scholars call it middle powers, we have a role to play to try to move the consensus forward. you mentioned the un resolution quite a lot, that is an example of middle powers engaging through a global forum. it is also worth mentioning the region itself and he mentioned both russia and iran, the air cover from russia had been a presence before they became very engaged in ukraine. so what we have in the region is a shadow war or a proxy war and i think as you see the proxy pullback because they have other things to do, i think that is why you see the movement of the opposition because there is a hole here but it does raise a question the there is a hole here. it does raise this question that if the shadow war and the proxy war in the region can have such pivotal moments, what else could there be? >> okay. we're going to keep talking

about this all morning. and a lot to talk about. it is 9:00. you're watching "sunday morning with trevor phillips." significant breaking news from the middle east where syrian rebels say they captured the capital damascus. and ousted the assad regime. now the former president is reported to have fled the country. deputy prime minister told this program that she welcomes the fall of assad and said the situation was very serious and called for a political resolution. i'll talk now to the former head of mi-6, john soares. good morning, john. >> good morning, trevor. >> first of all, how much of a surprise do you think this was to us, particularly our intelligence services? >> i think it was a surprise to ever, trevor. probably came as a surprise to the group you're calling hts

which was the main rebel group involved in this march on damascus. i don't think they expected to go so far so fast. i think we're surprised how the regime forces have completely collapsed even those most lyle loyal to the regime and closest to the regime. it is a surprise. not a failure of intelligence. it is a surprise to everyone. >> do you think that -- what does it tell us -- we have been discussing the russians and also the turks. do you detect the hand of turkey in this? >> well, turkey certainly has a close interest in this. it wasn't the route closest to the turks in terms of training and cooperation and supply, but turkey has a close interest. i think things have moved in a favorable direction for turkey and they will be the most interesting and influential country in the region now as the various opposition groups come

together to try to have a consensus about how a new regime comes into play. it is encouraging, i think, that the outgoing prime minister stayed behind to have some orderly transition of power. the rebel forces themselves do not seem to be seeking vengeance on any groups, though, of course, there will be some accounting for the terrible brutality of the assad regime and the torture and murder of so many opposition figures, there is bound to be some settling of scores at some point. >> i want to come back to ask you about the russians in a second. let's stick with hts for a second. phil collins was saying here we could, you know, we're always optimistic about these things, but sometimes it turns out we have exchanged bad for worse. what's your estimate, from what we know of hts? do you believe the sort of transition from being an al

qaeda affiliate into being what some people are calling a genuine liberation movement? >> well, i think phil is right to be cautious about this. but when i was chief of mi-6, 10, 12 years ago, we looked at all the syrian opposition groups and classified those into who we could support and those on the pale and too close to al qaeda and hts was in the latter category. i think when the leader has made great efforts over the last ten years to distance himself from those terrorist groups and certainly the actions we have seen of tahrir al sham have been of a liberation movement, not a terrorist organization. i think the secretary will be asking the mi-5 and the assessment center for a review of the situation about tahrir al sham and whether it should remain on the prescribed entity

list. it will be rather ridiculous if we're unable to engage with the new leadership in syria because of a prescription dating back 12 years. >> so you -- had you still been in office, you would be advising, reach out? >> absolutely. there is a new reality in syria now. we have seen the collapse of a brutal, terrible organization regime that has been in power for over 50 years in syria. and i was living in syria back in the 1980s and saw the regime oppression with my own eyes in places like hamar and now the regime, which represented only 15% minority sect within syria has gone. there will be a sense of celebration, euphoria, but a real hard task lies ahead now to try to pull the country together. and it doesn't have any tradition of democracy. these are armed groups that come together. so it is not like they're political groups, political

units, but i think the turks will play a crucial role in trying to bring these various groupings together to form a single coherent new regime. >> you sound very optimistic. can i just say the words afghanistan, iraq and, i guess, libya? >> i think the most closest comparison is libya where the country has been divided between different groups with different foreign powers supporting and promoting the division of the country. actually, you know it very hard to -- people to understand how far iraq has developed. actually baghdad is a remarkable place these days for businesses that go there. the one country of the three that has recovered best from the collapse of the brutal regime. afghanistan has gone back to brutality because of the rather inept withdrawal of u.s. forces in 2021.

