Starmer's darkest day: PM admits he knew the truth about Mandelson and Epstein

0:28The Telegraph

0:39Tim, another huge day in news. Guess what we're now calling this at The Telegraph? Go on. The Peter Scandelson saga. Very good. The Tories tried to get muck storm going, which just made me think of Thames water. Yes, indeed. That's not the right look, is it? No, it's not. Shall we summarise? Because we are speaking towards the end of the day, but we're waiting for these documents, these Starmer documents, referencing Mandelson to be released. These are the documents that will explain what went on when he was appointed US ambassador. And we'll get into the row about how they should have been released and to whom, but let's just summarise before we also get cracking on speaking about what was a box office PMQs today.

1:19The police are now officially investigating Peter Mandelson. They have confirmed that they're investigating a 72-year-old man. Isn't it horrible when the police do that? In his wife, Ron. A former government minister for alleged misconduct in public office offences following a referral from the UK government. Then we had Labour confirming that they would be releasing the Mandelson files. So that's all the important documents relating to his appointment as US ambassador and, crucially, how he was vetted or not vetted. But they were not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They were doing it to try and get ahead of a Tory plan to use a parliamentary mechanism in the Afternoons Commons business called a humble address, in which they could force Number 10 to publish everything, including communications and minutes of all kinds of meetings between Lord Mandelson and officials, ministers and special advisers.

2:14Is it just me or does humble address sound like something you do if you've really made a catastrophic error? You come in really looking as if you've got something to say sorry for. Or a humble address is just a very, very small house. Indeed. not like any of the Epstein properties that Peter Mandelson enjoyed staying in. No, no. Now, that didn't really work because there's been a debate today in Parliament about the precise way that these documents should be released. Now, let's talk about documents that Downing Street can just publish. They can just publish those and we're waiting. Everybody in this newsroom is waiting for these documents to be published.

2:48But there is obviously some concern about issues in other documents that might compromise national security. and issues in other documents which might compromise international relations. Prejudice international relations, the government has said. And what are we assuming? They might be swear words about Donald Trump or something being used by Mandelson and Epstein. Who knows? We don't know, but it's not unreasonable to say we can't release everything in case something on there compromises the national interest. Now, Number 10 had initially said the people who are going to assess the documents that can't immediately be released, that's going to be the Cabinet Secretary's job.

3:27He's going to do that because we can be trusted to tell you, the public and the press, what we've redacted and why we've redacted it. And the Tory and opposition argument is no, because the Cabinet Secretary is basically beholden to the Prime Minister. We don't want them individually deciding what can and can't be released on the basis of national or diplomatic security concerns. What you should do is give the documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee because it's made up of a cross-party group of MPs. It's chaired by Kevin Jones, the Labour MP, who I understand isn't the biggest fan of Peter Mandelson.

4:04And they should be able to scrutinise the documents because they're going to give them all a much fairer hearing. And also that then means that politicians from other parties can have a say in what can be released further. A committee so top secret it doesn't even meet in Westminster. Where does it meet? We don't know. Right. If I were to tell you, I would have to kill you. Indeed. Maybe at a Pizza Express in Woking. Who knows? Anyway, so we initially have Number 10 insisting that they must do it their way via the Cabinet Secretary. But just in the last few minutes, we've had it announced that no, actually, the Tories and others have got their way.

4:44These documents are going to go to the ISC, as it's called. Which means that most of the documents will be released very quickly. but those that could be of a national security question, the committee will take a look at and decide whether or not they should be released. It should be pointed out that that is another U-turn for Keir Starmer, right? It is, and one within hours. Within hours, because we're going to get into PMQs in a minute. Wasn't going to release them, then was going to release them through the cabinet, now going to release them via the committee. Now, what role did the Queen Bee of all Labour Queen Bees, Angela Rayner, play in this?

5:20She's re-emerged fresh from the seaside and she's appeared in the House during this humble address. Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE, which the party opposite was listed. And my honourable friend, the member for Hackney South, mentioned just before, should we not have the ISC not have the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process? So she was making a very technical point there about whether they should go through the Cabinet, secretary said, or go through the committee.

