Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to nov Our Live coming up tonight.
Speaker 1: Andy Burnham and Louise Hay have unveiled their plans for
Speaker 1: funding devolution, but do they stack up a number of
Speaker 1: Burnham's new ministers have had their historic statements on the
Speaker 1: guards of genocide highlighted, Spain's army tries to stop Moroccan
Speaker 1: migrants entering its African enclave, and Diana Abbott has finally
Speaker 1: been readmitted into the Labor Party. I'm Steven Bethan and
Speaker 1: tonight I'm joined by Paul Holden. Paul, how are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm great, Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: Like the show, A lot of people have been commenting
Speaker 1: on it. It's tarot card, so if you get bored
Speaker 1: of the show, you can read your future. If you'd
Speaker 1: like to support our work, you can sign up at
Speaker 1: Navarmedia dot com forward Slash Support. You can also listen
Speaker 1: to the show on Spotify and Apple podcasts, and remember
Speaker 1: to light this video subscribe to the channel if you
Speaker 1: haven't already, and don't forget to let us know what
Speaker 1: you think in the comments below. We did this all
Speaker 1: for you and we want to know what you think.
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Andy Burnham has begun to unveil his plans
Speaker 1: to devolve both political and economic power from London to
Speaker 1: the regions, and the way he plans to do it seems,
Speaker 1: on the face of it, uncomplicated. According to plans published
Speaker 1: last night, the Burnham government will allow regional mayors in
Speaker 1: England to retain a share of taxes raised in their areas.
Speaker 1: In a statement, Burnham said this, I said we'd take
Speaker 1: power out of Westminster and carry it into every postcode
Speaker 1: in the country. Today we made good on that promise.
Speaker 1: Under our plans, more of the taxes raised and a
Speaker 1: community will stay in that community. Soon, every local leader
Speaker 1: will have the power and resources to improve public transport,
Speaker 1: build homes and create jobs. I know what it's like
Speaker 1: to be ignored by politicians in Westminster. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to make that same mistake now, I'm PM. The whole
Speaker 1: of government will now pull together behind the people and
Speaker 1: places that desperately need our support. This is how we'll
Speaker 1: bring back hope and bring power.
Speaker 2: Home to you.
Speaker 1: Now, as with many of these announcements, there isn't much
Speaker 1: by way of detail yet, with the government press release
Speaker 1: saying this from next spring, mayors would begin retaining a
Speaker 1: greater share of locally generated revenues, starting with business rates.
Speaker 1: Further details on this and on income tax retention will
Speaker 1: be set out in a roadmap the budget, and will
Speaker 1: be underpinned by the government's firm commitment to fiscal discipline.
Speaker 1: Over time, local areas will move away from dependence on
Speaker 1: Whitehall grants and towards funding that rewards local growth. Regional
Speaker 1: mayors will start being able to keep a share of
Speaker 1: local business rates by twenty twenty seven, according to the plans,
Speaker 1: and a share of income tax by twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: Now isn't going to be any new money.
Speaker 1: Though, but it is going to replace grants distributed by
Speaker 1: the Treasury, and we don't yet know the size of
Speaker 1: the share that mayors will be allowed to keep. That's
Speaker 1: something that Chancellor John Healey is set to announce. The budget,
Speaker 1: which he announced today will be on the twenty eighth
Speaker 1: of October, in the middle of half term. Still some
Speaker 1: mayors are already celebrating. South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard told
Speaker 1: The Guardian this it's really important because it gets us
Speaker 1: out of the death grip of the Treasury and gives
Speaker 1: us that long term certainty around income According to the Guardian,
Speaker 1: a reliable projected income stream will have an additional benefit
Speaker 1: region for regional governments, with the Papers saying this England's
Speaker 1: directly elected mayors, who control areas spanning three quarters of
Speaker 1: the population, would be able to use the revenue generated
Speaker 1: from business rates and income tax as they wish, including
Speaker 1: tax breaks for important industries or rebates to residents. However,
Speaker 1: experts said one of the most significant consequences was that
Speaker 1: it would allow combined authorities to take out thirty year
Speaker 1: loans against their projected income to fund major projects that
Speaker 1: previously needed treasury approval. Local leaders will also be given
Speaker 1: more freedom to operate independently of central government, with Transport
Speaker 1: Secretary Hidi Alexander saying the threshold at which local leaders
Speaker 1: need to seek treasury approval for projects or rise from
Speaker 1: two hundred million pounds to five hundred million pounds. On
Speaker 1: the Morning News Rounds, First Secretary of State Louise Haig
Speaker 1: set out a little more detail on how it will work.
Speaker 3: Income tax and business rates will still be set by
Speaker 3: the UK government centrally, but different areas will be able
Speaker 3: to retain a share of those and that will give
Speaker 3: them an incentive to grow their economy so that they
Speaker 3: can then keep a share of the proceeds of that
Speaker 3: growth and reinvest it, so it becomes a virtual circle
Speaker 3: of investment. You see this happen really successfully in countries
Speaker 3: like France. I was in Leon not very long ago,
Speaker 3: where they retain a proportion of their tax intake and
Speaker 3: then they can invest it and they have world class
Speaker 3: integrated transport systems and cities that are far smaller than
Speaker 3: ones here where we don't have anywhere like the kind
Speaker 3: of investment that they enjoy.
Speaker 4: So what about areas.
Speaker 5: I'm thinking we've got a mayor of London, the wealthiest
Speaker 5: city in the country, that would get a proportion that
Speaker 5: the same rules applies. It would get the proportion of
Speaker 5: income tax. Yet if you go to a region elsewhere
Speaker 5: in the country which won't have that same income tax,
Speaker 5: it won't be getting as much money.
Speaker 4: Is that fair? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Correct, So areas will retain different proportions of their income
Speaker 3: tax and business rates. That's exactly how it works at
Speaker 3: the moment, with some business rates retention, and that's offset
Speaker 3: by central government funding, so it will be it will
Speaker 3: be offset by proportional formula that's set centrally to make
Speaker 3: sure that funding is still is still fair and equal
Speaker 3: across the country, but it will crucially give them that
Speaker 3: incentive to really grow their economy, create extra jobs, invest
Speaker 3: in their businesses, and ensure a thriving local economy that
Speaker 3: they can then recirculate the revenue from into investment in
Speaker 3: their area.
Speaker 1: So Heyer's right that what's being proposed is actually fairly
Speaker 1: standard in other G seven countries.
Speaker 2: The BBC rather reports this.
Speaker 1: The share of national taxes collected at a local level
Speaker 1: in the UK is five point eight percent, the lowest
Speaker 1: in the G seven. According to the OECD, That share
Speaker 1: is far below that of other countries with large economies,
Speaker 1: such as France at twenty point four percent, Japan at
Speaker 1: thirty six percent, and the US at forty five point
Speaker 1: seven percent. Paul, you may surprise, maybe you're going to
Speaker 1: supplies me, but I can't find a lot to disagree
Speaker 1: with in this. I mean, obviously there's very little detail.
Speaker 1: We don't know what proportion of these taxes local governments,
Speaker 1: local mayors will be able to take. There's also this
Speaker 1: calculation that will determine that perhaps richer cities get less
Speaker 1: of a share than poorer than poorer areas. But you know,
Speaker 1: is this the right direction of travel? I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: presuming going to say yes.
Speaker 6: Now I feel like I have to do Devil's Advocate
Speaker 6: and say no and make up so nonsense argument as
Speaker 6: to why it's a bad idea. But I mean, I
Speaker 6: think generally speaking, most people accept this idea, that that
Speaker 6: localism is.
Speaker 2: It's a good way of governing.