so, why is this better? i think it is because, first of all, the majority of syrians are sunni and they have been repressed for a long time. there is a good opportunity for them to come together and have a new government, a new constitution, a new dispensation there. yes, there will be a very difficult time ahead. and there will be elements of the old regime as we saw in iraq in the 2000s. elements of the old regime that fights a resurgency in the heartlands in western syria. i hope that doesn't happen. and the russians may have a role here. the russians have -- you asked me about the russians, they have a major naval base and intelligence collection base on the mediterranean coast of syria. they will want to hold on to those facilities that they have there, which means they have to come to terms with the new group, new powers in syria. but, of course, they have been

instrumental in keeping the repressive assad regime in power. so, we're at a situation where the collapse of this brutal regime is really welcome, as angela rayner said, but there is a lot of uncertainty and unpredictability ahead. i don't deny that at all. >> the whole of this region is notorious for, if you like, external interference and involvement. and there are the other two big players here. i wonder what you think they are going to be thinking this morning. one, iran, and the other, israel. >> i think iran will be watching this with great nervousness, great anxiety. this -- the events of the last week or so in syria are exactly what the iranian regime fear could happen in iran at some point. i think they are more sophisticated than iran. they have some institutions in their regime, but it is still a minority regime with limited consent from the iranian people. as we have seen numerous times

over the last 30 years when there have been opposition protests and unrest against the regime. so, the iranians seem to be pulling back. they have been weakened by israeli air strikes around their main nuclear facilities, not on the facilities themselves, but taking out the air defense units around them. and so i think they're feeling vulnerable, iran, and i think it very unlikely they're going to play an assertive role. and i'm quite encouraged by the fact that the iranians do seem to be willing to re-engage with europeans, with americans, and to see if there is a future arrangement between iran and the west, which meets our fundamental security requirements about their nuclear weapons program, about their support for militias in the region and so on. for israel -- >> sorry, i was going to ask you that. >> yeah, for israel, they're watching this carefully. after the 1973 war when israel

occupied the golan heights part of syrian territory, that's actually been quite quiet. one of the good things for israel over the last 50 years is that they haven't had problems on their border with syria. and they will be nervous about this, they have had a sort of implicit understanding with the russians that the russians would help ensure that the syrian regime would prevent attacks across the golan heights from syria and in return the israelis have done nothing to undermine the syrian regime. it is a dirty unwritten deal between israel and russia. but the israelis now will be watching with great uncertainty about what is happening and they'll probably be planning what phil collins was describing, which is the worse case scenario of this going badly wrong and syria breaking up into smaller units with armed groups who could well turn their fire on israel at some point. i think that's less likely at

the moment. but it is certainly not impossible and the israelis will be watching this very carefully indeed. i think the israelis have to come to terms with turkey on this because turkey will be the main power broker. >> john soares, thank you very much as always. incredible clarity. >> thank you, trevor. >> back to our panel. phil, great dissection there by john soares. it is really the point i guess i always make here, it is hard for us to realize how small this area is. you mentioned golan heights. if you go up on the golan heights, you can pretty much see the whole of israel. from israel's point of view it means that somebody on the golan heights can turn a gun on anywhere in israel. >> yeah, absolutely. it was fascinating interview. and the thing that struck me for one, many things, but one thing john was saying there was that the parallel with iraq is one we

should be very careful about. the parallels are probably not very great. iraq, of course, hangs a great shadow over british foreign policy for obvious reasons. but there is one lesson i think we might take from iraq episode, which was the capacity of the state subsequently was very badly eroded. it meant that state institutions didn't function. one of my worries about the aftermath here is that this is a very divided country, politically, and ideologically. and geographically too. and i worry about state capacity. i worry about the institutions. >> kamal, just last one on iraq. what is your judgment about what should our body language be here? >> i think it is to phil's point it is about supporting the building of institutions. i mean, linda, of course, mentioned that the u.s. see to here al sham as a terrorist

organization. how do western powers, whether that's the uk, the european union, america, though we know america under trump is much more focused on china and asia than the middle east, how do we help them build capacity so that the hollowed out -- which you had under bashar, what you remember, trevor, actually back to is when in romania, khikhesku was overthrown, how can we support the building of institutions, must be state craft, has to be what we can help with as a middle power that linda spoke about. >> let's turn to our own institutions, linda. government central thing is growth, now, economic growth,

