2019s not gonna get huge economic benefits until it starts to move through those red lines on single market and customs union.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>And that\u2019s 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\u2019t a get-out-of-jail-free card as you\u2019ve just\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>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. <\/p>\n

And then you end up in a world, for example, like Switzerland or Norway. And I\u2019m 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.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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?<\/p>\n

Andy Bounds
<\/strong>Well, it\u2019s quite fascinating because, I mean, in terms of the media, there wasn\u2019t a huge amount of coverage, right, in Europe. You know, Brexit is done as far as they\u2019re concerned, and they\u2019re sort of sporadic stories. Fish is obviously an interest to some neighbouring states like the French. <\/p>\n

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\u2019s a sort of vague, you know, we\u2019re gonna work towards a youth mobility scheme. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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\u2019re 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. <\/p>\n

So I think it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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\u2019t 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?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>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. <\/p>\n

And with Reform breathing down their neck, I can\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n

And Starmer\u2019s party trying to say, well, we\u2019re 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\u2019t yet got what they want from the process, there will be strong voices on that side saying, you\u2019re not going far and fast enough. <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>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\u2019re outside the Eurozone. I think a single market is a very tricky space.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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\u2019s with India and the United States?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>I don\u2019t think that EU, I mean, there is a rules of origin issue, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s insurmountable.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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?<\/p>\n

Andy Bounds
<\/strong>Well, it\u2019s gonna fill the page of the FT and keep me employed. I mean, I do think that there\u2019s 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\u2019s still in the single market for goods. <\/p>\n

So therefore, you\u2019ve always got this dilemma about do you copy what the EU\u2019s doing or do you not, even if you\u2019re 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\u2019re entering endless process. <\/p>\n

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\u2019ve gone further than the EU has and they will ask for an exemption and they\u2019ll probably won\u2019t get one. <\/p>\n

But, you know, so we\u2019ll be writing about all this stuff week by week, I would think.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Andy Bounds, thank you very much for joining us and have a Westmalle Tripel on me. <\/p>\n

Andy Bounds
<\/strong>(Laughter) I certainly will. Thank you very much.<\/p>\n

[MUSIC PLAYING]<\/p>\n

Kemi Badenoch in audio clip
<\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>I think it\u2019s fair to say that Kemi Badenoch wasn\u2019t very impressed by Keir Starmer\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Kemi Badenoch in audio clip
<\/strong>The fact that Labour is negotiating something that sees the British taxpayer in hawk for potential billions is completely wrong.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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 \u00a3101mn 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\u2019t it, with a last-minute legal injunction?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>This was at 2.30 in the morning.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Yeah, 2.30 in the morning.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Lord Justice Goose. (Laughter) Who\u2019d have thought it?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>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. <\/p>\n

And this has a focus of intense diplomacy, not least by Jonathan Powell, who\u2019s now Keir Starmer\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

So the whole thing has had a sort of fair wind for a while. I suppose it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>I think you\u2019re 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\u2019ll come on to Kemi Badenoch\u2019s response in a minute. <\/p>\n

Peter, what did you make of the deal from a British point of view? Did it make sense?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>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\u2019d behaved, you know, illegally and badly at the time, well\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Let\u2019s just go back to the 1960s, we basically were the colonial power.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Yeah. In \u201965, 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. <\/p>\n

The most important thing is that both India \u2014 remember this is in the Indian Ocean \u2014 both India and America have given it their blessing. From a kind of geopolitical point of view, that\u2019s what matters. It seems to me that \u2014 it\u2019s \u00a33.5bn, isn\u2019t it, inflation adjusted, that we\u2019re gonna pay \u2014 that\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

It just seems to me a sort of sensible strategic deal that\u2019s been signed off by the Americans and it\u2019s had the blessings of the Indians, let\u2019s do it. <\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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. <\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>But he, I think he couldn\u2019t 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\u2019s had to make in the last few weeks, where she has found herself in a weird position. <\/p>\n

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\u2019s supposed to be, you know, the branding for the leader of the Conservatives should be the most Atlanticist.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>And free trade.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>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\u2019s trying to say she\u2019s 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\u2019ve carefully kept away from the area for our allies in the anglosphere and beyond. <\/p>\n

He\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Absolutely. I\u2019ve 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\u2019s finding herself on the wrong side of some quite big arguments here?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>I also just, yeah, and I just think it just\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Keir Starmer\u2019s lots of things. He\u2019s stodgy, he\u2019s boring, he\u2019s a terrible performer and all of a sudden, shameful? He just, I don\u2019t know, I just feel like, you know, Keir Starmer\u2019s not that kind of prime minister and it all feels kind of very hyperbolic and over-egged and slightly desperate. <\/p>\n

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\u2019s touching those buttons. It just, it feels rather off-key to me.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>I just wonder whether it\u2019s sort of a bit like me listening to Absolute Radio 90s, whether it\u2019s just going back to the familiar old tunes, which maybe don\u2019t sound quite so good anymore. Miranda?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Well, they don\u2019t if you\u2019re also supposed to be the party of defence. If the objective of this whole diplomatic process has been securing the air base that\u2019s so crucial to us and our allies, it\u2019s way off-beam.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>I tend to agree. Now, let\u2019s just turn quickly to a broader point. Peter, do you think Keir Starmer is actually proving quite effective on the world stage? <\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019t he, on the international stage?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>I think he does. You know, he\u2019s 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\u2019ll have to see. We\u2019ll 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. <\/p>\n

