Coffee House Shots
Isabel Hardman's Sunday Roundup - 15/09/2024
Hello and welcome to Coffee House Shops, the spectators daily politics podcast. I'm Isabel Hardman and this is the Sunday Roundup. This week the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary flew to the US for discussions involving whether to allow Ukraine to file long-range missiles into Russian territory. Vladimir Putin has warned he would view that outcome as "direct participation" from NATO in the conflict. Speaking to Trevor Phillips on Sky News, Foreign Secretary David Lammy refused to confirm whether these missiles would be granted to Ukraine. Prime Minister has been to Germany, he's been to France, he's been to Dublin, he's going to Italy. We spent time with our closest allies in the United States discussing a range of issues – Iran, China, the Middle East, and of course Ukraine. And on Ukraine, discussing strategy and intent to ensure that we support them to get them through the winter and into next year. I can't believe those conversations are saying one's permission to fire missiles into Russia and the Americans are saying no. Well I went to Ukraine with Tony Blinken. The Ukrainians want ammunition. We've given them more ammunition. They want more missiles. We've given them 650 brimstone missiles. They want more artillery guns. We've given them AS90 artillery guns. And yes, there's a debate. Yes, there's a debate about further missiles and we are discussing that as allies – you would expect us to, you don't expect to share the operational decision. I can't do that. Yeah, but there's no debate. He wants you to say yes. And actually that's interesting. Is the objection here, the thing you're discussing, is it political or is it operational? Trevor, I am not going to discuss the operational detail of that kit and the reason I'm not going to do that is because I'm not going to assist Putin as we head into the winter. This is a long-standing request of Zelensky. He's now been making it for well over a year. I understand why he makes that and of course it's important for us to discuss the detail of that with our closest allies and we continue to do that. But we head to UNGA and the UN General Assembly, where both Biden and the Prime Minister will meet with Zelensky and as we head into the G7 parliament. I'm not asking you to share any security details, but I'm just putting to you what Mr Zelensky has been saying publicly, which is that the longer you delay, the more Ukrainians die. And by the way, he's got an ally. Let me put it to you. He's got an ally in this point of view, a person who should know. Here's what Vladimir Putin says. He says, if you acceded to his request, that actually we would be participating in the war and that we would actually be drawn into this. Now, Putin is very clear about this. It matters. Zelensky says it matters. And every time you wait, as Putin himself says, it appears that West is ready to fight this to the last Ukrainian. So let me just ask you, without going into security details, what is the problem? It's a serious question and it requires a serious answer. Since coming in as Prime Minister, KISS Starmer has pledged £3 billion in aid to Ukraine that they can use, no, no, that they can use for military use. That is more money, speed it up. They have asked for further missiles. We have provided them. We are in discussion with them about ensuring that they get through the winter in the strongest of position. As to Putin, Putin being rained down. Putin said, Putin said, Putin said, don't send any missiles. Putin said, don't send any missiles. We sent them. Putin threatens every few months to use nuclear weapons. It's totally unaccepted. We won't be bullied by Putin shameless, shameless grandstand standing. What he should now do is cease his aggression and leave Ukraine. That's what he should do. On the BBC, Laura Coonsburg asked the Foreign Secretary about reports that KISS Starmer may have broken rules by failing to declare gifts of clothes given to his wife by Labour donut Lord Wahid Ali. Labour Party, for the last few years, has made a lot of play of misdemeanor errors or bad standards or bad behaviour in the Conservative Party. What are our viewers meant to think when they see that the Prime Minister didn't declare outfits that were given to his wife by a wealthy donor properly? What are they meant to think of that? Well, look, I would say to them that the Prime Minister did declare funds that he received from Lord Ali. He's then gone back to the Parliamentary Commissioner to further check details on some of those funds that have made their way to his wife. He has done that and he is seeking to comply with the rules. This is not an issue of transparency. He is attempting to be transparent. The truth is in our system. I've just come back from the United States where US presidents and first ladies have a huge budget paid for by the taxpayer so that they look their best on behalf of the US people. We don't have that system over here. The truth is that successive Prime Ministers, unless you're a billionaire like the last one, do rely on donations, political donations, so they can look their best both in the hope of representing the country if you're in the opposition or indeed as Prime Minister. But with respect, the standards aren't exactly broke. I mean, he had big senior jobs and paid very well. I'm not suggesting the Prime Minister is broken. Of course, we can have that debate. But the point is this, the point is this, that successive Prime Ministers want to look their best and their partners for the country. That is what lies behind this and Lord Ali is a long-standing peer. He's been in the House of Lords for well over two decades and he's probably the most long-standing donor of the Labour Party. His politics are clear. Everyone knows him in Westminster and we thank him for the work that he continues to do on behalf of our party. Shadow Home Secretary James Cleverley suggested that Storm and his government were engaging in hypocrisy. Now, if your position is that, well, these things happen and we should be thoughtful and flexible in our response, that's fine. But if, like Keir Starmer, you have been