Speaker 6: Generally speaking, the decisions that are sort of regionally driven,
Speaker 6: where people have a direct implement over you know, their
Speaker 6: own unique economic circumstances, generally produces better democratic outcomes. I
Speaker 6: think that's pretty widely accepted, not least in you know.
Speaker 6: And it has to be said that this country is
Speaker 6: deeply and profoundly centralized. It really is a very you know,
Speaker 6: much more so than other countries. You know, London and
Speaker 6: the Treasury and Westminster exercises vast control over the day
Speaker 6: to day life of huge numbers of people. And there
Speaker 6: is this like real sense that there is a deficit
Speaker 6: between what people around the country think is good for
Speaker 6: them and what Treasury does. And there's really the sense
Speaker 6: of a local politics being stifled. And I think it
Speaker 6: has interesting it has interesting implications.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 6: So, first of all the one the one caveat I
Speaker 6: would say, the one negative thing I would say is
Speaker 6: that just because governments as local doesn't necessarily it doesn't
Speaker 6: necessarily always mean it's going to be quality governance, right,
Speaker 6: because you can have bad local government and.
Speaker 2: You can have corruption and all kinds of things go
Speaker 2: on at that level. Yeah, And.
Speaker 6: You know, one of the issues that that I think
Speaker 6: will have to be looked at when it comes to
Speaker 6: local government is the extent to which you've had Historically,
Speaker 6: You've had regions and entities which have effectively become day
Speaker 6: factor one party states which are very problematic in terms
Speaker 6: of corruption. Right, so used to that and it doesn't
Speaker 6: happen as much anymore. Well, certainly of the last local
Speaker 6: elections have got more it got a bit more untidy
Speaker 6: because of the Green surged. But for a long period
Speaker 6: of time you had, you know, large parts of this
Speaker 6: country where local government is efectively run by a single
Speaker 6: you know, a single party. So the Labor Party, for example,
Speaker 6: had fifteen out of sixty councilors in new them would
Speaker 6: have seventy out of seventy two councilors in Newcastle, and
Speaker 6: that can breed a problematic situation where you know, the
Speaker 6: party itself, which is can be dysfunctional, produces a dysfunctional
Speaker 6: selection of counselors who then don't represent people, and then
Speaker 6: it becomes like a very problematic space for corruption.
Speaker 2: That's true of sort of every level of government.
Speaker 6: Right, So that's the one caveat I have is like,
Speaker 6: you know, localism I think is a really a good idea,
Speaker 6: but I also think there needs to be a discussion
Speaker 6: about how we improve the quality of local government and
Speaker 6: how we you know, it might be that that that
Speaker 6: the way in which our local elections are structured needs
Speaker 6: to be rethought so you don't have a situation where
Speaker 6: one party dominates, because it really is problematic. I think
Speaker 6: the exciting prospects are things like you you compare study
Speaker 6: can't Sazarammdani, right, Like you can actually have under this
Speaker 6: smart it is believable and incredible and imaginable that you
Speaker 6: can have a form of like actually effective municipal socialism.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: It does actually give the scope for you to do
Speaker 6: the pressor model and plenty of different places. It does
Speaker 6: actually give you the scope for mayors like zom i'm
Speaker 6: daney to emerge as national political players. The question would
Speaker 6: anybody takes up that opportunity and runs with it? But
Speaker 6: it could be like really interesting in terms of shaping
Speaker 6: our sort of national political conversation.
Speaker 1: And also majorties will become a much hotter political race.
Speaker 1: Right everybody is going to want to be the mayor
Speaker 1: of somewhere because you have you'll have a bit of
Speaker 1: what Burnham had in Manchester, but like everywhere right where
Speaker 1: you've got a sort of great little power, you've got
Speaker 1: an independent budget and so on and so forth.
Speaker 2: It can be very attractive. One of the things I
Speaker 2: thought was really.
Speaker 1: Interesting is this idea of like enabling borrowing, because obviously
Speaker 1: that could be quite large amounts of borrowing based you know,
Speaker 1: over thirty years for a region, based on its tax
Speaker 1: tax revenue, So an easy calculation more or less to
Speaker 1: make is a kind of a way of getting borrowing
Speaker 1: in for infrastructure, but not via central governments books perhaps.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and that again, that could genuine that that's the
Speaker 6: one thing you read. I was like, that's actually really interesting.
Speaker 6: That's like really transformative. You can actually have large scale
Speaker 6: local borrowing. Again, I'm going to sound like a bit
Speaker 6: of a warning.
Speaker 2: Saying like birming and Birmingham.
Speaker 6: Actually my thinking, I've been reading a lot. I've been
Speaker 6: reading and I'm going to totally forget its name, but
Speaker 6: I've been reading a very interesting book about Manchester recently,
Speaker 6: which is about, you know, looking at the history of
Speaker 6: Manchester over the last hundred years and takes up to
Speaker 6: the current cycle. And it looks at basically the development
Speaker 6: of Manchester over the last twenty years under Andy Burnham,
Speaker 6: which he sort of runs on as like I've brought
Speaker 6: prosperity to the city, and of course the picture is
Speaker 6: a lot more complicated, where effectively what you've had, according
Speaker 6: you know to a more cynical and more sort of
Speaker 6: a left bring analysis, is that well you've actually had
Speaker 6: a lot of state money, you know, effectively loans being granted.
Speaker 6: Development is granted by the state and the local government
Speaker 6: to private entities which have built these massive tower blocks
Speaker 6: and effectively turns it into a rentier city.
Speaker 2: Pretty much.
Speaker 6: One private entity is right here, which is the main
Speaker 6: ones that they've got two hundred million dollars. It's undred
Speaker 6: million pounds out of the four hundred million that's been
Speaker 6: being learned out. So you know, these are all good things.
Speaker 6: It's good to have localism. I do worry that, like
Speaker 6: so much of Britain's you know, this is all happening
Speaker 6: in the context of a broader macroeconomic situation where the
Speaker 6: returns for capital are always better when it comes to
Speaker 6: building rentier house, and it does when it comes to
Speaker 6: actually building. You know, if it's going to be investment driven,
Speaker 6: that's going to be and ins investment driving around housing,
Speaker 6: that's going to potentially have perverse outcomes. If it's instead
Speaker 6: used to be like we're arguable one hundred thousand actually
Speaker 6: counsel home properties, that's transformative. If it's combined with other
Speaker 6: thing I think it's interesting, which I think is maybe
Speaker 6: the need to be seen together is the plans for
Speaker 6: the National Care Service because the key, the key drain
Speaker 6: on local budgets is as care. So if you take
Speaker 6: if you have a national care service and then you
Speaker 6: have local fundraising, suddenly you're going to have these these
Speaker 6: mayoralties and these these these local councils which actually for
Speaker 6: the first time probably in forty years, will have the
Speaker 6: budget to spend and they could spend that money either
Speaker 6: catalyzing Redia style investment, or they could be building council housing,
Speaker 6: or they can be building integrated infrastructure or positive opportunities,
Speaker 6: but which you basically need like local political activism to take.
Speaker 1: And of course, like local political activism is easier at
Speaker 1: the local level, right, You're much more likely to influence
Speaker 1: your your mayor or your local council than you are
Speaker 1: to the national government.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting I'm not so sure how that's true.
Speaker 2: That actually is right? It mus it must be. I
Speaker 2: feel like it. I suppose.
Speaker 6: I mean, you'd think it would be right, but then
Speaker 6: I but then I think of my experience and like
Speaker 6: the dirtiest, the ugliest part of the labor party is
Speaker 6: like a counselor level. Like that's where it's like tooth
Speaker 6: and nail nastiness and also the pettiest stuff, right, because
Speaker 6: that's like the that is the hardcore. These are people
Speaker 6: who have given their lives. They want to be politicians.