Again, we\u2019ll 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\u2019d say that\u2019s a fair assessment. He\u2019s certainly doing better on the world stage than he is on the domestic stage.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Exactly. So that gets us on, Miranda, to some of the other big events of the week very quickly. I know we\u2019ve 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. <\/p>\n

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\u00a0do for Keir Starmer?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Well, it will certainly\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009I 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. <\/p>\n

You know, the borrowing figures are not great, to put it mildly. We\u2019ve 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\u2019re shroud waving. You know, they\u2019re saying the cuts are much worse potentially than they will have to be. But actually they\u2019re 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. <\/p>\n

You\u2019ve 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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s 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\u2019s a lot more entertaining than having to listen to why the spreadsheet doesn\u2019t add up across Whitehall.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>In the olden days, prime ministers would sort of start on domestic stuff and then gradually realise they weren\u2019t able to do much and then they get on to the world stage. But he\u2019s mainly by force of circumstance.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Yeah, to be fair.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>To be fair to him, he has spent an awful lot of time on the world stage and I suspect next week we\u2019ll be looking a lot more at some of his domestic travails.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>So his problem is that his narrative domestically is set by the fact that all the way through from the manifesto forward, it\u2019s 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\u2019s no strategy.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>They literally have said, haven\u2019t they, there won\u2019t be any prison places available this autumn unless we completely change our strategy.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>We imprison at an absurd rate. We have by far the highest prison population, better population in Europe. It\u2019s completely bonkers, but there\u2019s no big argument about why that is and why that needs to be fixed on taxation. Again, you know, they\u2019ve had a horrible first Budget, the national insurance increases have hit investment, hit hiring. <\/p>\n

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\u2019s such a weak performer politically. But the challenge is that he doesn\u2019t have a lot to talk about. It\u2019s all about incremental, make the trains run a bit, tiny bit better. And that, you know, that doesn\u2019t put fans on seats. <\/p>\n

[MUSIC PLAYING]<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>So we\u2019ve just got time for our stock picks. Peter, who are you buying or selling this week?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>I\u2019m gonna buy Angela Rayner because I think she is somebody, you know, to talk about Nigel Farage and who tells stories, she\u2019s 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\u2019m buying her clever little leak of her telling Rachel Reeves to raise some taxes.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>On FT readers?<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Yeah, you know, just\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009Well, yeah, sorry about that FT readers, but you know.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>\u00a33bn-\u00a34bn on FT readers.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>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\u2019d leaked it, the last place we would have leaked it to was the Daily Telegraph.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Oh, the old double bluff, George!<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>I was like, yeah, it\u2019s the first place you would have leaked. I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s what happened, so I should say that disclaimer. Miranda, who\u2019s your stock pick?<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Well, I\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009So I regret this decision, but I think I am gonna have to sell Shabana Mahmood. I actually think she\u2019s very good and a sort of interesting, strong politician, probably with a good future ahead of her, except that she\u2019s the one having to preside over, you know, these early releases from prison, a bunch of headlines that we\u2019ll probably see going forward about soft sentences, inverted commas, and actually whether people feel safe or not. <\/p>\n

Given the kind of crisis in the criminal justice system and the loss of trust in the police forces, I think it\u2019s 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\u2019s unfortunately the person presiding over this huge change in sentencing policy, I think she\u2019s gonna be politically vulnerable. George, what about you?<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>Well, I think I\u2019m already quite low on Kemi Badenoch stocks, but I\u2019m afraid I\u2019m gonna\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Sell even more.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Sell even more.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>I\u2019m 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 \u2014 we\u2019ve just been discussing the Chagos Islands \u2014 where you\u2019ve 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\u2019t know, I sometimes wonder. So I think I\u2019m gonna have to sell Kemi Badenoch.<\/p>\n

[MUSIC PLAYING] <\/p>\n

So that\u2019s all we\u2019ve got time for this week. Miranda, Peter, thanks for joining.<\/p>\n

Miranda Green
<\/strong>Thank you.<\/p>\n

Peter Foster
<\/strong>Thanks, George.<\/p>\n

George Parker
<\/strong>And that\u2019s it for this episode of the FT\u2019s Political Fix. I\u2019ve put links to subjects discussed in this episode in the show notes. Check them out, they\u2019re articles we\u2019ve made free for Political Fix listeners.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also a link there to Stephen Bush\u2019s award-winning Inside Politics newsletter and you\u2019ll get 30 days free. And don\u2019t forget to subscribe to the show. Plus, do leave a review or a star rating, it really helps to spread the word. <\/p>\n

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\u2019s co-head of audio. We\u2019ll meet again here next week.<\/p>\n

[MUSIC PLAYING]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This is an audio transcript of the Political Fix podcast episode: \u2018Is Labour\u2019s post-Brexit reset a victory or…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":126110,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,748,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-126109","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114558924484165213","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126109\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/126110"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}