and angela rayner is a key figure in that. the planning issue has become a problem. she's telling me this morning that they need to start packing their bags because she is going to cut through all of that. do you believe it? >> focused on the optimistic this morning, i do think if you want someone to deliver something, you have to have a target. the question you asked here, the conversation is absolutely the key one, which is how do you move from nimbyism, and it is just not clear how that actually works. so, i mean, you set this target, 1.5 million houses. if you look at what the previous plans were, the obr thinks it is actually 1.3 million, just under the current target. so it is a little bit more ambitious. but the reason targets keep getting missed is because how do you -- it is so decentralized, so if you have a council that says, you wanted 100, we can

only give you 75, your question is the right one, which is what happens after that. >> i think i answered that. >> and, you know, but i heard from local councils on this issue is that they'll say, it is not us, it is the developers. so, in other words, we want to do it but the developers won't come through. to me, that is the fundamental reason why we're not building enough houses. >> if they're serious about streamlining the planning service to use their own vernacular, the answer to your question in the end will be, yes, we will make them do so because this conflict is coming. i got a lot of sympathy with angela rayner. she wants to balance the desire for local consultation and conversations with the desire to get things done, but when they come into conflict, which you kept asking, and they will, then there is a choice to be made. and if they're serious about it, which i think they will be, i think they're hanging so much on the reform of the planning system as the proxy for growth

and then increased living standards, that i don't think they'll have any other choice other than to intervene to say no, you must. >> but they're going to have to intervene with labor councils and that huge number, like, 100 or so, labor mps who now represent rural constituencies. >> i think, joe, there is a huge political problem which you identified and angela rayner struggled to answer. i think, linda, to your point, there is a huge systems problem which is lack of construction workers, house building actually some figures that came out -- >> we're short a quarter of a million construction workers. >> figures came out on friday saying that activity in the housing sector in the uk was actually going backwards. because if there is not enough profit in house building, because the government is demanding quite rightly there must be social housing, housing that is available for people that cannot afford to purely buy through private mortgages, then

they will not make as big profits. their shareholders say if there aren't big margins, we'll pull down the number of houses we're building, there is always -- phil, you've been inside government, there is always this rather charming idea that angela rayner says we will do this and the system goes, yes, we will and they all get on with it. as tony blair found and david cameron and gordon brown who all said the same thing, the scars on my back, the system doesn't deliver what politicians imagine it will. >> you're quite right. you're quite right. there is many other reasons why a policy might fail apart from the command of the center. tony blair, like, years after job center plus, complaining had to go to the launch and said didn't we do that years ago, and said no, prime minister, only just started. it is not just recalcitrant councils that means this policy might fall by the way side. but structure and serious deficiencies.

>> talking about civil servants and the tepid bath of decline and then this moon shot of building houses that has never been seen since the 1950s. you must look at that and think i can't see how they're going to be able to hit this target. >> well, i know economics is described as the dismal science. i do actually think having -- the way she described it, so, the problem of planning is very low code. the national plan that coordinates is the right approach. >> are you ready to tell them what to do, right? >> how do you enforce it? there is a huge, to me, that's the -- >> you do what the french do, don't you? you start with a huge bag of money and say, there you go. >> that might be one of the economic constraints here. >> have you heard the word 22 billion black -- there is the other side of this, which i mean

i will try to be clever for this, it is a big problem for them that actually, okay, we're going to build these houses, of course, they have never managed to hit the target, but let's say they hit the target that get the houses. they have to bring in people from elsewhere to -- they can't train all the craftsmen and craftspeople and all that in the next two years. they have to bring in people from elsewhere. so you build these houses, more than half of them at the moment would be occupied by migrants. is that the reason that we don't have a migration milestone because actually they have now created a sort of not for themselves, which is almost impossible to get out of. you got to have more people coming in to create growth, but you don't want more people coming in because you want to -- immigration numbers down in. >> that's very difficult. and my own view is they're going to have to change that conversation. i think you can go back to the public and say that migration that we are sponsoring is

economically good for us, we're doing it because it is leading to growth, all these attendant benefits for the native population and there will be no alternative but to go back and have that. in the speech that the prime minister gave, it was notable, wasn't it, that reducing immigration is one of the early priorities in this speech, but then it wasn't one of the featured milestones. that was a peculiarity as well. >> i want to talk more about the speech later on. that's always entertaining, talking about policies and speeches. we'll take a break now. after that, i'm going to speak that live to the foreign minister of lithuania, fresh from taking part in a crucial nato meeting this week. taking nato meeting this week

jen b asks, "how can i get fast download speeds while out and about?" jen, we've engineered xfinity mobile with wifi speeds up to a gig, so you can download and do much more all at once. it's an idea that's quite attractive. or... another word... -fashionable? i was gonna say- "popular! you're gonna be pop-uuuu-larrr!" can you do defying gravity?! yeah, get my harness. buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with xfinity mobile. and see “wicked,” in theaters now.

