Ill also be joined by my most pugnacious panel this evening, former editor of the sun, Kelvin Mackenzie, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop. As always, as you know, i want to hear from you. Its a crucial part of the programme. Email me. Mail gbnews. But now its time for the news bulletin with ray addison. Addison. Thanks, jacob. Good evening. Our top stories tonight. A teenage girl has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after two teachers and a teenage student were stabbed at a secondary school in wales. A man Valley School was put into lockdown shortly after 11 am. After three people were injured. After three people were injured. Emergency services responded, including wales air ambulance. Including wales air ambulance. Police say the injuries are not life threatening. Forensic teams have been on site and a knife has been recovered. The suspect has been recovered. The suspect remains in custody. Superintendent ross evans spoke to the media. Im aware that there is footage circulating on social media and i would ask that this is kindly removed to preserve the integrity of the Ongoing Investigation and to avoid further distress to those involved. This was a very distressing incident, and our thoughts are with the victims. Thoughts are with the victims. An online terror group has become the first of its kind to become the first of its kind to be proscribed in the uk. Mps be proscribed in the uk. Mps voted for neo fascist group terror graham to be banned. The home office says the group publishes propaganda designed to incite followers to commit violence. It was credited by an attacker who killed two people in an lgbt nightclub shooting in slovakia in 2022. Support for the group will be illegal, with punishments of up to 14 years in prison. Three men have been prison. Three men have been arrested following the deaths of five migrants, including a young girl, while trying to cross the channel yesterday. The National Crime agency says they were arrested on suspicion of facilitating illegal immigration and entering the uk illegally. And entering the uk illegally. Those detained include two sudanese men, aged 22 and 19, and a 22 year old south sudan national. It comes as figures from the home office show that more than 400 migrants crossed the channel yesterday. Well, a the channel yesterday. Well, a man has been charged after a nine Year Old Girl was kidnapped in knightsbridge in Central London. 56 year old robert prussack was charged with multiple offences including kidnap and sexual assault. The kidnap and sexual assault. The child was reported missing on Brompton Road in london on monday. The former leader of the democratic unionist party, sir Jeffrey Donaldson , has been Jeffrey Donaldson, has been released on bail. Northern irelands longest serving mp was suspended from the dup following his arrest last month for whats been described as historical sex charges, including one count of rape. His wife has also been charged with aiding and abetting in relation to the same investigation. In his Resignation Letter , he said he Resignation Letter, he said he would be strenuously contesting the allegations and the government is set to face a high Court Challenge against its xl bully ban Campaign Group dont ban me, license me has been given permission to bring legal action against the department for environment and rural affairs. The large bulldog type american breed was added to the list in october last year, following a series of attacks. Campaigners argue that the ban is unlawful and irrational. Well, for the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts by scanning the qr code on your screen, or go to gb news. Com slash alerts. Back now to. Jacob. Welcome back to state of the nation. When the Prime Minister made the surprising decision last year to bring david, now lord cameron, back into politics by appointing him as foreign secretary. David camerons old chancellor and charm , george chancellor and charm, george osborne, chimed in and claimed leaving the European Court of human rights was off the table as long as he was the new foreign secretary. Well, last night, when the foreign secretary was interviewed following royal assent, the safety of rwanda bill. David cameron said this, i would say, is we have to make sure we deal with illegal immigration. That comes first. I dont think its necessary to leave the echr. I dont think that is needs to happen to make this policy work, but i know what matters the most. Its being able to say to the British Public, weve got a fair immigration system , weve got a immigration system, weve got a strong immigration system, and were not putting up with illegal migration. It must be for britain to say, who can come and who cant come, rather than anybody else. Anybody else. But even if lord camerons right, he really ought to have learned the lesson of brexit by now. The british people do not like being told what to do by foreign unelected bureaucrats, especially ones that have become increasingly politicised, as in the case of the european commission, who are unelected bureaucrats and were unaccountable to the british people. We have no way of getting rid of the people who issued the rule 39 order that blocked the original rwanda deportation flight two years ago. The deportation flight two years ago. The judges that sit on the European Court of human rights are political nominees. In many cases , this means that at one cases, this means that at one point prior to russias expulsion from the council of europe, one of the judges who sat on this court was nominated by none other than vladimir putin. And you had no means of ousting him. While the eu and the echr are separate and distinct institutions, the principle remains the same. Sovereignty in this country belongs to the british people who delegate it to the king in parliament for five years at a time. The laws passed by parliament are the ultimate valid authority. In the case of valid authority. In the case of the eu, David Cameron promised to reduce immigration down from the hundreds to the tens of thousands. This was in the tory manifesto for 2010. But because we were part of an institution that disregarded the democratic will of the british people , will of the british people, there was no means of controlling mass migration from the bloc. And his promise was neven the bloc. And his promise was