Speaker 6: They can make some money off it, they can make
Speaker 6: money of being counselors, but they can also then you know,
Speaker 6: benefit potentially from maybe I'll be able to become you know,
Speaker 6: the owner of a parking lot, or you know, I'm
Speaker 6: going to be controlling zoning that sort of stuff. That
Speaker 6: there is scope for personal enrichment there and you'd think
Speaker 6: that like localized democracy would be better. But if it's
Speaker 6: localized democracy being enacted through a one party stay through
Speaker 6: a dysfunctional party.
Speaker 2: Actually yeah, sure, and it's actually quite hard.
Speaker 6: And the other thing that's going to have to you know,
Speaker 6: one of the issues around local democracy that we have
Speaker 6: is like the death of local media, which is really profound.
Speaker 6: You know, you have a couple of cities where it's
Speaker 6: where it's surviving and it's thriving, and a lot of
Speaker 6: places it's not. And that's you know, that's one of
Speaker 6: the things that generally militates against like a degree of accountability.
Speaker 6: So I'd be interested to see whether, now there's money
Speaker 6: returning to these places, whether that will then fund organically
Speaker 6: an emergence of an alternative or new local media, because
Speaker 6: it used to be you'd have like local newspapers to
Speaker 6: reach little eco you know, great investigative papers like actual
Speaker 6: you know, you know, really good. Now they sadly they've
Speaker 6: been like really hollowed out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, pretty much only owned by one BBC
Speaker 2: local journalism completely wrecked.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so you know, all potentially positive, but these are
Speaker 6: the things that we have to like deal with is
Speaker 6: that you know you will then have to be will.
Speaker 6: Then there has to be a commensurate commitment to being like, well,
Speaker 6: you can't. You actually need to improve the quality and
Speaker 6: the ability of people to engage in the local democracy
Speaker 6: for localism to work.
Speaker 2: Great. Okay, let's move on with this story now.
Speaker 1: Now, this plan for a bit of economic devolution is
Speaker 1: intended to free regional mayors to stimulate their own economies
Speaker 1: by investing in things like infrastructure and the infrastructure that
Speaker 1: best serves their community. But some think it doesn't go
Speaker 1: far enough. Mayor of Tees Valley and Tory Pierre ben
Speaker 1: Houchin said this, I'd rather ministers just cut out the
Speaker 1: middleman and lower taxes, but if they're handing me a
Speaker 1: share of the income tax raised on Teesside, true devolution
Speaker 1: means a decision where to spend it is for locally
Speaker 1: elected leaders. I want to give every penny back to
Speaker 1: the workers who earned it through a rebate scheme. If
Speaker 1: people don't like that, they can vote for someone else.
Speaker 1: That's what real accountability looks like. But today Westminster decided
Speaker 1: it knew better as it always does. Now, if reporting
Speaker 1: from private eye is to believe done, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know whether it is. Houchin may in fact be
Speaker 1: a pretty good counterargument to devolution. This relates to the
Speaker 1: Teesworks freeport in Teeside, the development of which has been
Speaker 1: dogged by allegations of lack of transparency, lack of transparency
Speaker 1: and poor value for public money. This is from Richard Brooks,
Speaker 1: writing in Private Eye in twenty twenty five. It was
Speaker 1: to be the UK's largest regeneration scheme in decades, a
Speaker 1: model for regional devolution, and the flagship post Brexit free
Speaker 1: But the redevelopment of the former steel works on the
Speaker 1: south bank of the River Tees became little more than
Speaker 1: an unlawful, taxpayer funded scheme to promote the political career
Speaker 1: of a Tory golden boy and vastly enrich a couple
Speaker 1: of local businessmen and their families, all hidden in a
Speaker 1: web of deception.
Speaker 2: Don't hold your punch, as Richard.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, an independent investigation into the Teesport
Speaker 1: development found that deals had been done in secret, public
Speaker 1: funders had been misled, the private companies involved had made
Speaker 1: zero investments into that scheme, and there was no evidence
Speaker 1: that it represented value for money for the public. And
Speaker 1: now it's important to point out that there were no
Speaker 1: findings of criminality or corruption with dishonesty. Louise Hay had
Speaker 1: this response to Hutchin's rebate proposal.
Speaker 3: At the moment, that's not how it works. They have
Speaker 3: lines of funding and they go in. That's how it's
Speaker 3: invested into public services. We've seen what the mayors have
Speaker 3: said about rebates. There's not a system that would currently
Speaker 3: allow that, and they certainly wouldn't be able to set
Speaker 3: tax rates locally or regionally, but will consider what proposals
Speaker 3: are put forward. The real purpose of this, though, is
Speaker 3: to allow areas to benefit when they create growth, when
Speaker 3: they create new jobs, and to keep investing in their
Speaker 3: local areas in public services, in transport, and to keep
Speaker 3: that virtuous circle of investment.
Speaker 7: I suppose the point is that if you're giving power
Speaker 7: to localities, and that's very much what you say want
Speaker 7: to do, then you would have to give them the
Speaker 7: power to do things that you might not necessarily approve
Speaker 7: of you as a labor party, are you willing to
Speaker 7: say yes if Ben Houtcher wants to do something differently,
Speaker 7: if the mayor of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon, who we talked
Speaker 7: to earlier on Cambridgire and Peterborough. If he wants to
Speaker 7: do things that he wants to do, then we are
Speaker 7: willing to allow those people to have the freedom to
Speaker 7: do things and to see whether they were well.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right, and we can't sit back and allow
Speaker 3: this country to remain the most centralized in the G seven,
Speaker 3: which is held back our growth and our productivity and
Speaker 3: held back investment levels because we worry that certain parts
Speaker 3: of the country might elect different political parties to our own.
Speaker 1: I mean calling naive. I feel like it probably won't
Speaker 1: work like that right in the end. Excuse me, but
Speaker 1: I think there is something to be said about, you know,
Speaker 1: perhaps as a way in which when you when you
Speaker 1: inject money into these regional areas, where you allow them
Speaker 1: to keep some of the money that they're generating in
Speaker 1: order to spend locally, it does give bad leaders in
Speaker 1: those areas enough rope playing themselves with it and be
Speaker 1: elected out as so long as there is an opposition
Speaker 1: to to.
Speaker 6: But that's actually it's interesting because because when I first
Speaker 6: read the story, I thought that actually we hey were saying,
Speaker 6: we know we're not going to allow that to happen.
Speaker 6: It's actually basically seemed to be she used to be suggested, well,
Speaker 6: that's what you want to do, you know, on your
Speaker 6: head be it. You know, your local voters will hold
Speaker 6: your accountable, and I think they would hold them all.
Speaker 2: She said, there is there's no mechanism to do it.
Speaker 6: But then she does also say she does basically say,
Speaker 6: you know, you know, we will bring forwards proposers and
Speaker 6: will scuss. So it's not a hard not I mean,
Speaker 6: I think it would be a little bit mad to
Speaker 6: basically be like, here as twenty percent of your you know,
Speaker 6: here's a master lack of money, just give it back
Speaker 6: as tax rebates to a really wealthy people instead of
Speaker 6: investing in infrastructure. I suspect they'll probably be slightly more
Speaker 6: controlled than that. But the point stance and the point
Speaker 6: that I was making earlier and again, I think it's
Speaker 6: useful to bring up Pouchin and the tea side development.
Speaker 6: And I really would encourage people to go and read
Speaker 6: that Private Air report, which is actually on the privateized website.