we have your sunday mornings covered. big picture politics beyond

westminster. we'll put you at the heart of our story. a new start to sunday. i'm ready. are you? join me, trevor phillips, sunday mornings on sky news. vor philliy mornings on sky news well, we were expecting to talk to my next guest about ukraine and nato, but as you can imagine, events in syria have overtaken that this morning. i can now speak to the foreign minister of lithuania, gabrielius landsbergis.

your reaction to what happened overnight in syria? >> well, it wasn't a surprise for this night. >> oh, really? >> of course. watching how fast the opposition groups have moved during the last couple of days, it was rather clear that the regime might fall. how, when exactly, i mean, that has remained a mystery. it is not a very big mystery, honestly. it was clear there was downfall incoming. and, you know, looking at the wider political picture also it was rather clear that there is a vacuum, you know. there is a paradigm in politics, no vacuum remains unfilled. so russians are busy fighting war in ukraine. israel attacking terrorist groups also increased that vacuum and it was -- it was used by the opposition rebel forces that threw out assad's regime.

so, i mean, in theory, it all sounds logical. only question remains, what to make of it. what does it mean going forward? >> that's interesting. so essentially you think that number one the israelis weakening of hezbollah and so on opened the door, the russians preoccupation with ukraine left assad essentially to the mercies of his own people and this is the result. pentagon saying this morning that it worries now that isis may walk through that door as well. >> there is such possibility, clearly. but i have a sense that there are, you know, regional actors that are gaining momentum as well. one of them is israel. clearly creating for itself in a way larger operational space than it has had in the past. i would assume that they will be keeping check on what is happening in their neighborhoods, so that it

doesn't change their security situation. and also the -- one additional regional player that has been growing for quite a while is turkey. i think we cannot be sure obviously about their involvement, direct or indirect. >> they were striking that it was the first leader out there saying everything has changed. >> exactly. so i think that they also are seeing the map and how does it play for their advantage. we have sensed that there is an interest to be seen as a real regional partner, that it would stretch its influence to the middle east, even to the gulf and caucuses countries so i think there is -- we might have -- we are at a point of seeing a little bit of that, i think. >> as a nato foreign minister,

your preoccupation has been the situation in ukraine. mr. zelenskyy told sky news he was open to negotiations with the kremlin provided he had security guarantees from nato. in your view, is that a realistic prospect? >> security guarantees? >> yes. >> well, i would -- my point is that i don't see any other way. honestly, at this stage, you know, there are certain preconditions that would need to be met in order if western allies are supporting ukraine, believe there is a way out of the war. one is putting ukraine in the strongest possible position, which is currently it isn't, and securing ukraine's future, so to say. for that to happen, you need to say, to ukrainian people, to ukrainian businesses and politicians and, look, we have your back, you won't be attacked the way you have been in 2014, in 2022, so there is no third

act. >> you've just come back from a nato foreign ministers meeting, i think. is that appetite for that among other nato countrys? >> i would say there is an illusion there is a way to secure peace and, you know, don't have these options on the table. and my goal when i go to meetings like i have in brussels is to use the momentum and shadow those illusions to the best of my ability. >> you think some of your colleagues are being unrealistic and naive? >> i think so. we have a very short historic memory, right? we're walking in exactly the same situation as we have been with minsk 1 and minsk 2 agreements and now somehow we think this time is different. it is not. russia is the same. actually, you know, with syrian news, it clearly shows it can be

beaten, it can be thrown out if we put our, you know, foot on the pedal. that is clear to me. so, going back to 2014, repeating exactly the same mistakes that we have done in the past, would set us for a new russian aggression. maybe in ukraine, maybe somewhere else. i think that now it is not just about ukraine. i want to stress this. and syria clearly shows this, it is about how do we limit russia's operational space in the wider region? we're seeing what is happening in georgia. it is a country that is actually on the crossroad of choosing between russia and europe. so we have ability now to stop russia's influence in georgia, in romania, eu and nato ally, fighting off -- >> what did, for example, the italians and germans say when you put this view forward? >> well, you know, two years