never, and still has not been met. The thing about the eu is that it met. The thing about the eu is thatitis met. The thing about the eu is that it is , and always was, an that it is, and always was, an explicitly political project , explicitly political project, whereas the echr operates under the pretence that it is merely a body that interprets the European Convention on human rights. But theyve been going so much further. Ive mentioned so much further. Ive mentioned before the problem with its living instrument doctrine , the living instrument doctrine, the idea that it can invent new rights as it pleases, as long as the rights are in its definition of the spirit of the original convention. But the ramifications of this policy are on full display. Recently, when it decided that switzerland had breached the rights of its citizens by not pursuing a radical green agenda. This bnngs radical green agenda. This brings the court directly into policy decisions, and other similar cases are now expected to be heard by the court. The court is now as politicised as the eu, and although the eu was bad for this country, at least there was a thin veil of democracy in the european parliament. The case of the echr, theres nothing you can do. Theres no way of voting to change the law , which is exactly change the law, which is exactly why its time to leave it as the real safeguard of human rights has long been parliament, via your votes. And the sooner the noble lord cameron understand this, the better. As ever, let me know your thoughts. Mail margaret gb news. Com. Im joined now by a friend of the program , human rights and program, human rights and immigration lawyer ivan sampson. Ivan, thank you, as always for coming in. Pleasure. If the European Court of human rights issues another article 39 injunction, what better time . Injunction, what better time . There will be a huge round there between the uk and the echr. Potentially, yes, but the bill, the rwanda bill, dis appues bill, the rwanda bill, dis applies the human rights act thats what it does. And as you know, the human rights act incorporates the European Convention of human rights into domestic legislation. And it also gives the power to the secretary of state to override any interim injunctions. So theres going to be a conflict between the convention and what the secretary of state does. And remember, article two and three of the human rights act says that british courts courts must apply the law and jurisprudence of the European Convention or European Courts , but it also European Courts, but it also says in the human rights act that the uk court can only issue a certificate of incompatibility vie it cant overrule parliament. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is maintained within the human rights act, and has been firmly reasserted in the rwanda act. This is where you and i differ because i believe in whats called the universality of human rights laws. No, no, parliament can say its okay to convict someone without a fair trial. And even if parliament enacted such an act , it trial. And even if parliament enacted such an act, it would be unlawful. So parliaments only sovereign insofar it its laws comply with fundamental human rights. The issue there is who is the right judge of that . Because as i dont Want Parliament to sentence people to death by bill of attainder, as it used to be able to do, but that wont happen because the british people wouldnt vote for that to happen, whereas the human rights that were getting from the convention, and we saw this very strongly with the swiss judgement recently, is intervening in things that are best decided by local democracies. Democracies. Well, the European Convention is political. If you look at the articles and human rights act itself, the right to freedom of assembly , for example, thats assembly, for example, thats political. The right to a free election, thats political. So you cant separate out rights, human rights from Political Rights because there intrinsically linked. Okay. But if you take a right to a free election, there are some people who would argue that first past the post does not give you a proper election system. Now, it seems to me unquestionably that should be decided by parliament, not by the European Court. Decided by parliament, not by the European Court. We used to the European Court. We used to have voting at the age of 21. Some people want it to be 16. Again, that should be decided by our parliament, not by the European Court. So you only ought to get into these areas if the judgement of parliament is that nobody can vote until theyre 50 or Something Like that, something which is so egregious is that it is a threat to something where its not a matter of judgement, its just an attempt to fiddle things. Now, as the European Courts got more political with a capital p, its interfered in the detail. And thats where i think we need to pull out or ideally reform it. But as that seems extremely difficult and long process to pull out and make our laws for ourselves with the protection of ourselves with the protection of our democracy. Our democracy. You know, i agree with you some extent, because you remember the prisoners right to vote. Thats a good example where parliament decided , no, where parliament decided, no, they didnt have a right to vote if they were in prison because they gave up that right by committing criminal offences where the european European Court said, no, thats actually a breach of individual human rights. So i agree with you about that. But the fundamental right to a free vote that they cant tamper with, but that isnt going to be taken away by the Sovereign Parliament anyway. Indeed. So it seems to me that my im in favour of our ancient rights, the liberties of the english back to magna carta and britain, the united kingdom, and britain, the united kingdom, and so on. But ive always thought the best protector of those is the king in parliament, rather than an overarching court, which makes decisions that are judgement rather than fact. So on rwanda itself, with the Supreme Court, it started saying that as a matter of straightforward fact, rwanda is not safe. That seemed to me always to be false. That its a matter of judgement and the ministers judgement and the judges judgement differed. But its not an absolute fact. Its not a fact like the sun is 92 million miles