 politics can be a funny game. If yesterday just 323 fewer voters had turned out for labor in West Yorkshire. On tonight's show, we would likely be discussing the runners and riders in an imminent leadership election. However, because 13,296 people voted labor and only 12,973 people voted for the Tories in Batley and Spen, the context of tonight's show is rather different. That's because for now, that 0.9% margin means Keir Starmer has a renewed mandate as labor leader. And in his words, labor is coming home. To discuss the Batley and Spen by election, I'm joined by Aaron Bustani. How are you doing, Aaron? I'm very well, Michael. I'm very well. Sorry, except to sort something out. I'm extraordinarily well, especially given I only got six so asleep. Yeah, I actually didn't mean to stay up for the results. And then I just couldn't sleep. So I ended up being up at sort of like half five in the morning. I could have just had a good night sleeping and woken up for this. I should also say apologies. I'm sort of two minutes late today. I'm a bit freaked out because a flying ants colony has just arrived under my toilet, which is quite strange. So I've just mopped them up with some disinfectant. If you have any tips of how to get rid of ants, put them in the comments. As ever, don't just tell me about ants. We do want to know about your political opinion. So you can let us know your thoughts by tweeting on the hashtag Tiskey Sour. The question for you tonight, does the win in battalion spend mean Starmer is safe? And crucially, if so, for how long? If you're new to the channel, hit that subscribe button. Labor's election victory in battalion spend was certainly not resounding, but it did come as a surprise. We can see the results here. Labor on 35%, the Conservatives on 34% and George Galloway on 22%. Now, as you can see there in terms of the changes, Labor were down eight points. The Tories down two. So you might look at that. I think that was a bad night for Labor. However, given that George Galloway was mainly appealing to disaffected Labor voters, and we can expect much of that 22% that he received to be former Labor voters, Keir Starmer and the Labor Party have some means to be confident when it comes to these results. I mean, we'll be discussing to what extent as this show goes on. Now, the victory by almost everyone has been notched up to a very good individual candidate and people have called it a personal victory for Labor's candidate who is Kim Bled-Beater. This was her victory speech delivered at around 6am this morning. I want to say a huge thank you to the police who, sadly, I have needed more than ever over the last few weeks. And I want to say a huge thank you to the whole Labor Party team for the hours and the time and the commitment they've put in to supporting me and helping me to get to this fantastic result this evening. Well done for keeping up everybody. There's way too many people to mention by name, but I do want to refer to my family and my friends who, without them, I could have not got through the last five years, never mind the last five weeks, my amazing parents and my wonderful partner. And I want to give a special shout out to my niece and nephew who I cannot wait to hug as soon as I see them. So her niece and nephew there who she gave a special shout out to are of course the children of Joe Cox who's Kim Bled-Beater's sister who was murdered in the constituency by a Nazi sympathizer. So Kidd Bled-Beater standing there was quite powerful in itself. She also there mentioned the police presence that she had throughout some of the campaign. There had been some ugly scenes last weekend. There were some Labor campuses who were attacked. So on many fronts she has basically she's done well to come through this and come out victorious. While most people agree it was a personal victory, the extent to which this was something that Keir Starmer can clock up to his leadership is a bit more controversial. Of course he was trying to put forward the idea that this was a win for Labour. This was him speaking in Batley earlier today. This is a victory of hope over division. It is a start. Labour is back. Labour is back. That battle that went on here between decency and honesty and bringing people together and division, manipulation, misinformation lies. That battle isn't just in Batley and Spen. That is the battle of modern politics and the Labour Party is in that battle. We're going to fight all the way, every inch of the way and we're going to win that battle. We've got to fight that but Labour is back. This is just the start. Many more days like this. Labour is coming home. So Labour is coming home was last used by Tony Blair in 1996. We'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not Keir Starmer will like that association. Now you heard that Keir Starmer suggests that the issues that were the focus of this election, so in his words, integrity, disinformation, obviously he was I suppose trying to point disparaging George Galloway in those comments could also be applied on the national level. He's saying these are the issues that Labour can go into a general election with and win. I presume he wanted some of the audience there to think about Boris Johnson when he was talking about dishonesty, etc. So were the votes or was the result in Batley and Spen something that should give Labour cause for confidence when it comes to nationwide elections? There's some conflicting ideas here. So first of all, let's show you a graph which is the changing vote share in Batley and Spen for Labour. What you can see here is that whilst Labour did hold the seat potentially against the odds, they did still score the worst vote share they have ever done. Well, since 1983 at least. However, as I've suggested, given that George Galloway got 22% of the vote, the fact that they held their vote together to the degree they did is still, I think to some degree, impressive. I want to bring you in now, Aaron. What do you think? How should we interpret this win for Labour? I really disagree with everything you just said, Michael. The idea that, oh, well, Galloway got this huge vote and he did. He got 20% of the vote. And let's be clear, winning 20% of the vote should have meant that Labour lost. That's what all the calculations were based on, right? I mean, personally, I thought that was very plausible after going up there and all other things being equal. The Tory vote just had to stay still and they would win. Actually, the vote share went down. So the idea that Galloway is a one-off, he's this, political operator par excellence. He ran in 2019, Michael, in West Bromwich. He got a terrible result. He ran in 2017 in Manchester, Caughton. He got a terrible result. And so the idea that he ran in Scotland very recently, he got a terrible result. So George Galloway was a cypher for a set of political issues, which appealed particularly to a certain political audience, which isn't the majority in spend, like it is saying Bradford West, Muslim voters, that is, but it's still a big part of Labour's electoral block there. Yes, in this instance, it was George Galloway, but I think in other elections, those people, some of them at least, will go to the Greens or some might vote. And I also think George Galloway polarised things actually in a way that didn't help Labour. I think obviously him running was a net detriment to Labour, but I don't think he just took Labour voters. I mean, my experience was he also did take up quite a few people who probably came from previously with the Wolland District independence or previous Tory voters because he was talking about hyper-local issues. Or maybe he was picking up, and I think again, this probably helped Labour, he probably picked up quite a few Labour voters who otherwise would have gone Tory, but then voted for him instead. So I don't buy the thing, well, this was just a one-off and actually these numbers aren't as bad as they seem because George Galloway can't run enough in 650 constituencies. I think to go from 55% in 2017 to 35% now, with such a good candidate, they've got a fantastic candidate, I think much better than Tracy Brabham, with such a hyper-local campaign, I think in itself is quite dangerous. And look, the Tories didn't need Batley and Spen to win a majority of 80. You know, the fact we're even talking about this is obviously ludicrous. If you have the swing, and you're absolutely right, Michael, the swing sort of transposed onto a national level, I think that's clearly not going to happen. But let's just say it did, it's a 2.9% swing, and that would mean I think a Tory majority of, which was what happened in Batley and Spen because of George Galloway principally, that would mean a Tory majority of 230. You halve that 1.45% swing, and I think you still get a majority of around 100. Now you say, well, Galloway isn't running in every seat, as we've already mentioned, but the Greens didn't run. The Lib Dems got, I think, 2%, 3%. So I think, and actually look at a lot of little independent parties, the English Democrats, I think even UKIP ran a few sort of smaller right-wing parties probably also stopped the Tories winning this. So, you know, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. And I also think the reasons why Kim led better one, led beta one, are entirely at odds with the election campaign that Labour just ran in May. In May it was all about Keir