The Spectator magazine combines incisive political analysis with books and arts reviews

of unrivaled authority. Subscribe today for just 12 pounds and receive a 12-week subscription

in print and online. Plus a 20-pound Amazon gift voucher. Absolutely free. Go to spectator.co.uk

forward slash voucher.

Hello and welcome to Coffee Our Shots. I'm James Hill and I'm joined today by Katie Bulls

and Fraser Nelson. Now Katie, it's three days after we've got those bi-lection results and I think

the one that received the most attention was Oxbridge and RiceLip. Tell us about what's happened

over the weekend. There's been a lot of reports about tensions between Steve Khan and Keir Starmer

on the U.S. issue. What's really happening? So quickly saw on Friday when the Tories managed to

narrowly hold on to Oxbridge that a public blame game started to play out on the Labour side.

And what was interesting is if you look at I suppose some of the recriminations on the Tories

side over the fact they lost two or three. A lot of that's been coming from back benches

agitating. So saying, look at this. Whereas this was very much started by the Labour leadership.

You had Keir Starmer and Angela Reiner making a point that they blame the results specifically

on U.S. and saying that that means that there's lots of thinking to be done, particularly if you

are city Khan, the London Mayor. And there are two schools of thought. The school of thought

held by some of the leaders office is that the narrowed defeat in Oxbridge is quite useful for

Keir Starmer because therefore you can push through this message of the need for discipline

for being quite skeptical of some of the green policies. And therefore Keir Starmer was a good

place at the National Policy Forum this weekend to face down the union and some of the grassroots

members by saying we cannot make more spending commitments and so forth. I think the slight

hole in this theory is are you seriously saying Keir Starmer would have been in a weaker position

...