from the earth, but every minister must take advice before making that judgement call. And what we had was a Supreme Court took advice from experts from the united nations, from , from the united nations, from, organisations like amnesty international, human rights watch. It read all the reports. Watch. It read all the reports. It read about paul kagame , what it read about paul kagame, what hes about. And having looked at all of that, it said this policy is not lawful. Is not lawful. Well, it didnt say the policy wasnt lawful. Quite. Did it . It said that the implementation of it at the moment, no. If you read paragraph nine, it didnt say the policy of removing people was automatically illegal. That was merely the point im making sending people to rwanda. Yes, that was unlawful because rwanda, it deemed rwanda was unsafe of refoulement. But this is where the issue has to be, a high test of judgement. Has to be, a high test of judgement. The old wednesbury test is the judgement. So irrational that no ordinary normal person could come to that conclusion rather than weve heard from the unhcr, which sends people around anyway, one thing weve heard from minister, the other were deciding this , the other were deciding this, that thats the judge is making a fundamentally ministerial decision. Well, thats an old, old law. The wednesbury versus associated pictures, look , the amendment by pictures, look, the amendment by lord hope was why was the government so afraid of that if the judgement is based on facts that amendment, why did they run away from that . Oh lord hopes amendment was straightforward wrecking amendment because it would have brought the courts straight back in and would have undermined the whole principle. No, it wouldnt, because you had a committee to say, heres the evidence. The evidence. And here, minister, because the judges could then have decided whether the committee was rational. And so it would have undermined the whole bill. Im being told ive got to finish. Sorry. I banged on too long. Thank you very much to ivan. Its always such a pleasure to have him on, coming up, the media regulator ofcom has issued some news which affects state of the nation. Plus the question of whether marshmallows. Ive got some. Here are a sweet or an ingredient has shocked and divided the entire tax system well, weve been discussing the European Convention of human rights. And the noble lord, lord cameron and alan says. Im afraid jacob, lord cameron is part of the problem. He should part of the problem. He should never have been appointed foreign secretary. And mike says lord cameron is completely wrong about the echr. No Foreign Court should be able to overrule our own courts. Mike, i agree with you entirely. Cameron was and still is a remainer. Yes he might have 1 or 2 useful connections, but he was a terrible choice to be foreign secretary. Hes proving the point daily and jane are jane has a support for mr my lord cameron. David camerons totally right. The migrant policy will work if we stay within the echr. Pulling out would send the wrong message about our country and serve no purpose. Well, im not sure about that, ofcom has threatened broadcasters with sanctions if they fail to maintain the highest level of due impartiality in the run up to the general election, and a stern worded statement, the regulator said it was sounding a warning to any potential rule breakers. This move comes after ofcom commissioned Audience Research that found that the British Public more or less agrees with ofcom and its broadcasting code, but the big news for state of the nation is that ofcoms consultations over whether sitting politicians can host their own programme has been completed and for now, at least, state of the nation is here to stay with me. Approved by ofcom. Im joined now by my most pugnacious panel. Former editor of the sun, Kelvin Mackenzie , and the historian and mackenzie, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop. Broadcaster tessa dunlop. Kelvin, although its always funny when somebody does research and they find the people theyve consulted agree with them completely because that doesnt seem very likely. It depends who you ask. Nonetheless, what theyve decided seems to me perfectly rational that people like me cant broadcast during the election. I never thought i would be able to. I can see why that would be problematic, that we need to have clear differentiation between a news bulletin and a Discussion Programme and a reporter and a reporter. We do that, and we have to be careful. Thats fair enough. Yeah, well, its okay, its okay. And its nice to get the official regulator imprimatur for your appointment. I must say, however , for it is, say, however, for it is, i think, ridiculous of ofcom to suggest that in the six weeks which are normal purdah in involved in these general elections, that a presenter cant carry on presenting because. Because the truth about because. Because the truth about the matter is that the audience already have a view about you. They either like you or dislike you are going to vote for you or not vote for you. Since you have just agreed that actually youre not going to overstep the line, why not just allow people to continue . For instance, an absurd part of it . And i suspect this is the reason why theyve given you the go ahead, is that they started to investigate david lammy, as ive said before , i was on lammys show on one occasion he would have hated every single word. This was on lbc. He never said a word. He tookit lbc. He never said a word. He took it all on the chin in the way you have to when somebody comes, as that lawyer did, and said the opposite to you, you are quite bright enough to work out where the line is and there are many politicians who could be presenting, right, who would actually almost certainly lose votes rather than gain votes in that six weeks. Tessa i mean, i, i still think that ofcom is regulating for a world where theres only one broadcaster, right. And that, frankly , though we have to frankly, though we have to follow due impartiality. That was important when there was 1 or 2 licence fee funded , limited or 2 licence fee funded, limited bandwidth channels. There are bandwidth channels. There are now channels on everything and any view you put on, twitter is entirely unregulated. Anyway. Yeah. I think we all recognise that social media is the wild