Starmer, his face, his name, national political issues. Kim led beta one by not having Keir Starmer's name on anything, by not having Labour on any of her literature, even in her Twitter bio right now, it doesn't say Labour MP, it says MP. And so I think you've seen like a complete converse of what Starmer's gurus thought was the winning formula. They thought it was credibility, national politician, PMQs. Actually, it turns out it's a hyper-local candidate, very much rooted in her community, which brought the time for Labour. And I think that's really going to challenge their assumptions about what they need to do. And if it hasn't, if they think that Keir was the reason why they won this, then I think there's probably many more bad days ahead for Labour. Well, I think, I mean, to put forward their argument, I think Jeremy Corbyn obviously would, I mean, he did win badly and spend in a much more obvious way with a stronger result. And I think that's because you wouldn't have a George Galloway type figure running to his left. At the same time, what Keir Starmer can say after this election result is that Labour clearly picked up a fair few Tory votes. The maths doesn't really add up, if not. Let's actually bring up this graphic we've got of... I don't think that's necessarily true. The constituency. Well, also, Galloway got 22% of the vote. Labour's vote share dropped by only 7.5%. Now, do you think that most of... Do you think the majority of George Galloway's vote came from people who weren't previous Labour voters? I mean, that seems kind of implausible to me, given his whole campaign was appealed to core Labour voters. The Tory vote went down something like... Michael, the Tory vote went down like something like 1.7%, right? That's the Tory vote. You can see it from the graph. It stayed relatively static. I mean, obviously, it should have gone up if they wanted to win, but it stayed relatively static. In 2019, there were 6,000 people who voted for the local independent candidate. And, you know, there was a young woman who I spoke to who stood as an independent in the local elections in May, winning 600 votes as an independent. She was campaigning for Galloway. So, the idea that none of those people voted Galloway who were previously... Would that need to be none of those? I think it's to be none of those. No, I think if 22% of the vote went to George Galloway and Labour only fell by 7.5%, I mean, I think... Don't you think at least half of George Galloway's vote would have been Labour voters? Probably, yeah. It only has to be at least half for Labour to be picking up voters from elsewhere. I know. I think Labour picked up voters. I think they probably picked up some Tory voters, but I think they also picked up these independent voters, right? I think some went to the Tory, some went to Galloway, some went to Labour. And I think that's often the case with sort of hyper-local independent politics. It's kind of difficult to map. I think, well, so many Lib Dems gave their vote to Labour who probably, you know, the last time round on many Greens. I think it's a super complex thing. I was only there for two days, Michael, so I can only talk about my personal experience, but Galloway was actually drawing... He was drawing votes from a range of places, and at the same time, Labour were holding on to their Muslim vote in certain areas, right? So I'm really not so sure. I think... I do think we're underestimating the extent to which local issues drive a lot of this. I really do. And I think that's the reason why led B to winning is massive, is because she won despite a poor national leadership. We can talk about that, we've already talked about it, but also people really, really, really don't like the local council there. So I think that's what makes her such a phenomenal success here. And I just wonder, is that really, you know, can that really be expanded to the national context? I don't know. Well, I mean, I mean, I think the main point here is that even if it were expanded to the national context, Labour would still be losing because winning battle and spend isn't enough to win a general election. This should not be a seat that's really in play at all. But I suppose in defence of Keir Starmer's strategy, he'd say, given those, and you accept that there presumably were a number of switches from the Conservatives to Labour, that the maths doesn't add up otherwise. Even if that was primarily motivated by a good local candidate, that might not have happened if Keir Starmer was more a Jeremy Corbyn-type figure. The fact that he is inoffensive to Conservatives, even if he doesn't inspire much passion among anyone else, does put this hyper-local candidate in a position where they can peel off Tory voters because Labour are not a scary political party. I totally buy that argument. I think right now that's the best argument for Keir Starmer. And that's the best argument for Keir Starmer. He's not going to enthuse anybody, but he obviously does alienate some people, but he's not going to alienate as many people as Jeremy Corbyn or hopefully Boris Johnson the next time around, and he can allow local candidates to shine. But you know, this isn't the only election we've seen this year, Michael. We've also got what was going on obviously in Hartlepool. We've obviously got the local elections. And so the idea that, oh, we wouldn't see this kind of swing from Labour to the Tories at a national level like we've just seen in Batley and Spen. I think that's probably right, but there's no evidence from this year to suggest that. All the evidence suggests so far this year, if there was an election say in September, that's precisely what would happen. And I don't think it would happen in 2023. But if you look, for instance, at the polling for Keir Starmer versus Boris Johnson in Batley and Spen, Boris Johnson has something like a 20, 30 point leader of a Keir Starmer amongst voters in Batley and Spen, Boris Johnson over Keir Starmer. So I buy the argument that Keir Starmer is less off-putting to certain voters, but he was being sold as this asset, right? Labour, if they're attached to Keir Starmer, then that's really good for Labour. Well, actually, all the data shows us from Batley and Spen, but also nationally, he's really underperforming Boris Johnson. So I buy some of your argument, not all of it. Yeah. No, I mean, I think we agree that the weight of evidence that we've seen all of this year, if we include Hartley Paul, if we include Cheshaman Amisham, it's not that Keir Starmer is about to win a majority in some kind of national election. I just think that it would be potentially a mistake to underestimate the extent to which this was actually quite an achievement by Labour to retain the seat when George Galloway got 22%. As you can say, maybe those votes will go to a different party in a general election. But I do think there is something about by-elections as well, where people are quite happy to cast a protest vote, and often that support does peel back in a general. Obviously, Keir Starmer, we all agree, would have to come up with some policies to make people want to do that. I mean, also, having been there, and this is something that was repeated by everybody who went there, it was bizarre. There was no presence for the Tories. They were barely canvassing. There were barely any posters. If you weren't aware of them being the favourites, you would have thought it was a two-horse race between Labour and George Galloway. It was surreal and so constantly hearing. I wonder to what extent was that also the case in Hartlepool? I think the Tories would have won Hartlepool anyway, but I think with a decent local candidate, if the literature had been more focused on local issues and so on, like in Batley and Spen, I think Labour would have maybe lost that by a couple of thousand, not seven thousand. I think Hartlepool is basically a how-to of what not to do for the Labour Party going forward. I think that's what Batley and Spen kind of shows you. I'd finish with this, Michael. We did see this as well with Jeremy Corbyn. Labour did quite well in violations with Jeremy Corbyn. The outstanding example of failure was Copeland, but this kind of compounds the point because Copeland is this huge, rural constituency. Actually, when you have smaller constituencies where people can get around, whether it was Stokes Central, whether it was Peterborough, whether it was Oldham, Labour did really well because you can just get in hundreds of activists, which is what happened over the over the last 72 hours of this campaign. I think on the day itself, several hundred people in the constituency. That's phenomenal. Momentum were very good at that. But as we saw in 2019, that in a general election, when you got to do it in 650 seats, that's a different proposition. So again, the thing that got Labour, or one of the things that got Labour over the line here, this massive canvassing operation on the ground over 72 hours, that isn't necessarily in play to the same extent in the general. Again, that asks questions. And again, Keir Starmer's pitch was, we don't need a mass movement. We didn't go on the telly who looks prime ministerial. Well, actually, no, the thing that got you guys over the line was people on the ground canvassing your vote. Think about it. Let's look in more detail at the Canada, because we've talked a lot about her strengths and