Speaker 6: Still it's one of the few things you can still
Speaker 6: read and you know that that is a scheme where
Speaker 6: just I mean really genuinely vast amounts of public money
Speaker 6: have gone into it, and they've been a handful of
Speaker 6: people who've put in very little of their own money
Speaker 6: and have made fortunes a hundred, like over one hundred million.
Speaker 6: I think it's one hundred and thirty five million pounds
Speaker 6: that this group of business people and their families made.
Speaker 6: And this is it speaks to you know, localism is good,
Speaker 6: but local neoliberalism is going to be bad, just like
Speaker 6: you know, you can have just you know, just because
Speaker 6: it's local doesn't necessarily means it's going to have good outcomes, right, Like.
Speaker 2: I feel.
Speaker 6: There became a bit of a thing in the Labor
Speaker 6: Party and the soft left, this idea, you know, people
Speaker 6: who didn't want to make sort of overly tendentious arguments
Speaker 6: about the nature of the political economy, about the status quo,
Speaker 6: would start talking about localism as of was this like
Speaker 6: radical get out of jail free call. If you give
Speaker 6: people local decisions and not do socialism on their own,
Speaker 6: we don't have to defend it. That's not necessarily true.
Speaker 6: But what it does show is that like it's it
Speaker 6: doesn't you know, it's going to be the content of
Speaker 6: that local government that matters. If you have poor quality,
Speaker 6: if you have a neoliberal local government, it's going to
Speaker 6: be a neoliberal outcome which is going to be problematic.
Speaker 6: Which is actually, ironically the argument that underpins a lot
Speaker 6: of the critique of Manchester at this point, which is
Speaker 6: that you know, Manchester on the one had, it's had
Speaker 6: a tremendous amount of economic growth. You know, there's completely
Speaker 6: different city centers to what looked like twenty thirty years ago,
Speaker 6: but it's all privately owned, it's all rental based. It's
Speaker 6: created a huge amount of displacement. It's increased rents pretty
Speaker 6: much across the heart of greater Manchester. And we even
Speaker 6: sordering the Gorton, so not the Gorton, but the Makeidfield
Speaker 6: by election. There was a lot of sympathy with people
Speaker 6: standing and be like, well, you know the stuff was
Speaker 6: having in Manchester, but none of it's actually made our
Speaker 6: life worse because what it all it's done is basically
Speaker 6: push problems from the center towards the periphery, and it's
Speaker 6: meant everything more expensive. So again it's like great localism
Speaker 6: is fantastic. Great, I give people more power if the
Speaker 6: people are there are Tory bastards who want to give
Speaker 6: it to their mates.
Speaker 2: This is going to be a bad thing. Then you
Speaker 2: have to suspect that.
Speaker 6: You know, one of the one advantage of hypercentralization is
Speaker 6: if you centralize everything, that then like ordered functions become
Speaker 6: centralized and then you can have like a very tightly
Speaker 6: controlled system. So you'd have to imagine that if you're
Speaker 6: going to have increased expenditures, you are going to have
Speaker 6: to make sure that in Darlington they have like more
Speaker 6: people working in the order offers. Otherwise then really will
Speaker 6: be a disaster if they don't.
Speaker 2: Do that well.
Speaker 1: I think Burnham was as part of this announcement, was
Speaker 1: the kind of whistling down of the civil service in
Speaker 1: the in the center to other parts of the country. Yes,
Speaker 1: I would say on the on a neoliberalism in Manchester.
Speaker 1: One of my favorite journalists on this who I've been
Speaker 1: falling for ages is someone called Zoe Bread on Instagram
Speaker 1: and TikTok. Yeah, starting off with wrong parking tickets and
Speaker 1: moving on to skyscrapers and now onto warehousing, ruining people's
Speaker 1: property prices and just sort of dumped there. So Zoe,
Speaker 1: if you're watching, get in touch, let's stick with Oh,
Speaker 1: before I go on, I want to ask you something else.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, just let's go to the politics of this.
Speaker 1: You know, there's no details here, but you know, we've
Speaker 1: basically had a week two weeks now in which Burnham
Speaker 1: has on a day to day basis made some kind
Speaker 1: of announcement which is pretty pleasing to a lot of people.
Speaker 1: The detail is yet to come, but you know, bus fairs,
Speaker 1: care service, you know, more money for the more money
Speaker 1: for regional governments. Is He's doing a pretty good job
Speaker 1: politically right at this at this point.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, I suppose the metric is is what
Speaker 6: is a good job. If the if the metric for
Speaker 6: successes he's been using popular things and has been popular
Speaker 6: and has increasing the layer of party's poll ratings and
Speaker 6: his poor ratings, then yes he's succeeding. I don't you know,
Speaker 6: I don't pass juge on whether this stuff is going
Speaker 6: to be good from like a left wing perspective. That's
Speaker 6: that's a whole other argument. You know, he is he is.
Speaker 6: I think he's learned two lessons. I think there's been
Speaker 6: two politicians who've basically shown you how to do it
Speaker 6: and how not to do it, and the politicians showed
Speaker 6: you not how to do it, how not to do
Speaker 6: a starmo and McSweeney, who liked the most misery guts tour,
Speaker 6: which most people sort of deeper their bones understood was
Speaker 6: deeply misleading. And you know, there was this real sense
Speaker 6: that the layer parties so that we could change things.
Speaker 6: And then basically we had you know, the last twenty
Speaker 6: thirty forty years of government has been sorry, the computer says,
Speaker 6: now we can't actually make your life better, and standard
Speaker 6: at that again. And the one person who you know,
Speaker 6: I think is undoubtedly the most talented politician of our
Speaker 6: generation is or Mum Duney like undoubtedly. And the thing
Speaker 6: that always trikes me about rum Doney is his ability
Speaker 6: to is that it feels like everything is strategically oriented,
Speaker 6: that he spent years and years and years with his
Speaker 6: colleagues thinking about a strategy for how to govern. And
Speaker 6: one of the things I've come up is that you
Speaker 6: have to immediately do big things on a day to
Speaker 6: day basis and be communicating on a daily basis a
Speaker 6: good news story of some kind. The problem is you
Speaker 6: actually have to be doing stuff that is good news.
Speaker 6: Making good news actually have to be making good news.
Speaker 6: So the thing that why zerum Doney works is he's
Speaker 6: both a very expective communicator, but he's done great things right,
Speaker 6: Like he's done the peedter ted attacks and he's done
Speaker 6: you know, bringing you free childcare. You can't, you know,
Speaker 6: the centrist learning of this is going to be you
Speaker 6: should just be talking to social media every day.
Speaker 2: So if you're talking to so sus.
Speaker 6: Media every day about how you're not going to be
Speaker 6: closing the carried interest loophole, you're screwed.
Speaker 2: You actually have to be doing things that people like.
Speaker 6: It also shows I think I think Burnham is just
Speaker 6: proving this ungovernability thesis, like there was a sense of
Speaker 6: like it's all falling apart, we're all fracturing. No, we
Speaker 6: just had really crap on it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because you say you say this is like you know,
Speaker 1: you say this though this is easy and obvious, but
Speaker 1: nobody has done it, like I can't remember. I mean
Speaker 1: Corbyn maybe in that twenty nineteen manifesto, but obviously the
Speaker 1: country rejected it. But you know, I have not seen
Speaker 1: this kind of sense of like people need things, let's
Speaker 1: give them to them.