west. To be entirely transparent , im to be entirely transparent, im sitting here dancing on your election grave, just waiting to sit in the hot seat for six weeks. I mean, im surprised the call hasnt come in and get the job. You guys, i havent already been invited to step in for a vote. Its very lucky. Its very lucky for you, jacob, that youre being forced to relinquish your seat for six weeks because youre going to need to work very, very hard in sunny somerset if the polling is correct. So youll have a job in your hands down there. Meanwhile, ill be sitting there commenting on how youre doing. But in terms of impartiality, can we just rip up the pretence that anything to do with news bulletins and i include the bbc are impartial gb news choice, for example, to run as a top headune . I for example, to run as a top headline . I dont know echr sr or small boats on a loop thats editorial, thats not impartial. So it really irks me when were spoon feeding viewers news. The very ordering of the news requires editorial and therefore cant be impartial. So we need to stop referring to this so called holy grail. That is impartiality. It doesnt exist and you know, it. And you know, it. But youre saying, therefore, that the bbc knows this as well. So youre saying its impossible for i think nobody i think nobody youre quite right. If youre in the editing business, whether youre in television, radio or print or news sites, right . You are making decisions based on your own personal thought process. What you think the audience may like. Youre always making decisions. So i totally agree with you. The idea of balance is yesterdays idea. People actually want stuff which actually want stuff which actually fulfils their thought process in life and their thought process and how do you know this . In all the news sites, what they do is they show whos whos reading what. So when they see that the numbers to that story about a cat, which they thought was uninteresting , they thought was uninteresting, suddenly they see the numbers shoot up. So it goes to number one. That is the way that news should be viewed, not whether you should be spoon fed. Oh, this is an important story about mongolia or something. But incidentally, thats where we need the reach of the bbc, because otherwise we would just be constantly fed small boats, cats and Meghan Markle on a loop which im afraid to say we are on some channels, at least the bbc does have to cater to minority interests and to a more diverse audience, even if they dont get the clicks views, but actually , thats the point but actually, thats the point that jacob was making. That actually because of x, twitter or whatever it is, or instagram or whatever you can find that news and the bbc news does not have the reach that it used to have. Why . Because used to have. Why . Because theres quite a lot of people who actually dont like that kind of idea. Just the idea of news. But i think what were talking about here is trust and credibility. And when jacob says something, do we trust it . If he was a newsreader , we think hes was a newsreader, we think hes a politician. Were not going to trust that. Whereas we like very much. Is it polly, that nice newsreader . Thats my favourite one on this channel. You know, we trust her and the bbc and i know this because ive worked for them. Theyre quite tiring almost. They double down on whats your source. Wheres your statistic. Can we say that. Can they go on as a line of script . I dont know if gb news does that for their documentaries because ive not worked in that way. But we need to be able to trust our source. And i do think theres an issue. Ive seen you sit here down the barrel interviewing people, and im like, well, how is that not a news interview . How is that different from whats being said on a news bulletin . So i think theyre dancing on a pin off. Id shut you down totally. All right. Well, thank you, job. In the meantime, tessa wants my job. Having shut us down. The logic of that is somewhat confusing. But thank you to my panel coming up, the country will be put on a war footing. The Prime Minister has announced. But is this the right move . Plus, the latest wokery. It may be harassment to say back in your day well, we were talking about ofcom, and josh says it was definitely someone from the labour party who called ofcom. And daniel , labour party who called ofcom. And daniel, we need ofcom. Daniel. Sorry. We need ofcom to regulate. Otherwise well end up with outlets like rt or press tv. You know, i think we should have kept rt because i think that, like lord haw haw, it would have made russia look ridiculous in the way lord haw haw made germany look ridiculous. And you want to hear your enemy say that . You know what hes saying . Sc says omg, what hes saying . Sc says omg, which is, i think, the order of Saint Michael and saint george. If tessa dunlop is standing in for jacob, i will not be watching. Im sorry to tell you that, tessa. She wont be. She wont be. I could do a double header with kelvin. Yeah. Yeah. All right, all right. All right, all right. Rishi sunak has announced he will increase defence spending by two, 2. 5 of gdp and put britain on a war footing. We live in dangerous, uncertain times, and the Prime Minister is correct to prioritise defence. However, some say the move will increase the likelihood of conflict. Furthermore, the armed forces have long suffered because of shambolic spending decisions. £5. 