actually also her relationship to Keir Starmer, which we can go into a bit of detail before that, if you are enjoying the show, do hit the like button. Labour's win in Batley and Spen was very much a personal victory for Kim Ledbita. Ledbita has a powerful backstory as the sister of murdered MP Joe Cox, and it is a lifelong resident of the constituency. In this interview with Kay Burley this morning, she discussed her decision to stand. It was a big team decision. It was a big family decision. But you know, Mum and Dad have seen the work that I've done through the foundation. They've seen the network that I've got across our local area and how powerful that can be. And a way to build on that work is by being our MP, and they were very, very supportive of that. And they always said as well, you know, if you don't do it, you might regret not going for it, you know, whatever happens. And yeah, it was a team decision. And it's very emotional for us as a family, of course it is. But listen, if I can be half the MP that Joe was, then I'll be very, very happy and very, very proud of that. Now, you can see that. I mean, she seems like an incredibly likable person. You can see why she's got the kind of story that would work well in that kind of race. Something I hadn't realised actually before listening to that interview or hadn't really considered was the extent to which the Jo Cox Foundation didn't just mean she can say, oh, by the way, I'm Jo Cox's sister, but that she had existing networks in the constituency by working with that group. That makes a lot more sense when it comes to how she could have peeled off potential Tory voters in the constituency. She was, as we've said, we've said this is what Aaron said, this was very much a local campaign. That is a line that's being repeated by Kim Leadbeater. And she was, she was very clear now speaking to the BBC that she put her victory down to those local issues. Focus of the campaign was very much listening to local people and speaking to local people. And sometimes national issues came up, but I have to be honest, the vast majority of conversations were about very local issues. People want to feel that they've got an MP who cares about this community, you know, and as someone who's lived here their whole life and has lived in various different places across the constituency, I think that's where the connection came from during the campaign, you know, the fact that I was local. So national stuff plays a part, but for me, this really was about the local issues that people care about. And they want someone they can trust and put their faith in going forward. And I think the fact that I'm born and bred here has been really important to people. Well, I understand that point. I mean, the question was though about Keir Starmer, particularly whether or not he was an asset as your leader, as you are campaigning, as you are talking to people, would that be a fair description or would you not use that description? I think, like I say, most of the conversations weren't about the Labour leadership. Most of the conversations were about people's day-to-day lives. I think that's probably all I can say really. So she was clearly there, very reluctant to make any comment at all actually on the leadership of Keir Starmer. She was asked whether he was an asset and she essentially ignored the question. As we've already shown, Keir Starmer was in the constituency today. He was obviously trying to connect the win to issues which the Labour Party are fighting on, on a more national level. Let's take a look at what he had to say. I think that people are getting fed up with the politics of misinformation, half-truths, untruths and division. And what they want is what Kim can give them, which is positivity, which is bringing communities together. She's of her community. She's for her community. It's about decency and integrity, versus misinformation, manipulation, lies and half-truths. And that's been the battle here in Batley and Spen. But it is the wider battle of modern politics. But this has been a very, very positive campaign against a wall of hostility and poison from other candidates. So you heard that Keir Starmer saying this was about decency and integrity versus misinformation. Now if Keir Starmer has tried to put himself forward as anything, it is someone who is supposedly decent and has integrity, is constantly trying to sort of position himself as the honest version of Boris Johnson, not really the honest version of Boris Johnson, but someone who is much more honest than Boris Johnson. Obviously he says it too much and doesn't follow it through enough. But Aaron, I want to know, do you think that Keir Starmer is really clutching its straws there by trying to draw a connection between this victory for Kim Ledbiter and the issues that he say are shaping the national conversation? I do think that the Matt Hancock story probably did help get Labour over the line. I do believe that. I mean, I'm not, you know, anybody who follows me on Twitter probably saw me three or four days ago, people in Batley and Spen don't know who Matt Hancock is. I mean, that's generally true. But when you've got a margin here of 300, I think, I think, yeah, it's perfectly plausible that, you know, 150 people are kind of swayed by the sort of general sense in the final week. And that's probably a part of it. I don't think it's about truth versus lies. I mean, for me, when he's talking about this stuff, what he's doing with this kind of rhetoric, Michael, is it's effectively offering cover for a vacuum on policy. Labour have nothing to say about anything. So they have to talk about lies and truth and division manipulation. By the way, Michael, he talks too much. He says too many words. It's a TV clip. You know, I don't know who the hell he's getting his media training from, but he still sounds like a lawyer. He's using three, four syllable words. It sounds like he's trying to pack in as many words as he can into the clip. Just say a really simple, meaningful thing, right? Take a lesson from Kim Lidbetter, right? He sounds well off the pace in terms of what he's doing. And so I don't really agree with the form or the content. I don't agree with the general argument. What George Galloway was doing in Batley and Spen Labour have done before. I'm not just saying that. They've done worse. Phil Woolis in 2010 did worse. And when he was found out, you had all the grandees in the Labour Party, you had Gordon Brown, you had Harriet Harman saying that he shouldn't be expelled from the Labour Party. So I don't buy this argument that Labour is about decency and honesty and these other people are nasty and bad. It can be true in a particular instance, but I really think that in politics, that tends to be the sort of refuge of somebody who's really not got much of substance to offer. And right now the Tories have got a lot to offer. They've got the vaccine program to offer. They live with Brexit. You might think they've got nothing to do with the vaccine program. You might not like Brexit, but they're really substantial. And I think Labour talking about truth and honesty and integrity, I mean, okay, there are a bunch of words, but like you always say, Michael, show don't tell. I mean, I suppose now we've brought up the Tories. They did lose vote share. And I mean, they were going into the selection hoping that the 12% that voted for the independence last time around. So it was an independent who was a former UKIP member. So one would assume that those voters would more naturally go to the Conservatives. They were hoping to mop up those votes. Actually, their vote share fell. So what is your analysis, given that you're saying that the Tories do have quite a lot to save themselves at the moment? Why didn't they manage to make any gains at all in this constituency? It's fascinating, isn't it? I think my sense was that as soon as Galloway ran, they didn't need to do anything. They could just kind of turn up. So Ryan Stevens and the candidate did barely any media, very little canvassing. There wasn't like a big, you know, on the doorstep kind of campaign over the final seven days. I find that kind of puzzling, Michael. And again, we probably need to get a Tory insider on the show to explain that. So it's a similar dynamic to Jessham and Amisham. It's a similar dynamic to what happened last night in another election in the constituency of Dominic Graab. And the Tories right now, you know, they're doing really well in some places like the Northeast with Hartlepool or with Ben Houchen as T's valet mayor. But it does feel like their vote is actually quite soft in many places. And this kind of, you know, this capacious label of the red wall, back then, it's not the red wall that was touring until 1997. I think it's not necessarily that helpful for them. Their vote for was really soft in a bunch of places. And, you know, and at the same time, simultaneously, it's hardening in others. So we'll see. But also, it's just not, it's not normal, Michael, for a government to win by elections. This is one of those platitudes that we heard all night and all week. But it's true. And so for them to have, for them to have still got the vote they got in a by election, it's still, it's still very, very irregular. It's still very unusual. You take away outliers like Copeland under Corbyn or Hartlepool under Keir Starmer, it's still an extraordinary