ago, three years ago when the war broke out there was a saying, we should have listened to the baltics, right? that was short lived. >> i see. they were a bit skeptical. in your mind then, what would such security guarantees for zelenskyy offer ukraine look like? >> when i'm talking about security guarantees, the only ones that i know that work are article 5. the article 5 secured europe's peace. >> if you aggress this country, then you aggress us all? >> exactly, right? >> one for all, all for one. >> because it is about the continent. we are unable to have an insecure ukraine and secure poland or lithuania. so, we're connected already, right? it just makes sense. theoretically one could say, okay, how do you actually practically ensure that article 5 works, right?

so that putin is not tempted to test and break nato? i would say that, you know, in some sort of future we have to start thinking about defense plans of ukraine and nato defense plans of ukraine, maybe stationing trip wire troops in ukraine, such as, you know, like what we had in lithuania, poland, we had german, italian and now brigade, so that has to happen, that we have to start thinking about these things in ukraine. >> briefly this is your last week in office. is europe a more dangerous place now than when you started? >> it is, unfortunately. it is. we showed we have an ability to get our act together. we have strength. but we're not fully there yet. >> gabrielius landsbergis, thank you for your time. >> thank you. next, i'll speak live to shadow foreign secretary patel.

shadow foreign secretary patel

craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office...

[ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to an incredible 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities.

let's get some more reaction to this morning's rapidly developing events from the shadow foreign secretary priti patel who is currently on a visit to bahrain. good morning, shadow foreign secretary. >> good morning, trevor. >> you're there with a lot of other foreign policy big wigs. what's the take out there on what's happened overnight?

>> well, i think, first of all, how quickly events have moved. now, i'm here at a security strategic security dialogue, a conference, in a forum with others and over the last few days there has been much discussion about what has been going on in syria and obviously some of the key players. but the reality is overnight things have moved very, very quickly. and, of course, that means we all need to be watching the current situation very carefully. i think there is a degree of similar thought here that it is too early to know how this is going to pan out, but ultimately, trevor, this is about the syrian people. syrians need to be protected, all communities and groups including all minorities, so, we all need to look very carefully about how we respond and certainly from the perspective of this region, as is the case of how we work together to i think effectively try and influence the right kind of outcome, put the syrian people first, but also look at the sort of government structures that

could occupy syria going forward and what that means for us not just abroad in this region but also for us domestically at home. >> imagining that you're sitting there with people from all around the globe, and they're all busy checking their phones every five minutes to see what's going on. who is most anxious? >> i think, first of all, there is a degree of anxiety across this region full stop, primarily because there are so many challenges that have affected this region. i think first and foremost if we look at syria and just look at some of the immediate neighboring countries, they have themselves have been under a great deal of pressure. i raised some of these points in parliament last week around drugs and ammunition that seem to be proliferating. i think the anxiety is very much as a case of if we don't quite know the full extent of what's going on. there are wider questions even about assad's regime, his weapons stocks and supplies, what could go on and happen on the ground, and about the protection of the syrian people and minority groups.

i think realistically now we have a responsibility with our friends and allies and close partners in this region too look at how we can structure with syria now a potential peace plan but taking into account the new realities, particularly of this group, hts, a prescribed organization, and there will be certain things i'm sure our government back home will be doing through our security and intelligence network and in terms of the people i'm with right now. there are many security and intelligencee ives here who are having those discussions. this is a moving issue. there will be an amount of a fog of war. there is a lot of information we don't know about that obviously some of this will already be within the intelligence frameworks. >> you raise a point of hts' prescription. we talked to john soares a while

ago and he was suggesting that frankly realistically continued prescription of this organization isn't a way to go. would you agree with that? >> i think -- i'm sure the government will have to look at all of this. i can't -- i can't sit here and talk about an organization that is prescribed many, many years ago. what i would suggest, trevor, and i would have the confidence of the government doing this, our intelligence and security systems, that there will be a cross government review and -- and coordinated review of the security and defense implications as well as the terrorist risk, including some of the wider issues around this organization. they will have to now assess the threat that hts poses immediately for our own interests, as well as for syria's interests and the wider region because as you've said, and i've touched on this as a prescribed organization, so, we'll need to look at this

