Stephen Doughty, the Labour Minister of State for the Middle East, faced accusations of being "embarrassing" and "waffling" during a heated exchange with Ed Balls and Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain. The clash came one day after Prime Minister Andy Burnham alleged that Russia meddled with the Brexit referendum through social media operations.
This marks the first occasion the UK government has formally accused the Kremlin of deploying social media misinformation to meddle in British democratic processes. Burnham's remarks prompted Reid to challenge whether he was suggesting that Leave voters had been swayed by Russian influence to cast their ballots that way.
Minister pressed on specific interference
"No. The Prime Minister was speaking about Russia's wider attempts to interfere in our democratic processes, including in the referendum, but also in many other ways, and we've seen them doing this not just in Britain, but across Europe and across the world," Doughty responded.
Reid cut across the politician, pressing him to focus specifically on the Brexit referendum. She then asked outright how Russia had interfered. Doughty replied: "Russia's been attempting to spread disinformation and division for many years in many different ways, and they're spending 1.5 billion this year alone on interference."
Cutting in once more, Reid stated: "No, I'm talking about the Brexit referendum. What did Russia do in 2016 that interfered and meddled with the vote, and did it influence the outcome?" The politician maintained he wouldn't divulge specific details, stating: "Russia's been attempting to interfere in our processes for many years. We've understood this, but we haven't responded."
Presenters challenge minister's responses
Reid fired back: "Why are you not getting into specifics when the Prime Minister has just got into the specifics on the podcast?" When Doughty contended that Burnham was discussing Russia's broader attempts to meddle with the UK's democratic systems, Reid swiftly cut him off.
"No, he said, 'I asked the question coming to Downing Street, was there interference in the 2016 referendum from Russia? I've had the clear answer that, yes, there was.' So I'm just asking, what was that interference, and did it influence the vote?" Reid demanded.
Doughty responded by insisting that Russia has been "attempting" to meddle, but hasn't been successful. "I think that voters, especially those who voted for Brexit, would want to know what that interference was, and in what ways the Prime Minister claimed that it influenced the outcome," the presenter shot back.
Interview ends after repeated clashes
When the politician repeatedly maintained that Russia had failed to interfere, Reid confronted him, questioning whether he was implying Burnham's remarks were incorrect. "Was he wrong then? Was he wrong when he said that he asked if there was interference and got the clear answer that there was?" she pressed. Doughty reiterated his initial stance once more, informing the duo: "The Prime Minister has been very clear about Russian attempts to interfere in all of our democratic processes. They have been doing this for many years."
Reid fired back: "With respect, minister, you are muddying the waters, not clarifying them." She subsequently accused Doughty of being contradictory, before pressing him yet again on what precise interference by Russia might have swayed the referendum result.
"The Prime Minister was very clear that Russia has been attempting to interfere in a number of democratic processes," Doughty responded, prompting Balls to intervene. "Honestly, Mr Doughty, this is embarrassing!" he raged. "It's really bad for politics when you just blatantly don't answer the question on something so important, and go back to a nonsensical line which is contradicted by what the Prime Minister just said."
Balls demanded: "Either answer Susanna's question, or just say I'm not going to. This waffle is embarrassing!" Doughty replied: "It's not waffle at all, Ed. We are very clear that Russia is spending a huge amount of money on attempting to influence our processes, and have been doing so for many years, and that's why we are taking robust action against it."
Recognising they weren't going to extract a proper response to their enquiry, the presenters brought the interview to a close.