5 billion ajax fighting vehicle, for example , fighting vehicle, for example, is over ten years late and looks destined for the scrap heap. Destined for the scrap heap. Soldiers are also reported to be spending large sums of their own money on kit and equipment, as the issue that they get is not up to scratch. To unravel all of this, im joined by the peerless colonel richard kemp, former Commanding Officer of the first battalion, the royal anglian regiment. Richard thank you for coming on again. Is this enough . Coming on again. Is this enough . Thank you very much for recognising my former regiment, jacob, very few people have heard of it, although it is the finest regiment in the british army , i, i think i think that as army, i, i think i think that as the somerset light infantry vie no longer exists. But anyway. But anyway. But anyway. Fair point, fair point, yeah, i think i think this is a very significant move. I think most significant move. I think most people who, maybe have lived defence or understand defence dont believe its enough. But i think realists among us also understand that theres a limited amount that can be made available. And this is probably as much as realistically could be expected , were already the be expected, were already the second largest, spender on defence in nato, and i think this will go some considerable way to addressing the essentially hollowed out defences that weve had after decades and decades of cuts to the armed forces, providing, of course , the money is spent course, the money is spent properly. And you made the point , rightly, that procurement has been one of the biggest problems weve had, i think in defence, certainly in all the years i served in the armed forces and ever since , procurement has ever since, procurement has always been something that Prime Ministers have intended to get a grip of, and its never succeeded. So i hope im not overly confident. I hope something will be done about that now. That now. Well, thats what worries me because i think, like almost all conservatives, i want our defence to be built up. But i want this money to be spent effectively and there are just so many things that seem to go wrong. I mentioned the tanks, but our aircraft carriers dont always seem to work , that it always seem to work, that it just seems to be a real problem with all our procurement decisions. And then you squeeze the army, you reduce numbers because thats something you can cut back year by year. Whereas when youve got a procurement over many years, theres nothing you can do. You can do. Absolutely. And therefore that that does need to be got a grip of. And i think many industrial leaders and entrepreneurs have looked at it. Theyve had commissions studying it, and no ones ever managed to get their head around how to improve that. But on the point you mentioned , about how some you mentioned, about how some people suggest this will make war more likely, i would fundamentally disagree. I think fundamentally disagree. I think the armed forces exist, obviously, to fight wars, but they also exist to deter. And i think the more strong the armed forces are, the more likely they are to deter our enemies. But of course, that also has to be accompanied by political will to do so. And i think weve seen weve seen significant political will recently, for example, in our efforts to defend israel by deploying Royal Air Force aircraft and our strike strikes against the houthis in the red sea. I think that those are very encouraging signs. I have i do have concerns about. But, you know, perhaps if theres a Labour Government in the future, whether or not that government will also have the will to use military force when it is strictly necessary, and if not, then of course, all the money spent on defence will be wasted. Spent on defence will be wasted. Yeah. So i agree with your fundamental point that spending more money on defence makes war less likely rather than more likely, because it warns our enemies that were serious and that we, along with the americans and our other allies , americans and our other allies, are to be reckoned with. Whereas it was beginning to look, wasnt it . As if we didnt really mind very much . Very much . Yeah, very much so. And i think actually ive always had the view and i may be mistaken, but ive taken the view for many years or several years now that the, the, the campaigns we fought in afghanistan and iraq terrified political leaders to the extent that they didnt actually want to have a significant defence capability, which would mean they wouldnt be able say , to join us forces be able say, to join us forces again if they were asked to do so. I hope this signifies a change in attitude, at least in in this government, and that, there isnt a constant fear of actually using military force because of course, no one wants to use it. But sometimes it is absolutely necessary to do so. And i think weve seen that in the two, recent interventions that i mentioned. That i mentioned. And its also definitely better. And i very rarely say better. And i very rarely say Something Like this that we have sir keir starmer rather than Jeremy Corbyn, because Jeremy Corbyn was an honourable pacifist, but nonetheless a pacifist, but nonetheless a pacifist. And keir starmer, pacifist. And keir starmer, perhaps better, understands the realities of a dangerous world. Well, i would certainly hope so, because the world were going forth in now is going. Its probably the most dangerous world that has existed probably since the second world war, and theres no sign whatsoever of that getting better. So i hope that getting better. So i hope that keir starmer will, take the same point of view and will be prepared when necessary to use military force and to continue to build up the armed forces. And the problem the problem is theres too much inclination weve seen from the United States in in president bidens time of office for upon appeasement and appeasement, i think , led to, you know, part of think, led to, you know, part of which was , the withdrawal from which was, the withdrawal from afghanistan, the refusal to really stand up for our friends and allies. That led, i think, to the invasion of ukraine. It led also, i think, to what iran did to israel a few a couple of weeks ago. And so i think that weeks ago. And so i think that shows the that, you know, appeasement basically provokes and strength deters. And i think and strength deters. And i think and strength deters. And i think a british leader, whether its keir starmer or whoever it might be, has has a significant role in stiffen up us resolve. Well, thank you very much, colonel kemp. Thanks forjoining colonel kemp. Thanks for joining me again. Now, having been polite about keir starmer , i may polite about keir starmer, i may slightly change tone because it was in 2020 when George Floyds murder in the United States sparked a Global Movement of riots fuelled by the erroneous and widely debunked critical race theory. Taking the knee became the symbol of this dangerous movement, and it even crossed the atlantic and infected a certain british political party. Here was the leader of the opposition cynically signalling his support for a movement that actively and aggressively demanded the defund ing of the police. But a twist in the tale has emerged today , in the tale has emerged today, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper announced labours plans to fund 13,000 new Police Officers, as well as tackle some officers, as well as tackle some of the procurement cost disparities. So in a few years weve gone from defunding the police to funding the police. Lets plays, labour can only hope not to have a repeat of this old gem , so how much would this old gem, so how much would 10,000 Police Officers cost . 