5:57She made the point quite softly as well. I suspect that's because she doesn't want to be throwing stones given the glass house that she attempted to buy in Hove. You don't want to draw too much attention to yourself. But this was a means for her to codedly criticise the Prime Minister and signal to the backbenchers, I agree with you. Because there were a lot of Labour MPs standing up and saying they did not understand or approve of the government's position. Hashtag on manoeuvres. On manoeuvres. Hashtag leadership bid. I mean, some of the rhetoric on social media about the mood of Labour MPs and how dark it is.

6:39and even commentators on the left saying, I mean, we've had a pretty rocky and ropey 18 months, but we've never witnessed dismay, anger, frustration like this. And the prize for the left is you don't just get rid of Peter Mandelson, you get rid of Morgan McSweeney and you get rid of what remains of Blairism, the Labour Party, and you turn the party back to the left. Which means you also get rid of Keir Starmer, right? Which means you get rid of Keir Starmer too. Can I just... Breaking, breaking. John McDonnell no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister. Wow. Did he ever? The scintilla of confidence that he did have appears to have finally eroded.

7:18Although this is a man who had great confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as a future Prime Minister and look where that ended up. Well, and Corbyn also took part in this debate. And when he spoke, it was while Alex Burkhart, the Tory, was speaking and he got a very warm reception from the Conservatives. I love how they always do that, that they normally despise Corbyn. But when he says something once in a blue moon they agree with, they're always very courteous about it. Thank you, sir, for that fine and subtle point made from the back benches. But don't forget, McDonnell had the whip taken away from him.

7:47Yes. He's been punished by Keir Starmer in the past. For a lesser offence. Jeremy Corbyn was kicked out of the Labour Party for anti-Semitism, but nonetheless was kicked out. And Angela Rayner will also be asking, why was it that I had to go when there were so many efforts made to save Peter Mandelson? Now, the other thing that's emerged post-PMQs is video footage of the Prime Minister's hands appearing to tremble. Now, I don't quite know what we can infer from that. I think he faced the toughest test of his premiership today. Yeah, I would be very wary about comment on this. Yes. Are people implying a medical emergency or extreme nerves?

8:25I can tell you sitting where I sit, I watch MPs at the dispatch box. Almost all of them shake. Yes, it's scary. It is actually terrifying. Yes. And I don't think the public appreciates the skill and the self-confidence and the resolve and stamina it takes to get through 35 minutes of several hundred people shouting at you. So I don't think we need to call an ambulance just yet. I think it was a pretty normal physical reaction to a very testing situation. Well, it was absolutely brutal, Tim. And you were there, as you say, up in the press benches. Did you have your popcorn? I had a strange urge to throw a bundle of£5 notes into the air and watch the piggy MPs as they crawl over each other to try to get at them.

9:12I'm sorry, but I'm in a Jacobin mood at the moment. Yes, you're not very happy with the politicians. I'd like to see heads cut off. That was because, by the way, you said to me earlier that now there's a debate going on as we speak in the House of Commons where some MPs seem to be claiming that they're the victims of this entire scandal. Well, Chris Finns, who is a new Labour MP, said that one of the tragedies of this was that it had distracted from the good work that MPs do. They're all there for good reasons. Most of them are there for good reasons. And now they're all going to be tarred. And that's one more reason.

9:44And I'm just sitting there thinking, this isn't about you. No. It's not about the House of Commons. The room. It's about the rape of young girls and it's potentially about financial malfeasance. In that vein, before we even get into discussing this bout between the Prime Minister and Kemi Badenok, and indeed others, can we just contextualise what we're actually dealing with here? Because I do find this grotesque, this reference to this 2009 email that shows Mandelson asking, and this is after Jeffrey Epstein has been released from prison for crimes against minors. How is freedom feeling? To which the sex offender replied, she feels fresh, firm and creamy.