result for the Tories. So I mean, that would be my answer to your point about, well, if these things are so popular, the public, why didn't they win this seat? You don't win generally speaking, governments don't win by elections. So I don't think that the vote here for them was sort of indicative of people falling out of love with them, potentially. I think they could still win this in a general. I don't think it's a right of, I think Kim Ledbetter is actually good enough to increase a majority. But I think they could still win it in a general election. So I'm not so sure. But what I think it probably does mean is that major realignment we saw in 2019, you know, that maybe that's, that's still not finished. I think it probably isn't. I do think that we could see a lot of changes come the next general election. And they don't have to redound the benefit of the Labour Party, right? I mean, the Lib Dems could make major gains, the Greens could make major gains, Labour could make major gains and elsewhere. And that's what we've seen actually in these three by-elections, right? We saw the Lib Dems pick up Jesham and Amisham. Then last night, there were elections in London, including Islington, the Greens did phenomenally well elsewhere. You know, I think the Tories picked up something, the Lib Dems did phenomenally well. So I think the big worry for Labour is Michael, that come the next general election, 2023-2024, they are seeing their vote, which is 32% of the last general election, they're seeing that nibbled from the right and that will continue to happen a little bit. And I think that will happen. But also from the left, with the Greens and arguably from the centre, whatever that means, from the Lib Dems, I don't think it will. I think primarily the Greens, and I think it'll be the Tories. And that's not going away. And I think that's kind of confirmed what we saw in battle in Spen. I mean, I suppose relevant there would be, can the Greens attract, for example, ethnic minority voters? Because at the moment, I mean, the Greens have quite a specific support base. I don't think they really could stand in for George Galloway in terms of what he did in this general election. In some seats, right? In some seats, I mean, in Sheffield, Bristol West, maybe Norwich, but no, I agree with you. Maybe Maximum Fight, Arle of Wikes, it's going to have a second seat, maybe five or six seats. I agree with you, Michael, but the point is, you know, Labour needs to be picking up, at least, I mean, they're not going to form majority in the next election, but they need to at least be picking up dozens of seats. And so the possibility of actually being vulnerable to their left in five or six seats, I mean, that might not sound particularly, you know, it might sound insignificant. But in 2015, when Ed Miliband lost to Cameron, there were 15, 16 seats where the difference between Labour and the Tories was the Green vote. And so, you know, that again, that is a variable and, you know, it can't be taken for granted. One of the great achievements of Corbyn, and we saw it with 2017, was he just destroyed, he just destroyed the Green and Lib Dem vote. And a lot of it went to him. And returning to a point we talked about earlier, yes, he was very unpopular with some people. So, okay, yeah, he got this record in recent times of increase, I think the biggest increase in share of those is 1945 and 2017. And I agree that creates a sort of a countercurrent, which increased to raise a May's vote. And that's the sort of best argument for Keir Starmer, while he won't do that. But at the same time, it doesn't feel like Keir Starmer right now has a response to that nibbling of the vote, not just from the Tories, but also from the Greens, also from the Lib Dems. You know, I still think they haven't really got a message or a set of policies to deal with that. And that's why they turned to this, this default of talking about morality. And it kind of feels like the kind of Trump ban on stuff they're leaning into. And I don't know, it doesn't feel right for the UK context. Well, I mean, it wouldn't really work anywhere else. I mean, you could impose that or superimpose that on that particular battle between George Galloway and Kim Leadbiter, whose sister had been murdered in the constituency. You know, this idea of sort of like decency being an important issue in a general election, sorry, in a in a by election right there, you know, as you say, I think probably there were a lot of local issues coming into this as well. But you can at least see that as a variable. Whereas Boris Johnson isn't George Galloway, and that backstory won't apply anywhere else. So it does seem like it would be difficult to to rely on to win on a national level. I want to go to a couple of super chats and comments. Oliver Kant says, Labour leadership just think politics is purely a vibe, just say some meaningless buzzwords. And that's it. And Harry with a fiver super chat says, can barely be considered victory when Labour was fighting against a brick wall and one by the skin of their teeth shouldn't even be a marginal seat. Is the brick wall the Tory Canada because he didn't speak very much. It is. I mean, as Aaron said, they didn't put up much of a campaign. I'm wondering if that's partly to do with the fact that one, they've got a big enough majority that they don't need this. And also they didn't want to be seen to be throwing the kitchen sink at a constituency where Joe Cox's sister was was fighting for a seat they didn't need. I want to go to a couple more bits of information about Kim Leadbeater because there was one reveal today, a bit of information or at least a briefing about her that we didn't know before. So this is a tweet from Paul War from the Huffington Post. So he tweeted this morning, knew MP Kim Leadbeater left Labour Party under Corbyn because of Corbyn, Keir Starmer actively recruited her back, I understand. And you can imagine why this would have been briefed. It's to say, look, this is a huge break with Jeremy Corbyn. This is someone who disliked him so much. She left the Labour Party because of it. And also the fact that she stood in the seat, that's a personal victory because Keir Starmer got her to do it. So a personal victory for Keir Starmer, sorry, because Keir Starmer got her to stand in that role. Now, that would be a helpful story. Might be true, I don't know. It does contradict though what was written earlier or a couple of months ago, earlier in the campaign. So in an article on the Yorkshire Live website in May, there had been no mention of her leaving because of Corbyn. And back then, it was actually reported she'd left the Labour Party because she'd taken up an apolitical role at the Joe Cox Foundation. So an alternate explanation was put forward. We can go to a quote from that piece, a source close to Leadby to told the Yorkshire Live. Kim has always been Labour through and through. In the wake of Joe's murder, she felt disengaged from politics. It was politics that took Joe away from her. After that, she threw all her energies into the foundation. And as a charity, it is not party political at all. Kim is quite a moral person and she didn't feel she could continue being a member. Most people understand that. So there's a couple of interpretations here. Maybe she told one friend something and she told another friend another. Maybe she did leave because of Jeremy Corbyn, but she didn't want to make that public before the election campaign because she wanted to put herself forward as an apolitical personal candidate who just cares about local issues. Or maybe an ally of Keir Starmer has emphasised one aspect of this after the event where she won because Keir Starmer wanted to bask in the glory and use this as another stick to bash Jeremy Corbyn with. All of those seem somewhat plausible to me. Aaron, what's your take on what's happened here? Yeah, I mean, if it is a Starmer ally doing that and using her, even if it's true, I mean, I think that's for her to say. Do you not think? I mean, I don't think it's for somebody else to say. I don't think it's for the leader's office to brief or for an outrider for Starmer to brief. I think that shouldn't start ventriloquising this woman after she's been a Labour MP for less than 12 hours. I think that's pretty appalling, actually. It doesn't really bode well for their genre of leadership, does it? I think secondly, her pitch, again, going back to why I led B to 1 and why that may not be good for Labour is that it was about hyperlocal politics and almost an aversion to party politics. I'm the best candidate because I'm from here and, like I said, in her literature, there was no mention of Labour, no mention of Starmer. In her Twitter bio now, there's no mention of Labour. In the video we talked about earlier, there's no mention of Starmer. This isn't me attacking Starmer. I think the sort of idea is that people don't really like party politics. And that may be true, but I just wonder the extent to which that's useful or helpful for a political compass, a set of ideas, a Labour movement, where you believe in collective action, where you believe in solidarity. So I think if they did hide it, and I think it's perfectly wise to do that, looking at objectively, obviously I don't agree with her doing it, but I can understand why, because they were trying to make her seem like the local candidate, Joe Cox's