10,000 Police Officers cost . Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe itll be about £300,000. £300,000. £300,000. Sorry, 3000 Police Officers. Sorry, 3000 Police Officers. What are you paying them . What are you paying them . What are you paying them . Well, that was very unfair, but im joined now by former labour minister ivor caplin. Labour minister ivor caplin. Ivor, thank you very much for joining me this evening, do you think that the listening to that again , i know, i know, its a again, i know, i know, its a bit unfair because all of us make mistakes in interviews and they get repeated. So i have a they get repeated. So i have a certain sympathy with diane abbott , but this certain sympathy with diane abbott, but this is quite a big change by the labour party, isnt it, from supporting an organisation that wanted to defund the police to 13,000 more Police Officers . Police officers . Well, i think youre looking too far back there. If i if i may say that, but but just on on the issue, i think this is actually good, good policy by, by the party to actually come out and say, look, in our view, we need to change the policing, we need to change the policing, we need to change the policing, we need more policing, we need particularly Neighbourhood Policing, which we would all recognise as as a former mp and you as an mp, we would all recognise that in, you know, in somerset you need people on the neighbourhood. And thats one of the things that has lost its way over the last 5 or 10 years. And it needs to come back because it was one of the strengths. In the 97 onwards, Labour Government that actually helped labour. I think in that period of time. So to get that done of 13,000 and that would be a huge change in in where the police is. And i think it will be welcomed across the country. Well, its really interesting then the politics of it, isnt it, because keir starmer is just copying the blair playbook. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime backing the police. Its really moving the labour party away from the left wing habits of Jeremy Corbyn. Well, i think those those habhs well, i think those those habits have gone a long time ago. I understand why whenever im on gb news and i very much enjoy these appearances, but Everyone Wants to start with a pat that they want to go back to 2019. Were a long way past that now. We, you know, nearly five years past, were preparing for a general election , of course we general election, of course we would like to win because we havent won that many general elections in the last 30 years, but as ive said many, many times at the moment, not a single vote has been cast. Therefore, there cant be any complacency in the labour party. We have to have, you know, the, the, the right to ask the public to vote for us. And i think things like policing and Neighbourhood Policing in particular, i think will be welcomed by the British Public. But it is interesting that, without suggesting you wanted to go back to 2019, that the labour party, when it has won elections, has generally done so when its adopted a few right wing policies. So, Harold Wilson moved quite firmly to the right, having started off as a very left wing figure, he gets his majorities in 64 and 66. Blair his father was a Tory Association chairman. Was not association chairman. Was not unsympathetic to some right wing causes. Unsympathetic to some right wing causes. Adopted conservative causes. Adopted conservative spending plans. Starmer moving into this category. Is there any backlash from the left in the party . Are they concerned . Are they causing trouble . Ive said many, many times that actually the labour party is not either left or right. I have always thought its something in between those two things. And that means you can look and you know, Harold Wilson and blair are good examples of how they looked at becoming Prime Minister in a very different way to how those who didnt become Prime Minister tended to. Look, if i may say that. And i wasnt just talking about what happened in 2019. Theres other instances before that as well that didnt work out. So i think there is good, policy at the moment in terms of what weve seen today on the policing , and i and what weve seen today on the policing, and i and i think what weve seen today on the policing , and i and i think that policing, and i and i think that will be something that other people will want to look at and then say, well, this is a good thing. And i genuinely think that the party has got itself in the right place now, and keir has done a really good job in leading on that and hearing labour spokesman saying that they needed to be tougher on shoplifting and things like that. I mean, taking up basically tory if not reform party themes, appealing to some of the voters in the red wall who were lost a few years ago, i think i think, jacob, if you look at the, issues around Neighbourhood Policing and ive focused on that just today because i think it is one of the main issues that weve lost, weve lost track on. But one of the things is about serious crimes, and if youve got Neighbourhood Policing, it is much easier to at least get the starting point of investigations going for policing that we would all understand, as i said earlier, as, as former or current mps. And to do that , youve got to be and to do that, youve got to be able to get the right, judgements and the right bits of judgements and the right bits of judgements into the right place. And i think thats where the Neighbourhood Policing will, will really help, the country in this. And i think people will, will say, this is a very good move. Brilliant. Thank you very much for joining brilliant. Thank you very much forjoining me, ivor , much forjoining me, ivor, coming up next, the pugnacious panel will be back to pick through the alleged ageism of the time back in your day. Plus, who knew that marshmallows could be so divisive