Speaker 6: And I wonder whether I was thinking about this, like,
Speaker 6: what is the difference between like, why is Burnham you know,
Speaker 6: for the first time I think ever in since an election,
Speaker 6: since a parameter has come and I was looking at
Speaker 6: the approval ratings. You know, Burnham's at plus nineteen at
Speaker 6: the moment, yeah, which in this you know, was never
Speaker 6: a plus nineteen, never once. And then Richie's seen it before.
Speaker 6: Then you know, we've basically had a good decade where
Speaker 6: our politicians were pretty much hated, you know, not for
Speaker 6: bad reason. And I do wonder whether he's obviously had
Speaker 6: some he had an inbuilt advantage, which is basically he
Speaker 6: hasn't been an opposition, and I do think that makes
Speaker 6: a difference. I do think there is something about being
Speaker 6: in an opposition for a multiple years that like crushes
Speaker 6: the spirit of most people. And they also they also restrained.
Speaker 6: I feel like the act of being an opposition is
Speaker 6: the act of various elements of the British state coming
Speaker 6: to you telling you better shut up, you better stay
Speaker 6: in line. You can't actually do that. You go to
Speaker 6: thirteen different business meetings with like you know, salmon and
Speaker 6: smoked eggs offensive and you know, various hedge fund people
Speaker 6: telling you if you increase my tax pil one point
Speaker 6: two percent. I'm moving my family to France and I'm
Speaker 6: going to tell all the other He hasn't gone through
Speaker 6: that process. He hasn't been disciplined. But also he has
Speaker 6: like a total fresh light to set a message just
Speaker 6: as all very advantageous, bad for democracy.
Speaker 2: That the way he came to power, I think.
Speaker 6: But those are the inbuilt advantages he has and he's
Speaker 6: taken to his credit, he's taken them a none of them.
Speaker 1: And another advantage he has of not being having been
Speaker 1: in Parliament for a long time is he has no
Speaker 1: record that people can present to him as you know,
Speaker 1: hypocrisy or going back on the because he doesn't said
Speaker 1: anything really, so it is helpful.
Speaker 6: Basically what we need is politicians, all politicians who need
Speaker 6: to be like in the country, both national and local,
Speaker 6: should have their brains wiped and be a tabula rasa
Speaker 6: and then that's how they should have But.
Speaker 1: We should just pick randoms for Prime Minister my sautician. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it worked so well in a recent party. Let's stick
Speaker 1: with the Burnham government for a moment. Earlier this month,
Speaker 1: Andy Burnham said this about Kirstarmer's handling of Israel's assault
Speaker 1: on Gaza.
Speaker 8: I know many people feel that at the start of
Speaker 8: Israel's military action in Gaza, my party didn't get it right,
Speaker 8: and I am sorry about that. The response has too
Speaker 8: often not been good enough. We need to do better. Yes,
Speaker 8: we have taken some important steps. These include recognizing the
Speaker 8: Palestinian state, placing sanctions on Israeli ministers, and imposing waves
Speaker 8: of sanctions on violent settlers and the organizations that support them.
Speaker 8: I also fully support the restrictions on arms licenses to
Speaker 8: make sure that no British bombs or bullets can be
Speaker 8: used by the IDF in Gaza or in the West Bank.
Speaker 8: But let's be honest, the UK was too slow to
Speaker 8: call for a ceasefire, and we must now do more
Speaker 8: to strengthen our approach. Israel continues to violate the ceasefire agreement,
Speaker 8: killing innocent Palestinians. We're seeing a surge in settler violence
Speaker 8: in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the continued
Speaker 8: expansion of illegal settlements displacing Palestinian communities, and Nettnaku's government
Speaker 8: is clearly attempting to make a two state solution impossible.
Speaker 8: That's why we need to do more which includes looking
Speaker 8: at further sanctions both on those involved in the violence
Speaker 8: in Gaza, but also looking at measures to ban trade
Speaker 8: in goods with illegal settlements. I, like many people, feel
Speaker 8: passionately about Gaza, and I will do everything I can
Speaker 8: to work with international partners to stop the suffering, to
Speaker 8: ensure the Israeli government adheres to international law, and to
Speaker 8: keep the prospect of a two states solution alive because
Speaker 8: this is the only way to lasting peace for both
Speaker 8: Israelis and Palestinians. I have been absolutely appalled by what
Speaker 8: I've seen and read about the destruction of Gaza. There's
Speaker 8: increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed.
Speaker 8: There must be accountability for the depth of the suffering
Speaker 8: the people of Gaza have experienced. Ultimately, however, it must
Speaker 8: be for the international courts to determine rather than politicians.
Speaker 1: So quite a lot of words there about things he
Speaker 1: will do, like constrain the Israeli strange good luckmate. But
Speaker 1: the important thing I think there was that bit at
Speaker 1: the end where he talked about how for him evidence
Speaker 1: is mounting that shows the be war crimes. But this
Speaker 1: is for courts to the side, which will only happen
Speaker 1: after the event, which means it's too late for anybody
Speaker 1: who is war crimed anyway. The Palisonian Solidarity Campaign has
Speaker 1: today it released a video and it shows that some
Speaker 1: of Burnham's new crop of ministers just don't agree with
Speaker 1: that thought that politicians shouldn't decide whether the war crimes
Speaker 1: have been committed by Israel in Garsa.
Speaker 3: It is impossible to conclude that this is anything less
Speaker 3: than a genocide.
Speaker 9: So on that basis.
Speaker 3: Will he reflect the will of this House to the
Speaker 3: Foreign Secretary and to the Cabinet to impose immediately sanctions
Speaker 3: on Nettan Yahoo and his genocidal regime.
Speaker 9: Genocide is not something we can only recognize when it's
Speaker 9: politically convenient. As a singletary to the Genocide Convention, we
Speaker 9: have a legal obligation to call out and prevent genocide.
Speaker 10: We owe it to not look away from the devastation
Speaker 10: and to bear witness to what has been inflicted on
Speaker 10: the Palestinian people. We owe it to bear witness to
Speaker 10: this history, to this ongoing genocide.
Speaker 11: Until the international community take further action. Letting now, whose
Speaker 11: pursuit of to ethnically cleanse Palestine will not end and
Speaker 11: the horrors of genocide become the waking nightmare for those
Speaker 11: still alive to witness it.
Speaker 12: The Minister knows the gravity of the moment that we
Speaker 12: are in famine, ethnic cleansing, genocide. He knows that our
Speaker 12: actions must be equal to the scale and the gravity
Speaker 12: of the moment.
Speaker 10: Genocide, genocide, genocide, genocide, a.
Speaker 13: Genocide, Andy Burnham, it is a genocide and it's time
Speaker 13: for action.
Speaker 4: Sign our petition sanctions now.
Speaker 2: Cool.
Speaker 1: Interesting there, So you've got Andy Burnham saying, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got to leave it to the courts to decide
Speaker 1: whether they're all. They didn't even use the word genocide.
Speaker 1: He just said war crimes, whether war crimes are being
Speaker 1: committed in Israel, which I think they so obviously are
Speaker 1: you know, obviously you know, I mean, I think that
Speaker 1: this is obviously genocidal behavior on the part of Israel.
Speaker 1: But I can see that, you know, other people might
Speaker 1: have might think differently about it, whatever war crimes I think.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there's this like and there's no debate
Speaker 1: about that. And then you've got a number of his
Speaker 1: minister's new ministers who have in the past just openly
Speaker 1: called it a genocide.
Speaker 2: In Parliament.