sister, and kind of beyond party politics. Because that, again, is the same guys. You know, even on her literature, we talked about, you know, Labour not being there, Starmer not being there. Even the colours of her leaflets were like pink and purple. They weren't red. You know, and that's not new. I mean, people were saying, oh, God, this is terrible. Labour MPs on the right, on the left, on the centre, have been doing that for a while, because people actually have a, they feel an affinity to somebody they view as a local champion, rather than as a member of a political party. And that is a thing, right? And again, I just, I question the extent to which Labour can do that in a general election. Of course, the councillor argument is, well, the Tories did it, right? The Tories did it in 2019. They had a guy who went to Eaton and who went to Oxford posing as an anti-establishment candidate. They had people who are part of a party, which is enthralled to big business, posing as these tribunes of the oppressed and the working class. So, I mean, it's plausible, but I suspect it probably isn't. The idea that you're going to stand 350 people in seats you may be able to win on the back of anti-politics and local issues in a local election, I think you can do that in a general somewhat tougher. Maybe Labour will get the wrong way round, because of course in the local elections in May, it was all about national issues, maybe at the general election, Keir Starmer will be talking about dog shit and poor roads. Well, I mean, I think you said the Tories did it, but they didn't really fight the last general election on local issues, did they? I mean, they had Boris Johnson front and centre everywhere because they had a really popular leader. So, I mean, obviously, the fact Keir Starmer isn't on the leaflets is because he is very unpopular at the moment. I mean, it's the same reason that Jeremy Corbyn wasn't on the leaflets is that he didn't poll particularly well. Obviously, he inspired some enthusiastic support to a greater degree than Keir Starmer ever did. And why I liked him is because he stood for something and Keir Starmer doesn't, but neither of them would have appeared on leaflets when Boris Johnson does. Will Keir Starmer be able to turn that around between now and whenever the next election comes up? Who knows? If you are enjoying tonight's show and you want to become a supporter for or supporter of Navarra Media, sorry, please do go to navarromedia.com slash support and an equivalent of one hour's wage a month. If you do that already, thank you so much. We really do appreciate it. Kim Leadbeater's narrow victory in battle and spend will be an excuse for many in Starmer's circle to attempt to further marginalise the left of the party that will apply more than anyone to Peter Mandelson who spoke to Sky News to comment on the by-election result. So how come Labour only won by 323 votes? Because as I've explained to you, we've had a very bad 10 years. We've been on a very negative trajectory. So why do you feel that Keir Starmer is the right man to take you out of that? Yes I do, I do. If he were allowed to lead, unfortunately there are people in the party, there were Corbynite elements on the left of the party who were watching with glee as George Galloway entered the race in Batley and Spen and announced that his task was to defeat Keir Starmer. I mean frankly those people should have been busy campaigning in Batley and Spen rather than conspiring in smoke-filled rooms to undermine him and to launch a leadership challenge against him. Now I think that Keir Starmer, yes it's been an extraordinarily difficult year for him. It's been the most abnormal year in politics I can remember in my life but we are emerging from it and that's the chance, that's the opportunity for Keir Starmer now. Peter Mandelson, that was Peter Mandelson complaining about people having conversations in smoke-filled rooms about potential leadership contests instead of fighting for the Labour Party to win. Now you might remember that when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party, obviously everyone's got incredibly short memories now, Peter Mandelson said he woke up every single day and tried to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. Now he didn't say I wake up every day and try and get the Labour Party elected, no, he says I wake up every day trying to undermine the leader of the Labour Party. So when he says oh Keir Starmer, he needs to have a chance to lead, that could not be more disingenuous. You know, he hasn't been in at top level politics for 10 years and yet he's now on Radio 4, Sky News, the today programme, Politics Live News Night, he's on like every day. I mean it's amazing. He's become like a real outrider for Starmer. And he's talking there from his home in Wiltshire, his multimillion pound home in Wiltshire presumably, you know, well it's a good thing he wasn't in his Notting Hill, you know, home. And this is the guy, Michael, it's important to remember, this is the guy who's two things. People say well the Blairites got it so right in the 1990s and Mandelson was there. First of all, Peter Mandelson was the head of communications for the 1987 general election, which was a disaster for Labour. Secondly, he was a very senior figure in the 2010 general election for Labour, which was a disaster. So the idea that this guy has the golden touch, he knows what he's doing. He was the MP for Hartlepool for a very long time and they were just lost it by 7,000 votes. What does that tell you about people's memories of Peter Mandelson as MP for Hartlepool? I also think to finish with this, Michael, it says so much about our media that Peter Mandelson is now this go-to guy. He's not been an MP. He wasn't an MP. Nobody elected him when he was in the cabinet under Gordon Brown. He doesn't have any discernible talents apart from sort of slagging people off and undermining various people. He's never accomplished anything, you know. I mean he was an MP, but his job for new Labour wasn't okay, we're going to work on this policy, get it implemented. It was about attacking the left. I don't quite understand where this kind of this ardour from the media comes from. At least with Alasdair Campbell, he was a top journalist. He went to do comms for Tony Blair. You can see what he excelled at. Peter Mandelson, he was a hanger-on. He was there before Blair in 8.7. He was there after in 2010 and that's what he got when he got found out. It would suggest he's not that good at politics and yet he's here sort of still talking garbage. Without being rude and there's no reason to be agist about this, but the guy is 67. He has been in politics for 35 years and I do feel like he still thinks that we're talking about the political realities of the late 1980s. Maybe, just maybe, if you have a multimillion pound home in West London, if you've been on a boat with a Russian billionaire oligarch, Oleg Derapaska, right, if you were friends with Jeffrey Epstein, maybe you don't know what is driving the common woman and man in this country, maybe. It's just a thought. I could be wrong and maybe the media should take that into account when they think, well, let's go to Peter Mandelson. Let's see him ventriloquise the working-class voters of this country. I mean, it's absurd. Hopefully, Michael, organizations like Navarra Media can stop it happening in 2024. Because this, like you say, this is one of the things that really riles me. At least Kirsten was the director of public prosecutions. He's a successful person, his own right. He's accomplished things. Mandelson is a proper political bag carrier. Can't stand them out. I think that was very well put. I'm sure that will bring all of our audience together wherever they stand on this particular by-election. Let's go to a couple of comments. Robbie Scott with a fiver. What impact do you guys think the result will have on the Labour leadership? We're going to talk about that a bit later in the show and we discuss the current briefings about Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer. And also thanks to Stephen Edwards, who just gave us a 10 at Super Chat. Very much appreciated. And Solidarity with a fiver. Quite a bit of Islamophobia directed at the Batley and Spen Muslim community from Labour HQ during this by-election. Quite disgusted with Starmer, to be honest. We have spoken a lot about that particular issue throughout this campaign and we are about to, unfortunately, again, one unpleasant note in the Batley and Spen by-election was the attempt by centrists in the Labour Party and in the media to blame an expected defeat for Kim Leadbeater on the supposed bigotries of Muslim voters. Now that included a senior Labour source telling Dan Hodges that Muslims were abandoning Labour because they'd been too tough on anti-Semitism and numerous other commentators claiming that homophobia among Muslims would hand victory for the Tories. It was a narrative with little evidence and which bread fed into directly Islamophobia. Now, unfortunately, Labour's surprise win in the seat didn't put the narrative to bed. So, Ellenette Correa, after the result came in, tweeted, Labour-Batley campaign source says, basically built a new electoral coalition in six weeks. Lost the Conservative Muslim vote over gay rights in Palestine and won back a lot of 2019 Tory voters. This result shows we're