10:30Naughty boy, says the Labour grandee in response. Mandelson asked Epstein how he would celebrate his release and he replied with grace and modesty. The joke being that those are the names of two strippers. This is important again because Mandelson's story is I didn't really understand how awful Epstein was. He was a monster. That Epstein had lied to people about his conviction and why he got convicted. And that was perhaps the reason why Peter had maintained this relationship for so long. If you're swapping jokes like that, some people might infer that you had a better understanding of the man than Peter has tried to suggest.

11:11which brings us back to the central question of never mind what we found out about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein in September of last year, never mind what we have found out with the recent drop of documents. We're interested to know what Keir Starmer and the Labour Party knew about Mandelson and Epstein between 2008 and his appointment as ambassador. And that's what this PMQ's hinged on. Kemi Badenock had one question to ask, which was... Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?

11:56Prime Minister? Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to this House all of the national security, prejudice to international relations on one side. I want to make sure this House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, the extent to which time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence. And that, if you like, Tim, is the smoking gun of that session because what he's admitting there is he did know, but for reasons we discussed yesterday, Morgan McSweeney persuaded him that it may have been a risk, but it was one worth taking, that because Mandelson has this history of being seemingly indispensable to the Labour Party, that he should be given this plumb position.

13:01and equally because it would placate the Blairite wing of the party. And what's so damning about that for Keir Starmer is this is a prime minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street and told the public, we are no longer going to be serving ourselves. We're no longer going to be ideologically self-serving. We are here, he said, in the service of the people. Keir Starmer would not be prime minister without Partygate, without the scandal that brought down Boris Johnson when Keir Starmer set himself up as a paragon of virtue in contrast with the Conservative Party. In the PM's defence, I thought his opening statement about Mandelson was very strong.

13:45He identified correctly what Mandelson is accused of and why it's so grotesque, not just the friendship with Epstein, but also the giving away of potentially market-sensitive information while he was in government. Yes, you're right. His rhetoric, let's be honest, was strong. He was basically now throwing Mandelson under a bus. Mr Speaker, let me start where I must, with the victims of Epstein. And all of our thoughts are with them. Can I also say our thoughts are with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.

14:32And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. Mr Speaker, he lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government. And that is why, Mr Speaker, yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police. And there is now a criminal investigation. I've instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers.

15:24And this morning, I've agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Councillors on grounds that he's brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute. The problem is that Keir Starmer really only had two tones in this. One was, I am personally disgusted. The second was, but I have followed a process. Yes. And here the bureaucratic mind clicked in. He repeated this process line again and again. Mr Speaker, as the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise and then there was security vetting by the security services.

16:20What was not known was the depth, the sheer depth and extent of the relationship. He lied about that to everyone for years. And the trouble as well for Starmer, I think, is he's also adopted this sort of I'm a victim too, this Chris Vince narrative. I was lied and lied and lied to. Well, sorry, that's not going to wash with the public. But second of all, this argument around process, actually, Kemi Badenok really beat him on hands down. He's making the point that they need to exempt some information from this inquiry into the communications that Mandelson had with Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister and other members of the whole Labour apparatus for national security reasons.

17:08And to be fair to Badenock, she was forensic in her dismantling of that premise. The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. And what he has said about the humble address is a red herring. To those Labour MPs who were not there in the last parliament, let me tell them, humble addresses already exempt genuine national security. This is not about national security. This is about his job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations. But this whole appointment is to do with international relations.

17:49So if they're voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. Most weeks, Kemi Badenock seems to have been scripted by Jim Davidson, but this was more akin to Perry Mason. And it was so funny to see the lawyer put in the dock for once. Also, Jim Davidson was busy today paying tribute to the late, great John Virgo. OK. The snooker star. I did not know that. Who starred with him on Big Break. That's right. The other big story on X right now, but I digress. Look, I think actually I had initially said, Badenock is almost outlawyering Starmer here, despite having no legal training, and then was reminded that after she studied engineering, she went to Birkbeck College and did a second degree in law, which she studied in her spare time.