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring this up because I was wondering
Speaker 1: what you thought about the tensions in this new kind
Speaker 1: of regime, the Burnham regime, between those who you know,
Speaker 1: very taken a very clear position on Israel and wh
Speaker 1: should happen in terms of Israel and those in his
Speaker 1: in his cabinet who are up for having old ladies
Speaker 1: locked up, for holding signs, for supporting a group that's
Speaker 1: been prescribed in otherwords, Palistine action, whose prescription they think
Speaker 1: of as wrong for you know, they're not themselves necessarily
Speaker 1: even supporting that group. They're just like they're opposed to
Speaker 1: the prescription for lots of different reasons.
Speaker 6: So I think there's a there's a whole bunch of
Speaker 6: things to like unpack the I mean the one. The
Speaker 6: one is first of all, you know, unfortunately the people
Speaker 6: that they've put up in that video are very junior.
Speaker 6: The only exception is louse Haye, who's obviously it's very powerful, very.
Speaker 1: Very very significant job and obviously like a very close
Speaker 1: figure to burn.
Speaker 6: And but the rest are you know, rarely not. This
Speaker 6: is the sort of third level minosterialppointments that they don't
Speaker 6: care carry. Do you want to wait, and they're very
Speaker 6: much they were. They were released in the third level
Speaker 6: of third round of announcements as as I think pretty
Speaker 6: much have already sort of understood them to be a
Speaker 6: sobs to the left to be like, you're not being
Speaker 6: entirely excluded the balance of actually his cabinet is very
Speaker 6: much not reflective of a pro Palestine position at all.
Speaker 6: And like the you know, almost everybody in his cabinet
Speaker 6: right now were people who who've defended and supported the
Speaker 6: you know, both the perscussion of pot us An action
Speaker 6: and have said pretty awful things on israelm So, I mean,
Speaker 6: you know, regardless of where streeting is bizarre text to
Speaker 6: Peter Mandelsson, and he said the ICJ judgment and the
Speaker 6: i CJ process was a distraction, right, this is this
Speaker 6: is something that he said.
Speaker 1: I think when recently asked about all crimes here, you know,
Speaker 1: committed by Israel, he said something like, yes, we've got
Speaker 1: to keep our friends in line when they when they
Speaker 1: step out of.
Speaker 6: Absolutely ridiculous that that, you know, as he's come in
Speaker 6: defense secretary.
Speaker 2: So my sense is.
Speaker 6: Is that people who would be presenting a countervailing opinion
Speaker 6: are relatively marginal in his cabinet. But that's not to
Speaker 6: suggest that there's other people's cabin like Chibanomo who aren't
Speaker 6: going to be feeling local pressure because you know, she
Speaker 6: might lose so seating, so might where streeting be came
Speaker 6: around this issue. But I do think that there is
Speaker 6: this is this is where Burnham is going to be bad,
Speaker 6: Like this is where I'm going to break it to you, like,
Speaker 6: this is where Burnham is going to be bad because
Speaker 6: this is this is this is the decision that he's made.
Speaker 6: This is the way that he's decided to govern. And
Speaker 6: I think it's pretty clear the way that he's done this.
Speaker 6: He's basically said, I'm going to have like a pretty
Speaker 6: forward looking progressive domestic agenda. I'm going to touch nothing internationally.
Speaker 6: I'm going to do exactly what's been that upens at
Speaker 6: this point in time. I'm going to do, uh, you know,
Speaker 6: I'm going to increase defense spending even that the disasters
Speaker 6: have increased defense spending. I'm going to actually increase our
Speaker 6: interdependence with America through defense spending, even though obviously a
Speaker 6: shocking idea from a security perspective. I am not going
Speaker 6: to significantly increase the amount of money we spend on
Speaker 6: climate change. I'm actually even going to you know, reallocate
Speaker 6: some money that's supposed to be used for international fight
Speaker 6: against climate change to domestic priorities, which is one of
Speaker 6: the first ways that he funded one of his new announcements.
Speaker 6: And because you know, inside the Labor Party and inside
Speaker 6: their strategizing, you know, segmentation analysis is a big part
Speaker 6: of how they perceive the world. And there was recently
Speaker 6: a a you know, another policy debate around you know,
Speaker 6: how does the layor party win the next election. And
Speaker 6: effectively what's been happened that the standard Labor Party segmentation
Speaker 6: analysis of Britain separates Britain to six to eight segments
Speaker 6: and then they pretty relentlessly target one or two segments
Speaker 6: who are they call voting will win them an election,
Speaker 6: especially now that the whole elections becomes a fractured and
Speaker 6: I think it's very clear that they have watched segment
Speaker 6: they've chosen, They've chosen the segment that's represented by Makeerfield
Speaker 6: and that's what used to be called in segmentation, unless
Speaker 6: it's given different names, one of which is is the
Speaker 6: patriotic left. Now this is people who are older, who
Speaker 6: wipe their working class. They're generally not you know, quite
Speaker 6: a few of them are owned a small property. They're
Speaker 6: not like you know, they're not destined by any they're
Speaker 6: not poor by any means. But you know, they will
Speaker 6: obviously have felt the cost of living impact on their
Speaker 6: abilities to live their lives to the fullest. Will be
Speaker 6: experiencing a lot of holidays and like a lot of luxuries,
Speaker 6: and increasingly, like some foreclosing the of like the sense
Speaker 6: of their life and the life of the generation blism
Speaker 6: is getting better. But this is also a segment that's
Speaker 6: that's open to ideals like it's open to the idea
Speaker 6: of having like a nationalized post office and a nationalized
Speaker 6: rail service.
Speaker 2: They're like big state interventions.
Speaker 6: They have a fondness for their n hgest of a
Speaker 6: fondness for the post war settlement, but they aren't particularly that,
Speaker 6: you know, they weak on issues on immigration. They're not
Speaker 6: pro immigration generally speaking, although it won't necessarily determine their thinking.
Speaker 6: But this is what the poling suggests that it's not
Speaker 6: high their list of priorities and international based on Highland's
Speaker 6: so priorities and I feel like, but what burnhamers basically
Speaker 6: do is he's done a deal. He's basically said, well,
Speaker 6: what I'll do is establishment the political filmment. Let me
Speaker 6: do some radical stuff domestically, and I will make sure
Speaker 6: that all the other stuff runs as it does for
Speaker 6: the next two to three years, probably for the next
Speaker 6: five to ten years. And you can really see that
Speaker 6: with a defense spending, you know that they're is going
Speaker 6: to be a massive wratch to being up of defense spending,
Speaker 6: which is really problematic because eight percent of all UK
Speaker 6: imports come from Israel. Becomes a defense export. So when
Speaker 6: you're saying we're going to be increasing defense bending, where
Speaker 6: you actually saying the underlying messages, we increase the amount
Speaker 6: of money we need to be sending into ISRAELI actually
Speaker 6: to Alberton has ready defense systems, right, So this is
Speaker 6: where he's going to be bad, I think, and I
Speaker 6: think that beyond a couple of very small sort of
Speaker 6: I'm a bit sorry, but rueful, it's not going to
Speaker 6: change fundament Can I just say one more thing?
Speaker 2: I know we're speaking of a long time, no go on.
Speaker 6: I get so pissed off politicians who say that it's
Speaker 6: up to the course to decide it. Literally, isn't it
Speaker 6: literally isn't for the course to decide our arms export
Speaker 6: magime is run on the risk base, on our risk
Speaker 6: based principle. It is up to our government and it's
Speaker 6: actually up to the departments and the Wisness Force to
Speaker 6: make a determination about whether the arms are being sold
Speaker 6: according to a risk profile. Is there a risk that
Speaker 6: these arms are going to be used in war crimes?
Speaker 6: Are they going to be used to be used an
Speaker 6: international conflicts? That is set within our own arms trade regulations.