well, the mailbox been coming in as we were talking about defence and Labour Police policies. Jeff says. Could you at least arrange for miss dunlop to present your program for a few nights so that we can just see how impartial she can be . I almost misread impartial as imperial, which im sure shed do marvellously. And sure shed do marvellously. And peter says marshmallows, pure poison. Peter, dont tell poison. Peter, dont tell anyone. But i agree saying back in your day to an older colleague could be considered harassment , colleague could be considered harassment, an employment judge has ruled. The tribunal found that the barbed and unwelcome expression may amount to unwanted conduct. Well, back in unwanted conduct. Well, back in my day, we didnt get upset over such trivialities. My panel is still with me. Kelvin mackenzie, formerly of the sun and the broadcaster and historian tessa dunlop. Tessa should people be offended by something so trivial . This is just because i think its important as you posture as a news channel, to be clear about this, it was a tribunal in which actually the tribunal tossed out the idea that back in your day in this case caused offence. They said that would offence. They said that would make a mockery of the equality act. But they said potentially it could, i think it increasingly will because there is such an outrageous wealth gap like never before between, for example , the millennials and example, the millennials and these loaded baby boomers like people who started businesses and actually floated them and made made a lot of money for investors who then were able to have good pensions. So im not listening to millennials and gen zs moaning and groaning about their lot in life. Theyre going to do just fine. Just look at whats happened to inheritance tax, right . Which is now 4 to 5 is going to go to 8 or 10. Theres a lot of kids out there today who are who are actually looking forward to the day that their parents die so they can get hold of all this money, which they have alleged allegedly stolen from a generation. I think we have to be honest that its your generation sit on about 50 of the nations wealth, as you would expect , about 50 of the nations wealth, as you would expect, as you would expect in all western nations. No its not. No its not. Yeah. Yeah. Its just to give you a reality check. Dont dismiss me with a sort of patriarchal nod of the head and society. Well, hold on, im listening to a matriarchal bloody load of rubbish, and im not prepared to sit here and just listen to it. Thats the difference. Thats the difference. If you went into the workplace in the 1940s or 50s over a 25 year spanning career, your wage would double. If you were born in the 70s, you might see a 25 increase in your wage. See a 25 increase in your wage. Incomes have not gone up in the way that they did for your generation. At the same time, as you sit on wealth, which has grown, so the disparity between those who are on incomes and those who are on incomes and those who are on incomes and those who depend on wealth, and one of the one of the reasons why at the moment we just dont have a we dont just have a sex drought, we have a baby. Drought is because people are fertile age cannot afford to brood. They feel no one feel threatened. They feel threatened by the russias and the chinas and the middle east situation, lets be honest. And theyre broke like never before. I am not dropping a tear for anybody who isnt prepared, for instance, to do what most people did, which is work much longer hours, not work from home, not being able to have phones where they could talk to their mates 24 hours a day, not complain endlessly about being asked to do things called work. Oh my god, i dont have to do work as well as as well as look at my phone, do i . Sorry, your point. Phone, do i . Sorry, your point. Have you finished . Forgive me for one moment. Actually leaving my progressive slightly left stance on gb news and entering into the terrain of discrimination. But back in your day, kelvin, it was a hell of a lot easier. Wheres that judge . Lets get that judge in. Lets get that judge in. There we go. Well, some people i know like talking about what things were like in their day. And nanny brought me up day. And nanny brought me up saying in the wartime that amount of butter was a weeks rations. Is that what youre saying . Good thing too. Anyway, there is a spectre haunting westminster. The spectre of statesman wearing sambas, whatever they are, many have said that a blooded horse galloping through Central London was an omen, but the sight of ministers of the crown in sports pumps, in gym shoes is a far greater harbinger of doom. Decline in dress standards and the ubiquity of breezy informality may be something traditionalists have to make peace with in this day and age. Peace with in this day and age. However, im sure even the most sartorially relaxed must agree that this is simply a step too far. The message this that this is simply a step too far. The message this sends to the world is not one of a trendy, modern country, but a deeply unserious one. Over to my panel deeply unserious one. Over to my panel. Come on kelvin, proper shoes for gentlemen. No i dont agree. Really. I think i think such a lefty. I think that i think a lefty. I think that i think that sunak, if he wants to wear those, he points out in his own interview the idea that the Prime Minister, with all this stuff going on around him, has to face questions like this is ridiculous. But he points out that ive always worn these sambas and i wore he must have say hes worn them for five, seven years. He should continue wearing them. The fact that he wears trousers, which are slightly showing off his ankle, thats up to him and he wears short jackets. I dont i am not offended by that. Im offended sometimes by some of the things which he actually says, but im not going to be offended by his fashion sense. Weve got a clip of nigel farage, his shoes. Can we see nigel rishi sunak thought hed get down cool with the kids and wear a pair of sandals and it bombed. Im not a samba man. Im not a samba man. Im not a samba man. Im more of a gazelle man myself. Yeah, ive got my adidas gazelles. On. Gazelles. On. Flash shoes, which i think i had at school. Dunlop dunlop and named in your. Oh, is that right . Yes. Yes. And i used to always wear dunlop. But now to the