Pressure grows on the home secretary?

This is an audio transcript of the Payne’s Politics podcast episode: ‘Pressure grows on the home secretary?’

Sebastian Payne
The Home Secretary Suella Braverman was under increasing fire this week for her personal conduct with government information and the crisis-handling of asylum seekers.

Suella Braverman
We need to be straight with the public. The system is broken. Illegal migration . . . illegal migration is out of control and too many people are more interested in playing political parlour games (MPs shouting), covering up the truth than solving the problem. I, Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m utterly serious about ending the scourge of illegal migration.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Sebastian Payne
Welcome to Payne’s Politics, your essential insider guide to Westminster from the Financial Times with me, Sebastian Payne. In this week’s episode we’ll be looking at whether the home secretary that you just heard at the top there can survive in her post with a tax on multiple funds. Does she have a plan for dealing with the backlog of asylum claims? Can she be trusted with national security? And does she still have the confidence of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? Our chief political commentator Robert Shrimsley will discuss, and our political correspondent Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe. And later, we’ll be looking at the curious, hilarious case of Matt Hancock, the former health secretary who has decided to make a good use of his constituents’ time by going on the reality show I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here. Is it ever a good idea for politicians to diddle off from Westminster while parliament is sitting? Chief political correspondent Jim Pickard will discuss with our deputy opinion editor Miranda Green. Thank you all for joining.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Sebastian Payne
Suella Braverman was undoubtedly the most rogue appointment in Rishi Sunak’s first cabinet and the one that has caused the prime minister the most headaches. First, it was questions about the use of her private email address for government information. Then, it’s been the handling of the growing crisis of migration processing in Kent. Braverman has mostly dodged scrutiny since she returned to the Home Office after a brief interregnum when Liz Truss was defenestrated but she was forced to the dispatch box this week to defend the government’s policies. In a punchy statement, the home secretary countered claims she had blocked asylum seekers from a processing centre into hotels.

Suella Braverman
I foresaw the concerns at Manston in September and deployed additional resource and personnel to deliver a rapid increase in emergency accommodation. To be clear, like the majority of the British people, I am very concerned about hotels, but I have never blocked their usage.

Sebastian Payne
Well, Jasmine, wonderful to have you back on the podcast. Let’s start off with that situation Suella Braverman was talking about in Manston, this processing centre. It’s become something of a political hot potato this week where asylum seekers, most of whom have come across the English Channel in small boats, are going for processing. The camp was built for about 1,500 people and the current occupation is about 4,000 and we’ve had reports of illnesses breaking out; of squalor, of dreadful conditions and this general feeling that the government, particularly the home secretary, is just not on top of it.

Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe
Yeah, so I think the concerns around the government’s handling of the migration issue, particularly as it pertains to small boats crossing the English Channel, is really crystallised over this centre. As you say, it’s only supposed to have around 1,500, 1,600 occupants, but now it’s looking like there are around 4,000 people. There were reports suggesting that individuals from the centre had even been dropped off in the centre of London because there were concerns about where to house them and where they were gonna go safety. So there were all these concerns. I think part of the issue is that the question of migration has been looming over the Conservatives for several years now. So first under Johnson, then under Truss, now under Rishi Sunak. And what we’re seeing with the centre is a real feeling of chaos. And I think it’s important to remember that ultimately, back in 2016, this is a government that said it was going to take back control and help people get control over the borders, whatever that means. And so you see these images of chaos, of . . . You know, it feels quite inhumane at times. And actually that speaks to a situation that is rapidly spiralling out of control. Of course, as the home secretary, it does fall on her shoulders as, you know, as it does to Rishi Sunak.

Sebastian Payne
And I think the big mistake was also made by Priti Patel when she became home secretary in July 2019. She said she was going to solve the small-boats crisis once and for all and obviously this is an issue; it’s been growing over recent years. But in fact, Priti Patel has done the complete opposite and for whatever reasons — we’ll come on to in a moment — it’s actually got far worse and the numbers now are really quite significant. And the sense we’ve had from the government this week is they don’t really have any answers.

Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe
Yes. And it’s one of those issues where it’s seen as obviously a domestic issue, but ultimately it links to our relationship with France, our relationship with Europe, and how all the countries in the area work together and co-operate. And it’s been an issue that’s been bandied around politically in the House of Commons, but there is a sense that actually, there’s been a lot of talk in this area but no real substantive action.

Sebastian Payne
Robert Shrimsley, it’s great to have you back as always. Why do you think the government has got the boundaries on this so badly wrong? Because as I said, going back to “take back control”, going back to “We’re gonna solve this once and for all”, it’s clear that there was never any plan to do that, because if you start from the Johnson government in the summer of 2019, it’s been quite a long time since that. There’s still no real plan for dealing with this, and the scenes at Manston feel dangerously close to a tinderbox.

Robert Shrimsley
It’s quite important to put this in one global major context, which is there is a global migration crisis. This is not a uniquely British problem. In the last three months of 2021, the European Union had a 66 per cent increase in first-time applications. In Germany, that was 46,000 people alone in three months. In Britain, we’re talking about 40,000 likely over the course of the year. So the first point is that everybody in all of the continent of Europe is suffering from this too. And the main reason why the government is struggling is because the numbers are going up and up and up globally.

On top of that, the small-boats crossing issue has become partly a factor of success in other areas, for example, closing down the Eurostar terminals in the camps there, displaced people to alternative ways of going. But I think the fundamental problem that highlights is that the government is talking tough and claiming to be planning to have solutions on problems that aren’t entirely within its control. And it’s got two different audiences pushing at it here. You’ve got the one that Jasmine touched on and you touched on, which is people who feel the government is lacking compassion and that Manston is a disgrace and we’re not treating these people well or fairly. But there is actually a big audience that the Conservatives are playing to, which is people who just actually want the problem solved. And the Conservatives are finding themselves caught in the middle of this when they’re not treating asylum seekers very well. A lot of their core vote doesn’t particularly care about that, but they do care about the fact that the numbers are growing and they’re not managing it. And you have a situation now where people are waiting something like 440 days for their initial ruling on whether they can stay in the country and the government doesn’t have any solutions. And so it’s talking tougher and tougher, but it risks disappointing the very people it’s trying to appeal to in the process.

Sebastian Payne
Well, we got a sample of that at prime minister’s question time this week, which was the second bout between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer. And I think we all agreed on the pod last week that Rishi Sunak had done very well in his first term. He wasn’t as successful this time. The Tory benchers were not quite as volumous as they were the first time and he was on much trickier terrain, as you’ll hear.

Rishi Sunak
He said he would scrap the Rwanda partnership. He opposed the ending of free movement of people. Border control is a serious, complex issue. But not only does the party opposite not have a plan, they have opposed every single measure (MPs shouting “Here, here!”) we have taken to solve the problem. You can’t attack a plan if you don’t have a plan. (MPs shouting “Here, here!”).

Keir Starmer
We voted against it because we said it wouldn’t work, and it hasn’t worked. He says he’s getting a grip, he’s got a plan. So let’s have a look at that plan. The Rwanda deal was launched in April. It cost the taxpayer £140mn and rising. The number of people deported to Rwanda is zero. Since then, 30,000 people across the Channel in small boats. It’s not working, is it? He hasn’t got a grip. Of all the people who arrived in small boats last year, how many asylum claims have been processed? Prime Minister, Mr Speaker. We do need . . . Mr. Speaker. Not enough is the answer very straightforwardly. Not enough. And that’s what we’re gonna fix.

Sebastian Payne
Now, before we move on to the general question of rhetoric and the government’s approach, this, Jasmine, this is something that is starting to become a real headache for the Tories, which is that the party’s regenerated more times than Doctor Who recently with different leaders and different policies on every conceivable topic. But they have been in power for 12 years and Rishi Sunak’s whole strategy at the moment is to stand up and basically say, “I’m very sorry, I’m very sorry. We’re gonna fix this. We’re gonna fix this”. There will come a point, though, where that doesn’t work. And I feel like Suella Braverman is taking a very similar approach to what Priti Patel was doing. But if it doesn’t deliver results soon — and we’re talking within months, not years — then people are gonna say, “Well, hang on a minute. You’ve tried every approach. You’ve tried every plan. It’s not working”. And that will, of course, affect the party’s standing and its electoral chances.

Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe
Yeah, I think so. And over the past few months, there’s been so much focus on who’s up, who’s down in politics, whether Truss is gonna stay, who’s gonna go, who’s gonna replace Johnson? There’s been so much focus on the theatre of politics that actually, there’s been very little in the way of actual substantive policy. And so you have all these sort of underlying issues that have been bubbling away in the background that are now coming to the forefront. And I thought it was quite interesting that Starmer really leaned into this issue of migration, because I think there have been some worries that actually, you know, was he gonna shy away from it? It’s a topic that is quite difficult for his supporters because the need to balance, as Robert was saying, those in the Labour party that want a more compassionate approach but also Starmer’s trying to appeal to those who think Labour doesn’t talk tough enough on immigration. So I thought it was quite an effective strategy. And actually, I do think over time, Rishi Sunak’s apologies and the sort of concessions are going to grow a bit old. Even Tory MPs don’t want to be on the side of a party that’s constantly apologising and saying they’ve made mistakes. They do want action and they do want to be able to point to a successful policy that has pulled migration numbers down.

Sebastian Payne
I remember you and I discussing in the office after prime minister’s questions when you said to me, “How many times are they gonna keep talking about Jeremy Corbyn?” Because that’s now become the kind of the pull cord of when things go badly wrong at PMQs and you say, “Yes, but the right honourable gentleman, he voted for Jeremy Corbyn and all the things that came with that”. And I think it was you Robert, who actually said to me that Tony Blair was still talking about Black Wednesday in 2005, a full 13 years after it happened. So we might be talking about Jeremy Corbyn in a lot more. But do you think there is a hollowness there that is gonna cause Rishi Sunak problems even though none of this is technically under his watch?

Robert Shrimsley
Well, I think there is a fundamental problem, which is the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. And if you have a home secretary standing up saying the system is broken, at some point it becomes legitimate to say, “Well, you’ve had 12 years. What have you done about it?” Now they have been whacked with a great big new influx, it’s true. But, you know, you can’t keep playing the-system-is-broken card indefinitely. And that’s the issue. They’ve ramped up expectations and they do this partly because they are terrified of, you know, forced Farage-ism on the right. And so they want to make sure they don’t lose all those people who are, who do feel strongly about immigration. But at some point, you’re entitled to say, “Well, you’ve been around a long time now and you don’t seem to have got a grip on this problem”. You also get to the secondary issue, which is Rishi Sunak wants to liberalise or ease the rules around legal migration to the country, particularly to tackle skills shortages. But the more you’re failing to crack down on illegal asylum seekers, the harder that all becomes.

Sebastian Payne
Well, let’s now move on to the question of Suella Braverman herself, because this policy, there are no easy answers to it, that essentially it’s trying to deal with the source of this problem, closer partnerships with France, all the things we are very well versed with. But all of it takes time and a lot of it is dependent on the weather. The only reason there’s been a respite in the number of asylum seekers crossing the Channel has been because of the storms we’ve had over the past few days. The governments are where things could still get very tricky. But Jasmine, the other front Suella Braverman’s under fire from is about her personal conduct. So she was sacked the first time, to remind listeners, after she emailed market-sensitive information to Sir John Hayes, a Tory MP who is a close political ally of hers. She was forced to quit, came back six days later under Rishi Sunak and there’s been continued leaks and questions about could she be trusted with national security? And this quite extraordinary seven-page letter was produced that went from Ms Braverman to the Home Affairs Select Committee which revealed she’d used her personal email address six other occasions for sharing government information. Do you think it’s carelessness? Do you think it’s that she doesn’t understand security or does she just think she can sort of do what she wants because it’s a pretty exceptional behaviour for a sitting home secretary who, should we not forget, is the most important person in charge of national security within the cabinet?

Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe
I mean, I suspect it’s a case of all of the above, and it may be that actually it points to a wider dysfunction within the Home Office. We know that this is, you know, almost a poisoned chalice for ministers. There have been very few, quote unquote, “successful” home secretaries. How do you define success in such a broad and largely chaotic department? But I do think the fact that she’s returned, I mean, it is in some ways obvious that she was brought along as a political tool to Rishi Sunak. She was an individual who was pivotal for him to win the leadership. There was that point during the weekend before it became clear Rishi Sunak would be prime minister that, you know, whether her supporters would go behind Boris Johnson, whether they would go behind Penny Mordaunt, what they would do. So she was obviously vital to uniting the right of the party behind Rishi Sunak. And so there is an element that almost Rishi does have to stick by her regardless of everything that’s being dragged up and regardless of the fact that there are real questions about her credibility, real questions about her conduct. And I think part of the problem is, is that now she’s a very easy target for Labour and opposition parties. You can say, well actually, Rishi Sunak promised a government of credibility and integrity and instead it feels like a grubby deal has been made between Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman. It feels a bit of a return to the chaos of the Truss era. At the same time, those enemies of Suella or Rishi can sort of point to her misgivings and say, “Well, hang on a minute. This doesn’t look like a government that’s in control”. So it’s obvious why she’s there, but it’s not that obvious how long she’ll be able to stay and you know, maintain her position.

Sebastian Payne
The very thing that Sir Keir Starmer accuses Rishi Sunak of is pretty much true. There was a grubby backroom deal, which was to stop the momentum of Boris Johnson. She backed Rishi Sunak, which showed that he had this big breadth of support. And of course that is one of the reasons he’s been such an easy target. And one of those people firing shots at her was the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, who said this in the Commons.

Yvette Cooper
Every day since her reappointment, there have been more stories about possible security or ministerial code breaches. How is anybody supposed to have confidence in her, given the serious responsibilities of the home secretary, to stand up for our national security, for security standards and for public safety? The prime minister promised that this would be a government of integrity, of professionalism (MPs saying “Here! Here!”) and of accountability. Isn’t the home secretary letting everyone down and failing on all of these? (MPs shouting “Here! Here!”)

Sebastian Payne
Robert, the longer she’s there, the more scandal she gets involved in, the easier that’s going to be for Labour to keep going with that attack.

Robert Shrimsley
I think it’s possible to miss the bigger picture on Suella Braverman in terms of these security leaks. These are often communications she was sending to political allies, one particular political ally, an MP on the backbenches. And I think the big picture with Suella Braverman is that she’s not shown herself to be very good or very competent. And although lots of people are attacking her from the left for her hardline positions on a hardline policy, the thing that I think ought to worry Conservatives and indeed Rishi Sunak is that she’s in charge of one of the most difficult departments in government and there’s no evidence so far that she’s got a grip on it and is up to the job. Rishi Sunak appointed one of his close allies, Robert Jenrick, to be the immigration minister, but also her minder. And I think the problem you’re getting at, the reason she’s sending out these communications is because she wants advice from her allies. And what you’re seeing is a home secretary who possibly isn’t actually up to the job, whether or not you agree with her position, but may not be up to the job. And this is not a department that you want to give to somebody who needs a political babysitter. And I think that’s gonna be the problem all the way through. We’re gonna keep seeing issues and people rally around her because she’s hardline, she’s a figure of the right. But if she’s not succeeding, it’s actually weakening the whole government.

Sebastian Payne
And I think it’s what Jasmine said to Robert is she’s a political tool. That’s all she’s there to do, is to fix a problem for Rishi Sunak, which is to get the right of the Tory party onside. And I talked to a former cabinet minister who is ideologically aligned to Ms Braverman, shall we say, and we were rattling through the potential names of people who could replace her if she is forced out. And we essentially got the list down to Iain Duncan Smith, the former welfare secretary; maybe Chris Heaton-Harris, Northern Ireland secretary. And that was about it really, because the kind of person you need for the political function of home secretary to speak to the right of the party — there’s not that many people who can do it. And if she is forced out over the email scandal or whatever happened with Manston, it’s not entirely clear exactly who Rishi Sunak would replace her, because if he just bumped up Robert Jenrick who’s a very centrist, jovial kind of Tory, that’s not gonna appease the right of the party at all. And then that creates a whole other problem and you’re back to the kind of splits and schisms that he wants to get away from.