Speaker 6: It would be mad to be a situation where you
Speaker 6: had to wait for a quart away another because then
Speaker 6: you'd basically be like, well it was going to say
Speaker 6: an arms to everybody and then find our ten years
Speaker 6: too late. Of course, we have to operate on a
Speaker 6: risk principle. You can't do any forward planning or licensing
Speaker 6: or if you don't operate on a risk principle like
Speaker 6: this is this is not the way government works.
Speaker 1: And actually, if you wanted, if you wanted a court
Speaker 1: to have said something, the ICJ did say that there
Speaker 1: was a risk of genocide.
Speaker 6: Yes, so you and not just that there's a risk
Speaker 6: of genocide, but that you are now bound to prevent it. Exactly,
Speaker 6: you've got to you've got to take steps to do it,
Speaker 6: not just nothing. You've actually got to prevent it. And
Speaker 6: that's the key word, to prevent. You've got to be
Speaker 6: taking active steps to prevent, to actually give you know,
Speaker 6: some substance to what the IC gas say. What the
Speaker 6: ACE is actually saying is you need to go in
Speaker 6: there and stop is role doing this. That's your duty.
Speaker 6: Whether it's people, or whether it's shutting off the economy
Speaker 6: or whether it's putting in sanctions, you actually have a
Speaker 6: duty to do it.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 6: Of course, the problem is the ice jairs going to
Speaker 6: take ten exactly, take it all over by the time
Speaker 6: the ice gets itself. So sadly I think that I
Speaker 6: think on this stuff Burnham is going to be disappointing.
Speaker 6: It doesn't mean necessarily mean you can't be pressured, but
Speaker 6: I do also think in sort of the broader political filament,
Speaker 6: this is the sort of place that the Greens to
Speaker 6: Progressives can draw like a very clear line of difference.
Speaker 6: And this is where we stand on foreign policy. We
Speaker 6: take an ethical approach to it. Our foreig policy approach
Speaker 6: is based on human security and that's what we care about.
Speaker 1: And as a result of the position that you're predicting,
Speaker 1: which I think you're probably right about. They will find
Speaker 1: it easier to take seats off of Labor in those
Speaker 1: areas that.
Speaker 2: That burn will essentially abandon.
Speaker 6: I think that's I think that's accurate, certainly in the
Speaker 6: short term. I mean, i'd imagine that Burnham and his
Speaker 6: allies have like a plan for reconstituting the Labor Party.
Speaker 6: I don't think it's going to work on its current trajectory,
Speaker 6: because I think you need to do more to re
Speaker 6: canies Cosmo politicism and Britain as like as a real
Speaker 6: force in international solidarity, as a real force for our politics.
Speaker 6: My sense is that for this next electoral cycle, the
Speaker 6: Labor Party will effectively not give up. Will probably internally
Speaker 6: have a sense that they're going to lose places at Bristol,
Speaker 6: They're going to lose big parts of London, They're going
Speaker 6: to lose you know, Norwich, They're going to lose very
Speaker 6: substantial parts of Birmingham. But they will reconstitute some of
Speaker 6: their voting coalition outside of Yeah, that's right, and that's
Speaker 6: I think from a national perspective, it's a good thing.
Speaker 6: I think because all of this suggests that the one
Speaker 6: thing that I think we are going to have to
Speaker 6: give Burnham credit for, even though I'm criticizing him here
Speaker 6: is I think if he does the domestic stuff well,
Speaker 6: he then reduces the structural conditions that produce reform, and
Speaker 6: I think that could be in a major achievement, and
Speaker 6: then that generally brings all of our politics more left
Speaker 6: wing and more humane and more interesting and more.
Speaker 14: Normal.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's going to be a reforms fear, isn't it.
Speaker 1: That is what they are going to do, and in
Speaker 1: fact looks like they have been to some extent making
Speaker 1: them in roads, even though reform has been very very
Speaker 1: well destroying itself in the last few few months of
Speaker 1: ven and may have got a bit lucky there. The
Speaker 1: tiny Spanish territory of Cuta shares a border with Morocco
Speaker 1: in North Africa, and on Thursday a record number of
Speaker 1: migrants swam from Morocco.
Speaker 2: To the enclave.
Speaker 1: Spanish officials have estimated that some forty nine thousand people
Speaker 1: swam around barriers to the territory, which consists largely of
Speaker 1: a single city. Given that the current population of the
Speaker 1: region is just eighty thousand people, that's an overwhelming number.
Speaker 1: The migrants were mostly young Moroccan men, but included women, children,
Speaker 1: and non Moroccans. At least fifty seven people have died
Speaker 1: attempting to enter Queta, according to the territory's president. Spain's
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has called it an attack and
Speaker 1: a violation of Spain's territorial integrity. As a part of Spain,
Speaker 1: Queta is also part of the EU, that led EU
Speaker 1: Commissioner condlay And to say this, the images coming from
Speaker 1: Queta are unacceptable. We cannot allow anyone to come to
Speaker 1: our union without abiding by our rules. Dangerous crossings must
Speaker 1: stop immediately, Smuggling networks must be dismantled, and returns must
Speaker 1: be swift as our rules allow. I task two commissioners
Speaker 1: to support to control the situation. Returns have taken place
Speaker 1: throughout today, with thirty seven thousand people returned to Morocco
Speaker 1: by this afternoon, according to Spanish authorities. Now what triggered
Speaker 1: this sudden rush of people from Morocco isn't known, but
Speaker 1: The Financial Times has reported this. The influx in the
Speaker 1: coast Or Enclave, which has a population of about eighty
Speaker 1: three thousand and is hemmed in by Morocco led analyst
Speaker 1: to suggest the Moroccan authorities had deliberately enabled the stream
Speaker 1: of migrants. Queta and Spain's other North African enclave, Malia,
Speaker 1: have long been sources of tension with Morocco, and less
Speaker 1: see the threat of migrants overwhelming Spain's enclaves by land
Speaker 1: or sea as a key source of Rabout's leverage over
Speaker 1: at Madrid. Thousands of people spawned storm brother Queta in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one after a diplomatic riff between Spain and
Speaker 1: Morocco over Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Rabat. That
Speaker 1: doesn't explain, however, why, if true, Morocco would have enabled
Speaker 1: this mass journey of migrants at this particular moment. But
Speaker 1: in recent months, the US has also gotten involved in
Speaker 1: the dispute. In May, Congressman Marioda's Balat, a key ally
Speaker 1: of U Secree of State Marco Rubio, told a Spanish
Speaker 1: newspaper that neither territory were in the geographical territory of Spain,
Speaker 1: but rather of Morocco. Better not mention Alaska, Puerto Rico
Speaker 1: or Hawaii, although of course he's not wrong in terms
Speaker 1: of geography, but those remarks were seen by some as
Speaker 1: revenge for Spain's increasingly defined attitude to the US. Actions
Speaker 1: that irritated the Americans included denying US forces involved in
Speaker 1: the country's illegal war on Iran use of bases on
Speaker 1: Spanish territory and culminated in Spain closing its s by
Speaker 1: S base to US military flights. Spanish ministers, including Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Sanchez, have repeatedly called the war illegal and immoral.