effectively on a very, very thick slide roll over all the implications, that's the right thing to do. i don't think we can speculate now on any of this, trevor, it is too early, but we need our people back at home to do all the risk assessments and work out, where we stand with them and what this actually means for syria in the short and medium term. >> can i just quickly return to a point which you made in passing, which is about syria's -- mr. assad's stockpile of weaponry and i suspect you're talking not just about conventional guns, but perhaps some kind of weaponry, chemical weapons and so forth. is that something that worries you? >> of course it does. we had, you know, over the last decade this war has been going on for over a decade. we know the number of casualties, we have seen the atrocities and the bar bare bare have had votes in parliament and seen the history of assad's

regime. it is a right question that we should ask our intelligence networks to be looking at. this comes back to ultimately protection of the syrian people, but also the minorities within syria and other groups, so, i think these are live concerns and legitimate issues and i can certainly say that i would be wanting to discuss much of this with the government going forward, and looking at how we can be a constructive voice on this issue, but other issues around syria's future and the future constitution and the composition of its future government. >> of course, there is a set of wider implications for the region. how do you read it? stronger turkey, maybe russian withdrawal from iran? what is your take? >> i think, first of all, there is clearly an element of -- the turkish footprint is relevant here. really is. i've been here on a discussion, dialogue where turkey has been actively speaking,

representatives from the turkish government, actively speaking about what is going on in syria. there is no question that they have equities here and they're going to be a voice in all of this. >> do you think they knew what was going to happen? >> well, i can't speculate on that, you know. they're closer to it and obviously they'll have access to all sorts of reports and information that i suspect we don't even know about. on the russian side of things, it is clear that they have been consumed with ukraine. and the fact that we have seen such fast movement of this in syria, around damascus so quickly tells us something obviously about their scaleback. the reality is, trevor, we have the long-standing issue of iran, iranian proxies, iranian influence across the region and this is a long-standing challenge for all of us. i think in this part of the world and from a uk perspective we have to work incredibly hard now to try and address some of these wider challenges and, of course, we can't do this

ourselves, we'll do this with our allies and friends in this region, and also we'll be looking clearly to america going forward as we move into the new year too. >> and lastly, israel. two ways of reading the situation for israel. that actually they weakened the iranian proxies, the hezbollah and so on, and that's partly what led to this situation. and the other, which is now there are people potentially who will, in a sense, be more of a threat to israel than assad was. how do you read it? >> i think it is too early. i don't want to be speculating on anything right now. the reality is we know israel and the way in which they have been targeting iran, and the direct attacks particularly around hezbollah, the reality is right now we are going to have to work with the information that we -- that has become public and becomes shared through the security networks as

well. we need to just watch this situation carefully. ensure that we put the syrian people first, protect all the key groups and interests, and as i said, i think britain has a role to play. you know, we just chaired the security council, we have been a strong voice, we can certainly be a positive and constructive influence through our intelligence and information, but some of the structures and the way in which we conducted ourselves around syria and the syrian people over the last decade. i think that absolutely remains. >> priti patel, thank you so much for your time this morning. >> thank you. >> and just a moment, we'll hear once again from you're panel. >> and just a moment, we'll hear once again from you're panel

back to our panel, kamal, linda, phil. phil, you have a special place in political work. a speechwriter. the speechwriter and you take these speeches and disentangle them and do this thing, this is that you said, this is what you meant, what did you make of the milestone speech? >> there has been a lot of coverage of the milestones and the missions and the foundations and the slightly tangles and syntax of all of that and i think those criticisms are fair. i thought if we think, well, what was trng to do, i think he's trying to do something rather more interesting than relaunch the government, is trying to define things on which we should judge

the government, trying to say, these are the things which on which you can hold us to account in time to come. they're going to be a little bit small, and you could say they're the wrong things. but that's what he's trying to do, trying to set out a few things on which we can say, if that has not hit that number, a few years hence, you have failed. and that task is one that is quite a necessary thing for government to do, because what lies behind that is the feeling that these days the bargain of government isn't working. the government isn't doing things for you. the government can't working to help people anymore. they're trying to define particular things on which we can say and therefore we have achieved. >> was it convincing? >> not wholly. not wholly because what you -- because when you reduce the speech to the transactional elements like that, the thing that is lacking is the overall drama, the overall story. i think that perhaps that still is lacking.