Robert Shrimsley
But there’s two different points there said, which is the short-term political tool for the reasons that you’ve described. But if the Home Office isn’t working, if people think she’s not got a grip of illegal asylum seekers and illegal migration, then it doesn’t matter how sound she is from one particular faction of the party’s point of view, because the voters are taking a different view and you could end up with a nightmare scenario where you haven’t got a grip of illegal asylum seeker entries and cross-Channel boats and such like. She’s forced out for one reason or another. She’s on the backbenches arguing about this point and you just look incompetent and divided. So although you’re right, the right of the party wouldn’t be thrilled to see Robert Jenrick in that job. Instead, I think the key issue for Rishi Sunak is he’s got to have someone who’s delivering on this issue. And if this problem was easy to solve it would have been solved by now. This is tough. This is grinding, incremental work, working out deals with other countries, improving the staffing, improving the IT, improving the rate at which assessments that are managed may be changing the law on modern slavery, where people think we take abusing the regulations. This is all slow, grinding stuff, not easy stuff. I think he has to just have someone who’s gonna get a grip.

Sebastian Payne
And finally, Jasmine, what would be your gut feeling? How long will she be around? Will she be home secretary by the end of this year? By this time next year? This time next week?

Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe
It’s dangerous making political predictions. As we’ve all known the past few months have been incredibly chaotic. But I will say that Rishi will be keen to hang on to her for as long as possible. He will want to argue that his cabinet, his government, is one of stability. That’s why he brought in so many different people from different wings of the party. He wanted to take a broad-brush approach and he wanted to argue that actually, he can build this coalition of government that is able to deliver on policy. And so I can imagine it will take something really big to actually either encourage her to resign or encourage him to fire her. But I do think she’s certainly got, you know, another few weeks, certainly a few months left.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Sebastian Payne
I agree with that. And I think it will be something else big would actually tip over at this point. Robert and Jasmine, thank you very much.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

When Matt Hancock became the seventh British politician to announce he was going on the reality TV show I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here no one was really surprised. It fitted in with the former health secretary’s persona: cheeky, not being too serious and always up for a bit of publicity. But it’s prompted a huge debate on whether this is a good use of his time. Should Mr. Hancock remain an MP? He’s certainly been kicked out of the Tory party while he’s off in Australia. Ed Balls, the former Labour shadow chancellor and cabinet minister who himself is no stranger to celebrity TV shows, lambasted Hancock for his decision to go while being a sitting politician.

Ed Balls
Personally, I think good luck to him, but I think he is totally crackers to do this. It’s the wrong place to do it from, the wrong time and the wrong programme. To do it as a sitting MP just brings all these questions. He’s lost the whip; Sunak the prime minister is clearly furious. His constituents are gonna be up in arms. He’s been paid to do this while he’s also going to the jungle. I just worry for him that wrong programme, wrong timing.

Sebastian Payne
Miranda Green. First of all, an absolute joy to welcome you back on to the podcast to discuss such a vital topic in our national debate. (Miranda laughs) And we should say he’s not just getting paid to do this, but according to The Sun is getting paid £400,000, which is not an insignificant sum of money for an MP whose salary is I guess about £82,000 a year. Let’s just begin though with Matt Hancock the person. You know, I said I wasn’t surprised when it was announced he was going to go on I’m a Celebrity. Were you at all surprised?

Miranda Green
No. It had a sort of grim inevitability about it, I would say. I mean, it’s a well-trodden path. The idea of politicians deciding they’re gonna go on reality TV to popularise some sort of cause or indeed to popularise themselves, let’s be honest about this. That is quite a whopping fee. But, you know, I would point out that there are several members of the House of Commons who take fees that we don’t necessarily know who the clients are. So at least this is open and transparent. You know, he clearly believes he’s gonna try and raise some issues by doing it. But, you know, the problem is, you know, Matt Hancock gives the impression of one of these MPs ministers. OK, he’s had very senior jobs in government, but they all see themselves as a contender. And in that famous line from On the Waterfront, you know, “Are you a contender or a bum?” (Laughter) And, you know, he’s tried for the top job. He wanted to be leader of the Conservative party and prime minister. It’s not a very edifying spectacle, potentially, that we’re about to be offered on the television. I’m not sure I’ll be tuning in.