reconnecting with the wider electorate. Again, now there's all sorts wrong with that statement. They're building a new electoral coalition without the problematic Muslims and they're reconnecting with the wider electorate. I mean, what's going on there? More, obviously, I think, they say lost the Conservative Muslim vote over gay rights in Palestine. Now, from everyone I was spoken to who's been in the constituency, I haven't. Muslim voters were talking a lot more about Palestine than gay rights. And also, why is someone who cares about Palestine conservative? If you happen to be a Muslim who cares about Palestine, you're suddenly a conservative voter, a small C conservative voter. I mean, seems wrong as well as being incredibly disrespectful. Now, disappointingly, this narrative was also fed by Paul Mason, who purports to sit on the left of the party. So, his analysis of the election result in the new statement included the following. Galloway's vote of 8264 was driven by a mixture of the youthful radicalism that put tens of thousands of young Muslims on the street during the latest Gaza atrocities and the homophobia and anti-feminism of their parents. Now, again, these are such sweeping statements with no evidence. Why does he say only young Muslims care about Palestine and why are all Muslim parents assumed to be homophobic and anti-feminist? And not only are they homophobic and anti-feminist, that's what's driving their votes in general elections instead of local services, instead of the issues that affect them on day-to-day life. I'm not convinced that homophobia has really motivated many voters in this country in the past 30 years, right? So, to make such a sweeping statement that basically if you're over 50, if you're Muslim and if you voted for George Galloway, it's because you're a homophobe or an anti-feminist. I'm not sure why that's being written by someone purporting to be on the Labour Left and published in supposedly left-wing journal. I mean, Aaron, I want to bring you in on this. I mean, I thought, obviously, this would have gone into overdrive if Labour had lost. If Labour had lost this seat, you would have been seeing loads and loads of people saying, oh, this is because of the bigoted Muslims. But even though Labour held onto the seat, we're still hearing, oh, the reason they didn't win it by as much as they would have was because of the bigoted Muslims. And by the way, we've now managed to get some white Tory voters who we're more comfortable with. Whippy. I mean, the thing about homophobia as well, Michael, 85% of Muslims voted for Labour in the 2017 general election. Huge majorities of Muslims voted for Ed Miliband in 2015, Corbyn in 2017, 2019, I believe, Gordon Brown in 2010. I mean, the trend has been towards Labour over the years, but still, big majorities. I mean, it's just ridiculous. So, they were pro-LGBT rights until this by-election. And then that magically changed. And it's just Muslims in badly and spent who are homophobes and anti-feminists. And that's why they're now voting against the Labour Party. I mean, it's not just wrong and absurd. I genuinely worry for Paul Mason as an intellectual. I mean, it's just so pathetically wrong. I think something's gone very, very badly. There's a big malfunctioning going on in terms of his critical faculties when it comes to sort of what's going on. What's going on? I just find it bizarre. You don't even need to have gone to badly and spend, Michael. You just need to look at Wikipedia and you need to look at the numbers in terms of them. The Muslim vote saved Labour in a lot of Redwall seats in 2019. Significantly. I mean, we could talk about why. You shouldn't talk about the Muslim vote. Well, okay, fine. Demographically, we're breaking it down. That's what it was. And so, I mean, it's just really, you know, it's really thick. It's a really stupid thing to say. I don't know. I mean, is there any other way of putting it without being, you know, I mean, that is rude, but without being excessively rude, it's a really thick thing to say. And it's the same thing as when people were saying, oh, you know, the Muslim voting countries, but they're anti-Semites. Well, they voted on overwhelming numbers for Ed Miliband in 2015. He would have been a Jewish Prime Minister. Again, I just don't really understand the arguments being made here. They aren't arguments, Michael. That's the point. This is just, it's an excuse for prejudice and racism. That's all it is. And the idea that, oh, the young cared about Palestine, but older voters don't care about Palestine. I mean, my experience in battalion spend was, you know, people in their 20s and their 30s and their 40s, 50s, 60s, all talking about Palestine. You know, I saw a three-year-old girl when I was canvassing and she was singing George Galloway free Palestine. And then I saw a Mufti in his 60s talking about Palestine. So, you know, that spans the entire community and anti-feminism. And, you know, I don't know where he gets these ideas, Michael. I don't know where he gets these ideas. I think he's gone very, I think I'm very badly wrong. You know, he was attacking Rebecca Long-Bailey for Catholicism not long ago. So, at least he's equal opportunities in terms of, in terms of his religious bigotry, I suppose. That's one, that's one positive. Ashley Pringle has given a 20-pound super chat saying for Aaron's forensic demolition of Mandelson. I think you've just done a fairly forensic one of Paul Mason's comments this morning as well. George Galloway's 22% in the Batley and Spen by-election was not a bad result for a political outsider. However, it wasn't enough to achieve his goal of beating Labour, which he was very confident he would do just two weeks ago. Let me break it to you. Gently, Labour are going to be third in this by-election. Oh, actually, to say that decisively now, 100% Labour are coming third. 100%. I'll eat my hat in your presence. Would you actually eat your hat? I'll eat my hat if they're not third. Now, George Galloway hasn't taken the result very well, and this morning he went out in front of the TV cameras and he didn't eat his hat. Of course, it was George Galloway who came third, not the Labour Party. Instead of eating his head where he announced he will dispute the election result. On multiple grounds, we will apply to the courts for this election result to be set aside. You'll be hearing much more of this from me directly from the horse's mouth over the next hours and days. Now, I have to admit, I have no idea what that challenge is going to be on the basis on. We'll talk about Galloway's campaign a bit, but first of all, Aaron, do you have any idea what that challenge is going to be based on? Yeah, there's a few things. The majority is 323. Sorry, I don't know if you caught me there. There are a few things. The majority for the Labour Party is 323. As I understand that the Tories asked for a recount, a full recount, they didn't get it. This is what I'm told by Galloway's election agent, and that is highly irregular instead of disputing that. And also, they're claiming that on election day, Galloway's campaign literature was ripped down by the council. Again, this is what I'm told by the election agent, they're disputing that. That isn't being denied by the council. The council said that it contravened certain regulations with regards to the size of the lettering. Sounds very strange. I mean, ultimately, I don't think it meant Kim led. That's a one, but if that's an issue, they should obviously feel free to raise any party should. So that's it really. It was the count, and then it was the posters on the final days. And then finally, actually, they also had a mail out, which they used through Royal Mail, a leaflet mail out, which was never delivered. And they're claiming issues there with the Royal Mail, arguably perhaps the CW, I don't know, Postal Workers Union. So there are a few incidents where they feel like they were impeded. And also, at the start of the campaign, they were given corrupted data in terms of electoral rolls and so on. Again, I don't know if any of this is true. This is just what I'm being relayed by the election agent for George Callaway. I mean, none of it also sounds significant enough to just overturn the election result. Because also, I mean, George Callaway got 22%. It wasn't particularly close to winning. So all of those would have had to have led to, without those supposed impediments getting 5,000 extra votes. So it does seem a bit like sour grapes going in front of the TV cameras and saying, we're going to dispute the election results. So it has to happen all over again. Obviously, it was a close election between Labour and the Tory. It wasn't a close election between George Callaway and anyone. I mean, I suppose they would argue, well, if we got an extra, if we got an extra, however many votes from Labour than, you know, and we're talking in the hundreds then, then we would have won. I mean, I agree with you, Michael. I think, look, I think it's important to say, if any party has an issue with an election, you know, I feel Al Gore in 2000 should have contested sort of the decisions made around that election. I think some very strange things, improper things happened. I agree with you. I think if, on the other hand, it was the Tory candidate saying all this and it was this close, yeah, okay, that would make a bit more sense. However, it does sound