18:32So she was forensic, she was calm, she was collected, and she was pretty calculated because to get the admission, yes, I did actually know, I think was the killer line of the session. Whereas Starmer started stuttering, and he did that other thing he defaults to, which is to say you're not being serious and sensible. Yes. How dare you question the cabinet secretary and the integrity of the cabinet secretary? Well, the reality is cabinet secretaries more or less do what the prime minister tells them to do. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to challenge, which is why in the humble address debate that followed, many Labour MPs chose to challenge it as well.

19:09Badenock was also clever in bringing Morgan McSweeney into the fray. We know that there will be a cover-up because this implicates the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, a protege of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson's poison into the heart of his government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment, telling us now that he did know, has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security. It's not the humble address. It's him. It's compromised our diplomacy and it has embarrassed our nation. After all of this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?

19:56The Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him. Do we have confidence in the Prime Minister having confidence in Morgan McSweeney? Because whenever the Prime Minister has confidence in anyone, they usually lose their job within about a day or two. Exactly. The moment he said, I have full confidence in him, I thought, the poor man is finished. But we now know that Keir Starmer had other options to be US ambassador. Yes. Two very good ones. The current ambassador at the time. Karen Pierce.

20:32Karen Pierce. Very highly regarded, apparently, and got on well with the Republicans. Doing a good job. Alternatively, which is interesting, George Osborne. Yes. Already doing a hundred other things. Normally, I'd be very sceptical. but I happen to know Osborne's actually very close to J.D. Vance. He gets on well with the White House people. Maybe this is one job, one non-partisan appointment that he might have done quite well. McSweeney really pushed Mandelson and of course also came to his defence. Despite everything people already knew. And I come back to this point that this is what this is really now about.

21:08Not what we've recently learned about Mandy, but what we always knew about Mandy. So this morning on telly, West Streeting, the darling of the right, was on telly saying, you think you know a person like Peter Mandelson? And then they disappoint you and betray you. And crucially, he betrayed Labour values. Yes, like it was a huge shock. We had the Geoffrey Robinson scandal. We had the Hinduja scandal. Exactly. We did know this person. We had this man described, not just in Westminster circles, but just circles as being a dark lord, Machiavellian. Instead, we are supposed to believe that our world is run by incredibly naive people, by naive people like Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister in West Streeting, who trusted Peter Mandelson, by Peter Mandelson, who, by his own admission, was naive in his trust of Jeffrey Epstein.

22:00So either we're run by people who are in some way tarred by corruption or by morons. Well, it's hard to tell which. This is it, isn't it? Also, I think there is something utterly contradictory about some of the defence of Mandelson has been, well, he's just a highly, highly intelligent man and a very canny operator. Yes. And yet so naive that he walks around Epstein's house in his Y fronts, even though he doesn't know him very much, and only discovers later, once emails have been revealed, but not, by the way, after he has spent a period in prison for procuring a minor for prostitution. Only later does Mandelson realise this man is a monster.

22:44Kimmy had a killer line about this when discussing whether or not Keir Starmer ought to have known. But the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know it was on Google. If the Conservative Research Department could find this information out, why couldn't number 10? The opposition leader there, forensically humiliating the Prime Minister, but of course it wasn't only the Conservatives who asked pertinent questions. More coming up next.

23:20Shall we also just pay a little bit of tribute to opposition leaders in other parties? So, Ed Davey. Ed Davey, yeah, who raised the spectre of Russian involvement in the story. Mr Speaker, I think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve far better than that. They deserve Peter Manilson not being appointed in the first place. We don't even know the full extent of the British establishment's involvement in his appalling crimes or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. So we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security.

24:00Mr Speaker, the Polish government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin. Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Manson may have been leaking state secrets, not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent? If you had said that months or years ago, you may have been cast aside as a deluded conspiracy theorist. It's a perfectly legitimate question, that, because of the appearance of Putin's name in many of the Epstein files now. And Epstein went to Russia and Epstein was involved with Russian girls, etc. So it's not an unreasonable avenue to explore. But I was really intrigued by the question put by Liz Savile Roberts, the head of Plaid in the Commons, in her lovely deep Welsh voice.