absolute horror and ridicule of my daughter and husband , because i daughter and husband, because i broke my ankle, ive had to go for a squidgy sole and i wear steve maddens my goodness, which i have just are they trendy in . They glitter and they flash because i used to wear heels, but now because i have a dodgy ankle heading towards old age, well, ive never had it so good back in your day. Back in my day, i have to wear , sparkly my day, i have to wear, sparkly trainers. It is for comfort. What i find rather touching is that both care and rishi are , i that both care and rishi are, i mean, small men. I think theyd come up to about here on me. I believe im told. And yet they dont. Theyre not sufficiently vain to want to wear a sort of slightly stepped up shoe, and i find that quite attractive. But they dont care. Former french president who used to do that. Yes, yes. So we shouldnt worry about. No, we should worry about what people say. We shouldnt worry about the way they dress. I think theres nothing wrong with a good, solid, stout pair of oxfords. Now now, who knew that the question of defining a marshmallow could have such serious implications . In the united kingdom, confectionery is subject to value added tax, but Food Ingredients are not. You may think the two categories are quite distinct, however. Hmrc quite distinct, however. Hmrc has been roasted over the fire in a courtroom battle which saw a food company convince a judge that its marshmallows fall into the ingredient category. How, the ingredient category. How, you may ask . Well, apparently because it was sold and purchased as a product specifically for roasting. In other cases, and ive got some of these small sized marshmallows. These are haribo, marshmallows. These are haribo, were subject to vat , but because were subject to vat, but because these marshmallows were larger, they escaped tax free. Isnt this exciting . And we should always remember , tax free is a always remember, tax free is a good thing. No vat on marshmallows means cheaper marshmallows means cheaper marshmallows for you. And that can only ever be positive. Well, ihope can only ever be positive. Well, i hope the same rule will apply to my mars bars so that they can be deliciously deep fried. And theres a picture of a deep fried mars bar, which i gorged myself on with great pleasure. Myself on with great pleasure. Anyway, thats all from me. Up next, its patrick christys. Next, its patrick christys. Patrick, how nice to have you back. I patrick, how nice to have you back. I hope you had a nice holiday, but what have you got on the bill of fare this evening . Any deep fried mars bars . Bars . Its deep fried mars bars all round. Absolutely thank you very, very much. And ive got a heck of a lot on tonight. What did the Police Actually want to batter . Patriotic englishman the other day. I take archbishop welbys rwanda hypocrisy apart line by line. Rishi sunak has torpedoed starmer when it comes torpedoed starmer when it comes to defence and drag queens for palestine. Jacob, that really is turkeys for christmas. Turkeys for christmas. Well, that always sounds very exciting and people will be listening with rapt attention. Thats all coming up after the weather. Ill be back tomorrow at 8 00. Im jacob rees mogg. At 8 00. Im jacob rees mogg. This has been state of the nation, and youll be looking forward to knowing what the weather is like in somerset. After i told you yesterday that they were expecting visits at glastonbury from saint george, saint david and saint patrick, we only need saint andrew to go to make up the quartette of uk patron saints, whether they were there today. I havent yet had a report , but if they had been, report, but if they had been, the sun was shining as it will be tomorrow , as it always does be tomorrow, as it always does at insecula seculorum. Amen a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on. Gb news. Hi there and welcome to the gb news forecast from the met office. Its going to be chilly overnight through the next 24 hours. However, increasing cloud will bring further showers by the end of thursday. Weve got the end of thursday. Weve got higher pressure ebbing away towards the west and this increased influence from low pressure to the east in between some clear spells overnight and a chilly northerly airflow. That means temperatures will fall quickly under any clear spells in rural sheltered spots, temperatures will dip below freezing , generally in urban freezing, generally in urban areas, 4 to 6 celsius, and therell be variable amounts of cloud. First thing as well. Theyll also be increasing amounts of showery rain moving through northern ireland, parts of wales, northern and central england, as well as the northeast of scotland. The northeast of scotland. The showery rain will become more widespread by the afternoon , so widespread by the afternoon, so for much of england and wales its a case of bright spells interspersed by showers, drier towards the northwest west of scotland, mostly dry, with some decent sunny spells. 12 or 13 celsius here. 14 or 15 in the southwest. Just ten again on the nonh southwest. Just ten again on the north sea coast. Friday starts off cold with a frost in many places. A sunny start, but quite quickly the cloud will build and well see further showers here and there, particularly towards the east. The weekend brings more unsettled weather from the south, longer spells of rain affecting many parts of england and wales, drier for scotland and wales, drier for scotland and northern ireland. Looks like things are heating up. Boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. Airs 9 pm. Im patrick christys. Airs 9 pm. Im patrick christys. Im airs 9 pm. Im patrick christys. Im back airs 9 pm. Im patrick christys. Im back and im raring to go. Did the police raring to go. Did the police want to batter patriotic englishmen . Englishmen . And it is damaging for Asylum Seekers in need of protection and safe and legal routes to be heard. You will not believe what woke welby is said about rwanda. Now he was ditching their biggest election winner for a pint size loser. Loser. How taxing was it for rayner to come up with that one liner . But we will do it as as circumstances allow. Labours massive defence u turn. We will increase defence spending to a new baseline of 2. 5 of gdp by 2030. Sunak has now torpedoed starmer on defence