really aggressive in your criticism of conservatives for this, then you've got to make sure that you are totally above reproach and he has failed to do that. And so I think it's absolutely legitimate that we point out the hypocrisy of someone who basically got his job by criticising others for what he is now doing. That's all a bit strong. When you say exactly this, you're not comparing the failure to declare some clothes with party gate or Matt Hancock's behaviour or Tractigate, are you? You're not seriously saying this is in the same category of transgression. So the point is Keir Starmer has said over and over again that, you know, there is no flexibility, this is what you have to do and he's failed to do it and we are highlighting his hypocrisy, which I think is now showing a pattern of behaviour, the disregard he has got when we look at the appointment. The hypocrisy, there's another explanation, which is incompetence on the part of somebody in his office. Neither of which is a good look when you're seeking to run the country. So this is not just a one-off. We have got donors hosting, indeed, the same donor holding a pass to Downing Street for no particular reason, organising thank you parties on the Government estate. We've got people running around the Department of Health, lobbyists, who make money from understanding the inner workings of government running around the part of that. You're firing to the former health secretary, Alan Exelburn, a whole load of other donors and supporters getting, getting past that description, by the way, getting passes as clearly a thank you and the Labour government have been very critical of us and we can discuss how valid those criticisms are, but this hypocrisy is being felt, is being brought up with me when I knock on doors. Cleverly also claimed Labour have made catastrophically foolish choices on the Winter Fuel Allowance and the Prisoner Release Scheme. Seeing this with the Winter Fuel Allowance and the Prisoner Release Scheme, these are rookie errors by an arrogant and inexperienced government. As said, yes, yes, no, Trevor, then let me explain. So let me explain with the problem that you created. No, let me explain the situation. You've created it. Trevor, let me explain the situation here. The civil service in the Treasury have been trying to kill off the Winter Fuel payments for years. They present this as an idea to every incoming Chancellor and every incoming Conservative Chancellor has said, no. Rachel Reeves has turned up, they've done the same thing to her as they've done to Conservatives, presented her with this toxic idea and she rationally said, yes, we'll do that and they're now living with the consequences. With regard to Prisoner Release, again, these are proposals the civil service put in front of us and we rejected. I expelled foreign national offenders to free up prison places. You were able to reject it because at the time you inherited it, you had hundreds of prison places spare. You left the country with what, a hundred? We kept in a state of 89,000 places? We kept hundreds of prison places available through the actions that we took, including deporting foreign national offenders, including a better management of the system. Now, what's happened is the new government's come along. The civil service presented the neat and tidy answer that they wanted, which we could see was wrong and, again, this naive and inexperienced government went for it and we're now seeing the consequences where sexual offenders, where domestic abusers, career criminals, are being released in huge numbers and it's backfired, which is why we had said no to it. The point is, government is about decisions and choices. The Labour government have made catastrophically foolish choices, their priorities were wrong and in government we were doing it very differently. And finally, Laura Kinsberg questioned Ed Davie about the Liberal Democrats' approach to the Labour government after Rachel Reeves entirely dropped social care proposals in July. But in having a different tone, which lots of our viewers might think, great, I'd like people to be constructive, can you actually get her, though, will you be tough enough? And if we look at a practical example, when Rachel Reeves announced our review of public finances back in July, she cut entirely those proposals on social care that the Conservatives had and I know how much you care about social care, Labour dropped it and there's barely been a peep from your party. Surely, if it had been a Tory government that would have dropped plans, you'd be absolutely going after them hammering tolls. Laura, we actually have criticised the government for that, just as we criticised the Conservatives for doing the same thing and what we've said is that in the October 30th budget, we need to see a budget for the NHS and for care and we're putting forward our ideas, which will include investment in social care. It's absolutely essential. They talk about reform and I think they're right to, but we've got to get the right type of reform and we've argued, and I think we're probably the only party arguing it with this intensity, that social care is a critical part, the most important part of that reform. I don't believe you can sort out some of the problems in our hospitals where people can't get discharged, where people keep going back and there's a revolving door, unless you sort out social care and that means better care homes, more care staff, better domestic care services, paying care workers more. As you know, we set that out in our election campaign and we're going to be buying the drum for care and carers and social care because we think that's the only way you can save our NHS. That's all for this week. I'm Isabel Harbman and this podcast was produced by Joe Biddell-Brill. Don't forget to subscribe to the Coffee House Shot Podcast on the iTunes Store. And if you enjoyed this podcast, do subscribe to our daily evening blend email. It's a free roundup of all the political news each day along with analysis and a diary on what to expect next. Just go to spectator.co.uk/blend. Thanks for listening and do join us again next week. [Music] [Music] [MUSIC PLAYING]