24:50The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of overprivileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein's release from prison after being sentenced for child sex offences as Liberation Day. This man's association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK's ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister's judgment? And in questioning that, how can we trust him to remain as Prime Minister? These two have history. you'll remember that Keir Starmer was once very rude about her in the Commons and said that she just talked rubbish and ended up issuing an apology for excessive rudeness.

25:48It returns us to this question of does Keir Starmer have a woman problem. He passed over a woman to be ambassador in the United States for a very dodgy man. Labour never elected a female leader. Morgan McSweeney is accused of turning number 10 into a boys club. Yes, and quite a few female cabinet ministers have complained. Have been sacked. Well, also complained about being briefed against. Right, OK. And there's this feeling that Keir Starmer does not come out as strongly in defence of them as he's come out for Morgan McSweeney. Now, the other interesting issue that was raised in that later session was Palantir, the firm run by Peter Thiel.

26:27Yes. What did you make of that? So we had lots of debate about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein back in the day and his behaviour in 2010. But now people are saying, well, look, if he was behaving badly back then, why don't we look into his behaviour when he was ambassador to the United States? One thing that Alex Burkhardt, the Tory, brought up during the humble address debate. He's kind of Kemi Baden-Ox deputy, isn't he? Right, yes. And like Kemi, he's getting much, much better at Commons performances. He pointed out that in February 2025, Starmer visited Washington, D.C. and he visited Palantir, which is a very controversial tech surveillance company founded by Peter Thiel.

27:10I don't know if you've seen Scanners, the Dayton Cronenberg horror movie where the head blows up. There's a scary military industrial complex company called ConSec. Yes. I read an interview with Peter Thiel once and I didn't really understand a word he said from start to finish. Palantir is that. Palantir produces the technology that makes it possible to deport migrants and kill people with drones. Great. Handy. So the Prime Minister went and visited Palantir and curiously, very unusually, no official record of the meeting was kept. No notes of what was said or anything like that. We don't know what discussion happened.

27:45The trip was organised by one Peter Mandelson and Palantir was a client of Global Council, this is according to Alex Burkhart, a company of which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Yes, Global Council, by the way, also has links to China. Right, OK. Now, so PM going to visit Palantir, no notes kept, all organised by Peter Mandelson. In December last year, the Ministry of Defence directly awarded Palantir a£240 million agreement for, quote, data analytics capabilities supporting critical, strategic, tactical and live operational decision making across classifications for three years. In other words, the company that Peter arranged for Keir to meet with no records kept was later in the year awarded a massive contract.

28:38And of course, a British company was not. Just reflecting on all of this, because that reminded me, I was thinking about what previous scandals have there been for such undeclared interests in trips? And I immediately thought of Priti Patel and getting into trouble because she'd had that visit to Israel. And remember, it wasn't documented well enough. And then she came unstuck. And I just think comparatively, this stuff is now putting all of that in the shade. Chris Rose, who is on X, made this great point about the campaign group led by donkeys. Oh, we hope to see you putting up billboards in the middle of Westminster saying, how on earth can Labour be associated with this absolutely grotesque Epstein, accusations of lobbying, accusations of sharing state secrets?

29:26I mean, I was thinking, how does this compare to the kind of sleaze that we witnessed in the major years? And I really do think this is extremely serious. Well, it does remind me a bit of the COVID contracts, of course, which is the last time you got a whiff of crony capitalism. Peter Mandelson is starting to look like this year's unacceptable face of capitalism. We should point out that I'm not sure if Peter has even commented on Palantir, but he has said he doesn't recall transfers of money from Jeffrey Epstein. He has denied much of the wrongdoing that he's been accused of, etc. And this will all, it looks like it's all going to end up being a criminal investigation as well.