like there are some, there are some things that, you know, they are substantial and not completely fictitious, but it doesn't sound like they were anywhere near enough to be enough. And in terms of the full recount, I mean, there were certain, you know, tranches of ballots which were checked over and over again. A full recount, my God, Michael, you know, we got the result at 6am. I think if they'd done a full recount, we would have had to wait till God one, two in the afternoon. And look, if it's 50, 60 votes, okay, you know, like one of the Southampton seats in 2017, 300 votes. I mean, again, the Tory candidate was entitled to contest that and apparently they did. So it's not just Galloway that has some issues here. But I think in all likelihood, it's going nowhere, yes. What do, what's your assessment of Galloway's campaign in general? Obviously, lots have been said about it, mainly negative, especially in the last week, people pointing at Galloway and saying that's one of the reasons the campaign was as divisive as it was. I mean, what's your take there? Yeah, I think, you know, people, oh, Galloway cemented the sort of the Labour vote, etc. I mean, maybe that's conjectural. I think for anybody to come from, from nowhere, not even be acquainted with the constituency and to get more than 20% is remarkable. I think that I think he knew he would get that. And I think that's why he said he would eat his hat if Labour didn't win. I think he thought I think everybody thought if he gets 20% Labour lose, I mean, the poll that was by salvation, the only real notable poll had him on 6%. And even that was enough for, for, for Labour to lose by 6%. So you look at that and then you look at the final results. I mean, it's, it is a miracle. So even, you know, this is the strange thing about Batley and Spen, you've got people arguing both sides, it's a terrible result of flavour. It's a fantastic result for Labour. It's a bit of both, you know, within the broader context, it is a terrible result for Labour, they shouldn't, they shouldn't be in this position. On the other hand, if you look at all the sort of the dynamic factors and play locally in the final week, it was completely unexpected. I think Galloway, from what he told me, I interviewed him, I wrote a piece from RRME.com that they, they, they plan to stand again and again and again in these kinds of seats. And, you know, in Batley and Spen, it wasn't enough. But if he had a seat turn up again like Bradford West, with a large and Muslim population, I think Labour would have a problem. And in Batley and Spen, you know, it was being sort of presented as a Bradford West, but it wasn't, you know, Bradley East, for instance, is as a very high Muslim population, but it's still only, I think, 25% of the overall population of the constituency was, was Muslim. It's a primarily white constituency. And it's a very, it's a very complex constituency. You had people that were moved by Brexit, you had ex-Labor Voters tempted by the Tories, you had Muslim Voters turned off by Keir Starmer, you had Labour Voters who don't like the local Labour Council. And so I think, given all that, I think he navigated a lot of those issues really expertly. I mean, he's clearly a very talented politician. And I'm sure this will be clipped up and that will be taken out of context. But clearly, you don't win a by-election in Bradford West as a respect candidate, if you're not good at politics in 2012. You don't win an election in Bo and Beth McGrion as a respect candidate in 2005. You know, he won twice as effectively, you know, a third party candidate. And, you know, he came third here. And he came second in Bradford West, it should be said in 2015 when he was up for reelection. So he has a really strong record. He's clearly very good at what he does. I don't think... I think they'll be gutted that they didn't make the difference in Stop Labour wedding. I think they'll be absolutely gutted. And I think they genuinely thought they could do that. However, I think they'll try and do it again. I think they'll try and do it again. I mean, if anything, maybe this will strengthen his resolve. I don't know. I mean, you know, he has a nice life. He has a TV show. He has a nice holiday at home. He has a wife, children. I personally would retire from politics, but it seems that he, you know, he's not going away anytime soon. We've got a couple more stories for you. First, we've got a very exciting announcement, which is that thanks to all of your kind support and the regular donations, we are hiring another member of our production team. So this is super exciting, it's so we can continue to expand and improve the show. And we'd love you to apply. So if you would like to help us grow and expand Tiskey Sour, and you think you might have the relevant skills, do go check out our website. It has all of the details. A link to that is also in the description of this video. I have to say, I do recommend working for Navarra Media. It will be a great job for anyone who gets it. Labour's win in battalion spend was a surprise and a relief to Keir Starmer. However, in the aftermath of the result, some of Britain's leading political journalists got a little bit carried away. Alex Wickham in the Politico Morning email wrote, Labour has held the West Yorkshire seat of battalion spend in a nail-biting race which should put to bed talk of a leadership challenge to Keir Starmer, at least for now. Kim Ledby to one out over Tory hopeful Ryan Stevenson by just 323 votes after a bundle recount despite George Galloway picking up more than 8,000 votes. It's Labour's first by-election victory since Corby in 2012 and the Conservative second concurrent loss after the Cheshire and Amisham won. Now, the standout thing there is that it's Labour's first by-election victory since Corby in 2012. Now, that would be a big deal. That would seem like quite an exceptional event. The problem, it's not remotely true. So in fact, Labour have won 12 by-elections since 2012. Nine of those were under Jeremy Corbyn. Now, Alex Wickham's morning email, that gets sent out basically to lots of Westminster insiders. That's what it's really sort of positions itself as. It tells you what's going to be in the news today. I read it. I don't necessarily take it as gospel, but I do read it. Some people do take it as gospel, though it seems, because that untruth was repeated by the Financial Times, Whitehall correspondent, Sebastian Payne on Twitter. So Sebastian Payne tweeted, Labour should rightly celebrate a campaign victory. It's first by-election victory in nine years, but battalion spend was ultimately about Kim Ledbetter, etc., etc. So you see there the claim, it's first by-election in nine years. As I say, completely untrue. They've actually won 12 by-elections in that period of time, nine under Jeremy Corbyn. Now, because this is Twitter, people can reply. Sebastian Payne is called out by Abby Wilkinson, who's a left-wing journalist. I don't understand what you mean by first by-election victory in nine years, she says. It's won lots of by-elections over the last nine years, including another one in battalion spend in 2016. Sebastian Payne in response says, sorry, it was a mistake, have corrected, meant first by-election gain. Now, you might say that, look, he's made a mistake, he's admitted his mistake. The problem is, in his admission of his mistake, he's made another mistake, which he said this is the first by-election gain since 2012. Now, that would be true if Labour had gained the seat, but Labour didn't gain battalion spend, because Labour already held battalion spend. So you've got two examples here of people really, I suppose, twisting the truth intentionally or otherwise to make this seem like a bigger achievement for Keir Starmer than it actually was. Now, in defence of both of these journalists, Payne and Wickham, the results did come in very, very late. Maybe they were quite tired. Maybe this was just a little slip up. And Payne did, in the end, delete his tweet and issue a correction. There was, though, no such humility from the independence John Rental for him. If the facts didn't fit his narrative, he would just change the facts. He tweeted that battalion spend was, in effect, a Tory seat in brackets would have been Tory in 2019, if not for pro Brexit independent, with Galloway, a Labour vote splitter. Now, Aaron, this is quite remarkable, isn't it? It's a senior political journalist saying this seat which was held by Labour was actually a Tory seat, and saying so to, I suppose, emphasise or exaggerate the achievement of Keir Starmer. It's a very strange style of political journalism where you can just twist the truth and change the facts to make your argument stronger, even though everyone can see this. This wasn't in effect a Tory seat. It was a Labour seat. What do you make of these confusions and these contortions that we saw this morning? There's two things, isn't it? Firstly, the British media is marked by something called bandwagon bias. They just all agree. Once there's a certain line, they all agree with it. They all just listen to each other and then repeat what they heard, whether that's Brexit, whether that was opposition to Corbyn, whether that was the Trump thing. It's not obviously not just limited to Britain. It's a cognitive bias. We're all capable of doing it, but I think the British media is uniquely bad at