Sebastian Payne
Well, Jim Pickard, great to have you back. And I thought the interesting statement from Ed Balls there was not that just that it was the wrong time, but it was the wrong programme, because I guess in the gamut of reality TV shows, you’ve got Strictly Come Dancing, which Ed Balls himself famously did, coming down to a burning piano, to “Great Balls of Fire” and doing “Gangnam Style”. But I think the jungle is generally seen as one of the less edifying ones you can do. And the deputy chair of Matt Hancock’s association was quoted this week saying he was looking forward to watching him eat a kangaroo penis and actively asked the reporter to quote him on that. Is there ever any defence for this? Because Mr. Hancock has come out and said this is about raising awareness for his very political campaigns, particularly about dyslexia.

Jim Pickard
I think there’s more dignity to be had in doing the waltz than there is in to be eating marsupial testicles or whatever it is that celebrities eat on these particular shows that we’re talking about.

Sebastian Payne
You make it sound like you’ve never watched it, Jim.

Jim Pickard
I have seen lots of reality TV shows, including I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here. I think there is a precedent for this, which is, of course, Nadine Dorries went on the show . . . 

Miranda Greene
Yeah.

Jim Pickard
Ten years ago, got paid rather less, and she was kind of suspended for a bit and then allowed back into the party, which may also be a precedent for Hancock. If he’s claiming that he’s there to raise issues about dyslexia, I think that’s complete moonshine because the way these programmes work is that you can have all sorts of serious discussions about philosophy and politics and whatever you’re serious, you know, econometrics, whatever. That’s probably gonna be cut out and they’re gonna watch you howling with pain as a spider attaches itself to your face. (Laughter) The idea that he’s there to promote dyslexia campaigning I don’t really believe. But, you know, the thing about Hancock is that I’ve never considered him a hugely serious figure. There’s always been a sense of bathos attached to the man, whether it’s kind of doing parkour in a very half-assed way, or whether it’s promoting himself. I mean, he made it to the figure of health secretary. And I think one reason people are not very happy with him doing the show now is it’s too early. He’s still in politics and the Covid inquiry hasn’t completed. And there are serious questions about his tenure as health secretary, just to keep it serious for one second.

Sebastian Payne
Well, that’s a point that was made by the shadow health secretary, Labour’s Wes Streeting, who was asked at length about whether he agreed or not with Mr Hancock’s decision to go on the show. And you’ll be very surprised to hear that he didn’t.

Wes Streeting
I don’t have a problem with politicians going on to programmes which are not traditional political programmes in order to get a message across to reach audiences we might otherwise not reach because loads of people are just turning off now whenever they see politics. I think this is extraordinary and unacceptable in terms of the time commitment that’s involved and the fact that being a member of parliament is a privilege.

Sebastian Payne
You could (inaudible) Miranda. Now, you’ve obviously dabbled in very many forms of political programming over the year.

Miranda Green
Dabbling is right, yeah.

Sebastian Payne
Exactly. And I think obviously your greatest triumph was obviously This Week with Andrew Neil, which was an example of unconventional political programming that had a huge following for a programme very late night on Thursday and did a very good job of getting people who might not have wanted to sit and watch Question Time or Newsnight, doing different things with a slight levity to it. Taking Andrew Neil’s form of humour and trying to tackle topics in a slightly different way. But there does seem to be a very big difference between that and as Jim was saying, you know, going to a jungle.

Miranda Green
I thought Wes Streeting’s intervention was sort of politically brilliant as often as Wes Streeting’s interventions are at the moment because he sort of said nothing at all, did he? But he did raise this important question you’ve picked up on, which is the audiences that don’t normally tune into politics. Politics belongs to everyone in a democracy. So there is a big question about how do you communicate with people who aren’t watching, for example, Newsnight, or indeed, I mean, I hate to say it, listening to this podcast. And actually, managing to blend humour and politics works extremely well. You know, the BBC has, you know, Mock the Week, which I’m afraid is now coming to an end. That’s very popular with lots of the teenagers I know who are interested in politics. And actually some of them are quite interested going into politics. You know, you have to be quite careful to dismiss the whole idea of mixing entertainment with politics because it does communicate with a different set of people. But I do agree with Jim. There is something that’s inevitably slightly cringeworthy when it goes wrong, and this could be an example of that because we’ve seen them before. And quite often with I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here, for example, it’s more the political hangers-on and members of politicians’ families who’ve done well. And there’s something slightly sad about that life story. You know, Carol Thatcher’s done it. Stanley Johnson’s done it. Actually, for a frontline politician to do it themselves is a sort of different question, I think.