30:03You mentioned Priti's visit to Israel. I am curious that I haven't yet heard an MP raise Israel, although it does crop up a lot in the Epstein files. And some people online have floated the theory that Epstein was actually getting his money from Mossad and Israel rather than Russia. What we've seen thus far, I'm not whitewashing this, but because I was interested in the suggestion, I've looked into it. And what we've seen thus far is more just that Jeffrey Epstein was one of those people who was a cheerleader for Israel in the United States. and probably helped connect people and to raise money for it.

30:37I don't think there's anything definitive in it yet, which suggests that he was in some way in cahoots with the Israeli government. Nonetheless, it will feed a lot of conspiracy theories. And I do find it curious that MPs are going hard on Russia, but I haven't yet even heard a Corbynite raise the question of his links to Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister. But where do you think it ranks on the sleaze-ometer? I think this is one of the worst stories, and I think it's going to get worse. and it's bad because it's an indictment of new labor. This all for me comes back to Peter Mandelson being extremely comfortable with people getting filthy rich.

31:11There's this feeling that in the early 90s when he moved into doing PR for labor, late 80s, early 90s, that the socialists in this country just gave up on socialism and the idea that there was a moral message to their politics and instead they were just about running capitalism a bit better. And I think that was a deal with the devil which has resulted in a lot of people exploiting it and trying to get filthy rich. In a way, perhaps it's unfair that Keir Starmer, who's a relatively left-wing Labour leader, and OK, there was the free clothes, but I don't really see him as personally tarred with any kind of corruption.

31:46But nonetheless, I see all of this as the legacy of Blairism, triangulation, and the complete loss of a sense of moral crusade on the left. What do they stand for if this sort of thing was going on? Him as an individual, I see the parallel between John Major advocating back to basics and then being discovered having an extramarital affair with Edwina Curry. The problem for Starmer is he's the one who's claimed that he's holier than thou, that he's a cut above the rest. But again, Camilla, he had to do that. He is much cleaner than dirty Boris Johnson. And comparatively, this is much, much dirtier than pieces of cake being eaten.

32:25But he had to do that because Keir Starmer had nothing else to run on. Going for him. The reputation of Labour was destroyed by Corbyn. His manifesto was completely empty, which is one reason why his policy is so confusing, because none of it was really promised. He's U-turning on things. The only message Keir Starmer had that he knew he could run on was, I'm not a conservative. They're bad people. Kick them out. Bring me in, son of a toolmaker. Well, that's so thin. I know it's thin. That's so thin. And it was always thin. But also, I'm sorry, I don't... You know, this idea, well, he had to position himself like this.

32:57Let's not forget that this guy is as much of a political chameleon as the people he criticises. Totally. He comes out with a 2020 leadership video that could have been directed by Ken Loach, pivots into this Blairite position purely out of opportunism. This is the other reason why he's coming unstuck. And I go back to my original point about this being about service to the people. That was the great line by Badenock. You don't care about this because of national security. You care about it because of job security. And I'm sorry, but that shows a complete lacking of the integrity that Starmer claims to have in spades.

33:34It is reported also that Mandelson was directly involved in the last reshuffle of the Labour Party. Right. He has been critical to the Blue Labour Project of Morgan McSweeney, which has tried to dump the last vestiges of Labour socialism. But during this PMQs, MPs were gamely trying to raise the abolition of the two-child benefit cap. As an example, the implication being, okay, some of our leading figures are bent. Hang on a minute. But we do help kids. But then let's never forget that Labour was against that and said it was unaffordable. Yes, it was a U-turn. Just as it said winter fuel was unaffordable and then it U-turned on it.

34:15It comes back to this problem of Starmer ran on nothing. He has no agenda. He has no basis upon which he should be prime minister. He is there purely because people hated the Tories. Yes. And he's lost his one Trump card, which is I'm not as sleazy as them because now he looks worse. We'll be back with more on this, no doubt. And perhaps some other news if there is only Tim tomorrow, 5pm.

34:45Thank you.