this, probably because they're all in the same place in London. They all know each other, they all want the same universities, same schools. But still, despite all that, you would hope that, you know, he would have the wisdom to just say, yep, you're right, my mistake, my apologies, I'll delete that. And then just post another tweet saying, sorry, brain freeze happens to everybody, right? And I think anybody admonishing somebody else on Twitter for getting something wrong knows that. So it just seems very strange. I think to me, it sort of illustrates the two things, the inability to accept they were wrong. And secondly, just, you know, their hot take is actually the hot take of somebody else. Kind of reminiscent of all Oscar Wilde's quotes about how most, and I don't agree with this quote, but I'd say it's probably true for many British political pundits, their lies or an imitation and impression of somebody else. I think that applies to their political views. You know, Sebastian Payne has a book out on Labour's troubles in the red wall. He doesn't know how many by elections, Labour have won in the last few years, it would suggest he's probably not the best person to write that book. I'm sure he won't be going to you for a review to appear on the front cover. We have our final story, which broke just a couple of hours before we went live, which involves the beef between Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer. With Labour managing to hold on to battle in Spain, you might have expected at least a brief stint of unity to break out at the top of the party. Why interrupt a good news story with internal, factional fighting? However, you would be wrong. Allies of Keir Starmer have already begun turning on Angela Rayner, the party's deputy leader. This is what one shadow cabinet minister told the Times. Rayner spent the last eight weeks promoting herself as the next Labour leader. A total embarrassment. They actively helped the effort to defeat Labour. I think he should sack her and let her be deputy from the back benches. Now, another Labour source argued that decision to sack Rayner as the party's national campaign chairwoman in May and replace her with Shabana Mahmood is the reason why Labour scraped through in Batley and Spen. They say the reshuffle was messy, but it resulted in Shabana Mahmood being made campaign chair. That was the turning point. This is a victory for those who made that happen. So they're saying actually that reshuffle that happened after Hartlepool that looked like a complete nightmare and undermined all of Keir Starmer's authority actually might look messy, but the outcome was ultimately a good thing. It was that botched reshuffle at one Keir Starmer, this particular by-election. Now, obviously, these comments aren't going to go without a response from Angela Rayner's team. So her spokesperson said whoever is doing this briefing and trying to use a fantastic Labour victory to undermine the elected deputy leader doesn't help Keir and doesn't help our party. Angela Rayner has of course denied any involvement or knowledge of preparations to launch a challenge, although they were widely briefed by sources close to her, I think, to various newspapers. We talked about those earlier in the week. The Times also has this quote from someone who they described as a supporter of the deputy leader. They say, Keir and his team tried to make Angela the scapegoat for Hartlepool and May's elections and everybody knows how that turned out. The Shadow Cabinet Minister calling her disloyal for actually doing the job Keir has appointed her to and for being the only member of the Shadow Cabinet out attacking the Tories in the media every day looks a bit daft. That was an Angela Rayner supporter. Now, you can see that the reference there, she's saying, they're saying whenever I go on the TV and talk about Tory failures, that's me preparing for a leadership campaign. She's saying, well, that's simply what I was, I'm supposed to do. That's normally actually what the opposition do. Maybe no one on the Labour front bench does it, but it's not an unreasonable thing to do. It doesn't necessarily mean you're maneuvering. It might just mean you want to defeat the Conservatives. Aaron, what do you think is going on here? I'm not necessarily sure I buy this argument that Angela Rayner wasn't considering a leadership election. I think probably many people in the Labour Party were and that's now not going to happen because Labour surprisingly won it. At the same time, Keir Starmer's people aren't necessarily in a good place to criticise people for preparing for leadership challenges during general elections. We know that Keir Starmer was doing that throughout the 2019 campaign. Who do you think is going to come out on top in the battle between Starmer and Rayner? Yeah, I think the hypocrisy here is unbelievable, isn't it? I remember Keir Starmer, I think, went to Southampton to campaign and he took a cameraman with him. People thought this must be for the election campaign, the general election campaign, turned out it was for his leadership campaign, which happened immediately afterwards, which was clearly in his mind throughout the general election campaign, which ultimately, you know, Labour took a huge hit because of a political position he drove, i.e. the second referendum, and yet even during that same election he had his mind on other things. I don't think Angela Rayner was looking to launch a leadership campaign. I think if Labour had lost, the result as it is is very bad for Labour in the grand scheme of things. I talked about some other results they had last night, losing votes in bits of London, Lincolnshire, you know, obviously Amisham and Chesham, obviously Hartlepool, the local elections, it's bad. And I think if Starmer had lost, if Labour had lost in the battle against the battle, I think he would have had to resign. I don't think he would have, but I think anybody with a sort of ounce of common sense would agree that he would have to resign. And clearly, if that does happen then people need to be prepared to run campaigns. I don't see the issue there. And equally, if they lost badly, if they came third in the race and Galloway overtook them, always unlikely, but not implausible. Ultimately, he got two-thirds of their vote, right? No, no, three-quarters of their vote. He got 8,000, they got 13,000. Then clearly, clearly these people will be losing their seats. I mean, even right now, Angela Rayner, Johnny Reynolds, Andrew Gwynne, Sam Tarry, West Street-ing, Evette Cooper, all these people's seats look really vulnerable right now. I think so it's a bit unfair to say, well, if you have this nadir, nobody should have a plan. I think that's kind of silly. And I don't think that would any political party, even with the nicest people in it, even ones that support Kisdharma, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. And I think the briefing this quickly was super strange, Michael. It doesn't make any sense to me because this is finally a good news story for Kisdharma. It's a really good news story. And I just don't understand why the thing the public hate is the labor infighting thing. They hate it. And I just don't know why you would re-inject that into the conversation so quickly. Why would you want to take the shine off? Because of this, if Labor MPs can keep their gob shut for a bit, if Kisdharma can look authoritative, the shine of this by-election result might bump them up in polls 2, 3, 4%. But they can't wait. They have to pile in. And it really does suggest that their priorities aren't winning a general election. It's personal enmities with these people. And it is Labor MPs ultimately that did the last five Labor leaders. People like Tom Watson got rid of Blair. People internally also undermined and got rid of Brown. Same with that Miliband. Same with Jeremy Corbyn. So I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there is obviously political maneuvering. But I don't think it's coming from the left. I mean, we know this because the socialist campaign group have said we don't have the signatures, even if we wanted to, to launch a leadership campaign. Similarly, we heard that seven or eight members of the socialist campaign group would get behind Angelorena if necessary. It's the idea that there's this kind of organized conspiracy. I don't know that's not true. Yeah. Okay. People were prepared to respond to a potentially terrible set of events. Those aren't the same things. And I think the briefing probably is a more politically toxic thing than actually what they're accusing Angelorena of. Interesting. In terms of what I'm pretty sure this victory will be used now as a sort of a momentum for Stammer to try and further attack and marginalize the left. But I think we're going to leave that for future shows. Normally at this point, I say I'm going to be back on Monday. I'm not going to be back on Monday because I am going for a week's holiday, but Tiski Sauer will be in the capable hands, the exceptionally capable hands of Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bostani. So thank you, Aaron, for taking over for me next week. My pleasure, Michael. And thank you for watching tonight's episode of Tiski Sauer and for joining me tonight. Aaron, I'm going to go and catch, I think, Italy versus Belgium for now. You've been watching Tiski Sauer on Navarra Media. Good night.