Jim Pickard
I think there’s a really interesting philosophical question about whether sitting politician going on these shows and not being able to participate in Westminster politics is a bad thing or not. And I think what comes to the heart of this is the question of if you’re a member of Parliament, should you be representing all of your constituents? Should you be representing Conservative constituents if you’re a Conservative MP or should you be just toeing the party line and always voting Conservative? And now one reason I could never in a million years become a politician is because the idea of always voting along the same lines as a political party is just anathema to my mind when you know, in an ideal world, you’d have people voting on how they thought on every single issue.

Miranda Green
You need (inaudible) the old school Liberal party, Jim, where (laughter) people decided how they wanted, yeah.

Jim Pickard
So if Matt Hancock always votes with the party line, which maybe he does, they’ve got a huge majority. It’s still a majority of over 70 votes. So the Conservative party is still gonna win the votes. It was gonna win without Matt Hancock. So, you know, there’s a bit of humbug around this question of, oh no, democracy is gonna collapse without the Hancock in Westminster.

Sebastian Payne
Well, that may be true. But on the other hand, first of all, if you apply that lesson to every single MP, then you wouldn’t have a government majority. And second of all, the statement, there was some absolutely fantastic briefing from friends of Matt Hancock about this. I think my favourite line was the one that said he was only willing to do this because we now have the stability of the Rishi Sunak government, suggesting that he wouldn’t have done this in the past. But the one line that did grind with me was when he said that if Matt wants this audience of 12mn people to talk about his dyslexia campaigns. And what I think he’s talking about here, Miranda, is he sees himself as a national figure, right? And he’s obviously a former health secretary during the pandemic. He has got a national standing. You know, I actually remember walking down the street having had lunch with Matt Hancock and he got a selfie three times walking through Victoria in central London. So he obviously does have that standing, but he is also an MP and he has got 78,000 constituents and that’s a pretty big platform. Most, more than most people have now plus the House of Commons, plus his Twitter feed, plus going on, you know, boring TV, radio things. So it feels to me as if he’s trying to be aspirational and trying to create himself into an Ed Balls figure, but he might discover he’s not Ed Balls.

Miranda Green
Well, that’s right. It’s got a smack of the kind of career-planning PR move about it, which is why it’s a bit grim. But also I do think it’s a bit grim because the political background in the last few years, which you’ve written about this week Seb, has resembled a telenovela. You know, we’ve been stuck in this awful Conservative soap opera of factional fights and psychodrama, as it’s always called. And so, you know, the world of politics and the world of very unoriginal entertainment have been merging on our TV screens too much to feel healthy. And so against that background, it’s slightly turned stomachs, I think. But, you know, I agree with you that if in normal times without all the psychodrama we’ve all been suffering along with the Tory party, somebody decided they were gonna go on a really popular television show and talk about issues they felt were important with a whole bunch of viewers who don’t normally tune into the Today programme on Radio 4, then good luck to them.

Jim Pickard
But in defence of Matt Hancock and God knows I hate using that (laughter) and I hope to never use it ever again, there is a hypocrisy here from the Conservative whips because Boris Johnson, where was he a couple of weeks ago before he swung back to a sort of aborted attempt to be Tory leader again? He was on holiday in the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean for a couple of weeks while the House of Commons was sitting. Where has Geoffrey Cox been in recent years? We know he’s been, for example, in the British Virgin Islands working for some interesting clients. I don’t think we know who the clients are.

Miranda Green
Well exactly. There’s no transparency about that . . .

Jim Pickard
Why aren’t these people . . . 

Miranda Green
Why aren’t these transparent . . . 