what you really want to do in a speech is not just merely say, we'll hit 92% of x where those numbers don't mean much to individual people. you want to dramatize how the world will feel better. and i don't think it did that. >> full disclosure from time to time, when i used to do another job, kamal wrote one or two orations for me. >> i think phil makes a really strong point is to be defined as a great prime minister, you need to very simply say what they are for, what are they doing. and i was talking about this with a few friends last night, so if you think about margaret thatcher, what was she there for? she was there not to be the 1970s. that was her basic offer to the public was we had the 1970s, and i'm not going to let that happen again. you think of tony blair, what was he there for? he was there, modernization, whatever that meant, whether you agreed or disagreed with, the

public can see a thing when they thought of tony blair. the problem that keir starmer has is that single definitional phrase that the public can kind of hang on to because you're absolutely right, phil, the public, when it gets down to figures, they're quite quickly -- it just becomes white noise and they can't remember the numbers. they do want public services to be better. and they do want to feel better off. interestingly, it is not about household income. it is about much more basic things, are my bills going down? and that type of thing is not only in the gift of government. that is in the gift of markets. the biggest problem that keir starmer has, he hasn't linked the government's actions with how we can free enterprise to make this country work better. >> the economist. how does he do that? >> i completely agree, he needs a story. every great leader in many ways

tells you why they're like you. so margaret thatcher, strength. obama, hope. tony blair, new. this isn't coming from me, this is coming from things i'm reading around how is it that you can -- >> i wish -- i bet you wish you thought of that. >> i will, trevor. >> so, what he did on economic growth is really interesting because he took away being the fastest growing economy, but he replaced it with something which would match with people. i agree that numbers without context don't mean anything. 75%, 92%, the best -- it doesn't matter if you're top if i don't feel better. and to feel better off, you need a range of things around standard of living, you need housing that we have discussed, you do need better education, you need social care, you need access to health, and so i think by framing around improving standards of living, they have given themselves a hard task, even without a number.

no standards of living are just struggling, if you look at per capita income. but i think it is actually the right approach. what keir starmer and the government needs to do is define themselves by a word that captures why people voted for them, that they have this belief that things will be better in five years. >> let me pick up on something you said, phil, you know that there are small things. you could have a narrative that says actually e're the government of small things and we're going to do incremental, like the sky team did the cycling, but there is more -- i think there is a bigger issue here, what was missing. i've already talked to angela rayner about migration, nothing to say about that. pat mcfadden promised me last week when he was on the show there would be some big thing about migration. the answer was we want less of it, but no target. and the other thing i didn't

hear anything about social care, single biggest unsolved problem. isn't the issue here less that there are more or less conventions, more targets, but things are in people's minds that will make a difference just didn't appear on this list? >> yeah. no, i completely agree. i think the problem i think with -- this is really your area, messaging, is that government is a huge -- a whole slew of things, so is there an argument instead of being transactional by saying these are the six things and these are some of the targets, maybe do it in buckets, you know? not just healthcare, but actually care in general, social care. how can we have an honest conversation about how we need to fund ourselves? on migration, you know, lots of things are linked to house building, we discussed it already. i think all of these things, if you did it as themes that might be one way. the problem with theme is how you communicate it. then it sounds like lots of things, but what are you going

to deliver, how do you hold government to account, why should you vote for us? >> can i take issue with the idea that they're small. they're not small. you opened the program by saying your target, 1.5 million homes, is incredibly big. if you're looking at trying to get to 92% of people through the system in 18 weeks, that's a long way away. that is a difficult problem i don't think they're intrinsically small. the way they're presented seems small. there is a drama you're telling about improvement. i don't think it is small intrinsically. just the way that they were not being threaded together, i think. >> i think really strong point is around mai igration they're going to struggle. they don't have any solutions that are different from the failed solutions of the previous conservative government. and slightly more relaxed around

social care and the national health service. they do have a communicator and wes streeting has certainly already put in place that it is the department of health and social care. certainly the first three months of next year you can see how the government can solve the issue of how do we put together some form of new system for social care, which means actually works for people. i feel less nervous about that. the big missing ticket, the prime minister has to be bigger in terms of the message. >> thank you very much. that's been fascinating. that is it from us for this week. i'm going to be back next sunday morning. morning.