Jim Pickard
Losing the whip?

Miranda Green
(Inaudible) degree.

Jim Pickard
They should be losing the whip. So at least try and make this consistent. There we go.

Sebastian Payne
No, I think it’s a really good point here, Jim. This goes back to the thing we talked about for so many times, which, of course, is second jobs. Should MPs have them? I think maybe if you were being defensive — I’m now using your favourite phrase — you would say that well, on the one hand, Geoffrey Cox is doing his job alongside being an MP and is still doing his duties even though they were done virtually from the British Virgin Islands. Whereas Matt Hancock is sitting in a jungle where I don’t think he’s gonna be able to help many of the issues, the people of West Suffolk. But finally, Miranda, what do you think happens next to Matt Hancock? Obviously, he’s been an MP for 12 years, probably 14 by the next election, has been kicking around politics for quite a long time. Before he became an MP, of course he was George Osborne’s chief of staff and when he was shadow chancellor. It doesn’t feel like he’s coming back to the cabinet. And there was that famous clip this week of when Rishi Sunak arrived at Conservative party HQ and everyone was hugging and cheering and Matt Hancock’s arms went out to hug the new prime minister and he just walked straight by him. And you could literally see his cabinet dreams dying in front of your eyes at that moment. So I think it’s fair to say he’s probably not coming back to the frontline any time soon.

Miranda Green
Well, I think, yeah, a terrible moment. Can you imagine being him as your new prime minister refuses to hug you back? No, probably not. I mean, like, just thinking of the sort of the great moments of Matt Hancock’s political career, though, of course, you know, he did give a wonderful interview when he wanted the top job to the FT. And if you remember, Boris Johnson had famously been overheard saying, “Fuck business”. Not good message to our readers. He gave an interview to the FT saying, “Well, I say, fuck, fuck business!” So, you know, maybe the business community will see Matt Hancock appear knocking at the door at some point soon. But I’d just like to point out that he won’t be the only Conservative MP thinking about their future at the moment because a lot of them are potentially staring electoral death in the face. So there’s gonna be a lot of this sort of career planning going on. And, you know, Matt Hancock is a very visible example of it.

Sebastian Payne
Totally. And I was in the room when Matt Hancock said the “Fuck, fuck business” and it was the most Alan Partridge thing as he delivered that I’ve seen in my life. Finally, Jim, is it not good, though that British politics has characters like this, that Matt Hancock is someone you might struggle to find in other democracies and other political systems, and someone who doesn’t take himself entirely seriously yet still has obviously had a cabinet career and has no doubt got a lot of policy successes he could rattle through, as well as having this persona that people like to sort of poke fun at?

Jim Pickard
I think probably his most Alan Partridge moment was actually when he said that the moment he realised he wants to go to the jungle was when he was doing some TV interview and his handlers had said, “Sorry, Matt, we don’t want you talking about your love life and we don’t want you wearing polo necks,” (laughter) because he loves wearing a good polo neck. I think the problem with Matt Hancock is that it’s not that he doesn’t take himself seriously. I think that he actually takes himself seriously while also not being a very serious person, and that’s the problem with him. There are other people in politics . . . 

Miranda Green
That’s the Alan Partridge quality, isn’t it?

Jim Pickard
Yeah, there are other people in politics who don’t take themselves that seriously, who perhaps the public might have more time for. But you know, George Osborne’s defence of him was that actually beneath the whole kind of try-hard exterior, he was actually a serious person fizzing with ideas. And maybe we should leave it on that slightly positive note.

Sebastian Payne
Well, I think so. And for the first time in an awful long time, I will be watching I’m a Celebrity this weekend to watch the latest endeavours of the MP from West Suffolk.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Jim and Miranda, thank you very much for joining us. And that’s it for this week’s episode of Payne’s Politics. If you like the podcast, then we recommend subscribing. You can find us through all the usual channels to receive episodes as soon as they’re released. We also love positive reviews and nice ratings. Payne’s Politics was presented by me, Sebastian Payne and produced by Howie Shannon. The sound engineers were Breen Turner, Persis Love and Jan Sigsworth. Until next time. Thank you for listening.

[MUSIC PLAYING]