Speaker 1: Israel is also on very bad terms of Spain after
Speaker 1: Sanchoz described the country's actions in Gaza as a genocide,
Speaker 1: imposed the total arms blockade, and called for Israel to
Speaker 1: be banned from international sport as a result. Israel's ambassador
Speaker 1: to the UN, Danny Danon, has also had a go
Speaker 1: posting this Spain, which never misses an opportunity to lecture Israel,
Speaker 1: has the clearest state of emergency in Quetta following the
Speaker 1: crisis over its immigration policy. Maybe before it continues lecturing us,
Speaker 1: it's time it explained to the world why it still
Speaker 1: maintains colonial enclaves in Africa. I think colonial enclaves are
Speaker 1: probably wrong, but I think you can still have colonial
Speaker 1: enclaves and criticize a country which has killed tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of children's children from the air. So sorry, Danny,
Speaker 1: not buying it. Morocco has continually asserted its claims to
Speaker 1: the two territories held by Spain, and when you look
Speaker 1: at the map you can see why. With Queta sitting
Speaker 1: about twenty kilometers from Spain. From Spain at Morocco's northernmost
Speaker 1: point that geographical distance, the British right are having a
Speaker 1: field day. Jack Davey in The Telegraph has declared the
Speaker 1: Spanish left responsible for the invasion, linking it to Sanchez's
Speaker 1: amnesty for undocumented migrants announced earlier this year. Meanwhile, GB
Speaker 1: News tried to spook its audience by describing the event
Speaker 1: as sixty thousand migrants storming the Spanish border. Don't know
Speaker 1: how much geography gb News audiences. No, I didn't know
Speaker 1: about Queta before today. That's a pretty incendiary way of
Speaker 1: describing the matter. This was Navarre's Aaron Besani on that channel.
Speaker 15: But in the case of these particular endcloves, they are
Speaker 15: in Africa. I think this is really important to say
Speaker 15: they are on the land mass of Africa, and I
Speaker 15: would submit that if you have territory like that, this
Speaker 15: will happen. Imagine again for British audience, Imagine if Gibraltar
Speaker 15: wasn't tied to Spain but was tied to Afghanistan, we
Speaker 15: would have lots of Afkhans trying to go there and
Speaker 15: then trying to get British citizenship. I mean, that's basically
Speaker 15: you know, two plus two equals four logic. So there's
Speaker 15: a problem for Spain which goes back many, many years.
Speaker 15: It's a problem for governments of the right of the left,
Speaker 15: the center right, or.
Speaker 4: The center left.
Speaker 15: What I'd add is it is different in so much
Speaker 15: as and it's unique inso much as these aren't refugees.
Speaker 4: Morocco is a relatively successful country.
Speaker 15: So the argument's being made for them to enter Spain,
Speaker 15: let's get a citizenship. Aren't the same that you would
Speaker 15: have had Cassiria in Germany in twenty fifteen, or four
Speaker 15: Iranians or Afghans coming to Britain in the last ten years.
Speaker 4: Morocco's quite a successful country.
Speaker 15: And also what was mentioned there about them being young men,
Speaker 15: they are. You can see that there is no ambiguity
Speaker 15: here that is overwhelmingly young, healthy men. By the way,
Speaker 15: many which I'm sure want to make a life for
Speaker 15: themselves and work really hard and just do really well.
Speaker 4: They want opportunities to fit young men. You can see that.
Speaker 15: So it's a really really unique situation. And you know,
Speaker 15: unless Spain pitches this territory. I think Queta is about
Speaker 15: sixteen square kilometers, it's very very small, and they've had
Speaker 15: it for like four or five hundred years. And not
Speaker 15: just that they should do that, but unless they do
Speaker 15: do that, I don't really understand how you stop it.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I mean, like one way of describing this situation is
Speaker 1: Moroccans going to Morocco and you know, you know, national
Speaker 1: sovereignty and all of that. You know, this is clearly
Speaker 1: just a tiny enclave that Spain has for strategic reasons.
Speaker 1: It's you know, in a very important part whether we're terraining.
Speaker 1: The Strait of Gibraltar is narrow, but you know, it's
Speaker 1: not an invasion of Spain, is I know that there
Speaker 1: are rules that mean that you know, like people manage
Speaker 1: to get to the mainland, you know, the the borderless
Speaker 1: nature of Europe means that you know, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no there's no sense, there's no as far as I've seen,
Speaker 1: there's no indication that that's what people in fact want
Speaker 1: to do, and you know, being moved back out of
Speaker 1: Morocco into Morocco pretty quickly.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no sense that.
Speaker 6: Well so the first of all, like just just before
Speaker 6: we came on, there's been new figures being released about
Speaker 6: the numbers of returns. And also there seems to be
Speaker 6: depending on the source, you read, a lot of discussion
Speaker 6: and the lack of clarity about the number of people
Speaker 6: who actually went over the board. So all the reporting
Speaker 6: says local estimates suggests sixty thousand. What local estimates the Spanish,
Speaker 6: the Spanish government have said it's forty nine.
Speaker 2: Thousand people crossed over, and.
Speaker 6: Of which they say about you know, forty five forty
Speaker 6: six thousand people have already returned. And it basically seems
Speaker 6: to be a message had been sent that basically if
Speaker 6: through people might listen also of other different people. But basically,
Speaker 6: you come to Queta, then there is a possibility that
Speaker 6: there's going to be the amnesty that have been applied
Speaker 6: to other migrants, you might be able to come into
Speaker 6: the EU, there might be some sort of and basically
Speaker 6: it's not true. People found out wasn't true and they
Speaker 6: went back home basically and it seems to me like
Speaker 6: there's a lot of people trying to make and draw
Speaker 6: political inferences are way beyond justified. But what's actually happened.
Speaker 6: So one thing that happened literally against before we came
Speaker 6: on air is that Italy a suspense that a cheng
Speaker 6: and agreement.
Speaker 2: As I said it was going to.
Speaker 6: This is this is incredibly stupid to I mean, that's
Speaker 6: a they share a land border, like they're none of
Speaker 6: these people who have gone to Quita, have crossed, have
Speaker 6: have then.
Speaker 2: Swam. You can't them that straight.
Speaker 6: There's not like an army of boats that people have
Speaker 6: gotten onto and then gone onto the mainland and then
Speaker 6: are heading for the border of Italy.
Speaker 2: This feels like just.
Speaker 6: It feels like there's a degree of internal EU dispute
Speaker 6: that certainly you countries do more right wing and have
Speaker 6: more populous leaders. Look at Spain and they don't particularly
Speaker 6: like their approach to immigration, and there's been like scare
Speaker 6: mongering in presses like Italy in Czechoslovakia around what does
Speaker 6: this mean for the EU? And this is a political
Speaker 6: weapon for them to be using. But actually, you know,
Speaker 6: even though it's very odd and it's awful that you know,
Speaker 6: one thing has been lost in the coverage, it seems
Speaker 6: to me, is that people have died, and that's awful.
Speaker 6: Fifty seven people die, which is terrible, and obviously, you know,
Speaker 6: the people who've caused that to happen should be held
Speaker 6: to I can't but this idea that this suddenly being
Speaker 6: like Spain has suddenly created this like mass immigration panic
Speaker 6: in Europe as nonsense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's totally nonsense.
Speaker 1: I mean I was I was more drawn to like
Speaker 1: the sort of State Department operation angle angle here. And
Speaker 1: it's not just because of that congressman. It's in the
Speaker 1: American Enterprise Institute just earlier this this this year, this guy,
Speaker 1: I think Michael Rubin was writing about like literally, this
Speaker 1: is what Morocco should do. It should use bulldoze as
Speaker 1: it should send people over, It should reclaim these territories.
Speaker 1: I think there is such a you know, in the
Speaker 1: in the in the US rights, such an antagonism towards Spain.
Speaker 1: It's not just for like the military stuff, the bases
Speaker 1: and the airspace over Iran, or it's you know, condemnation
Speaker 1: of Israel. It is also because of that Amnesty project.
Speaker 1: You know, if you remember that document that the State
Speaker 1: Department released last year about you know, it's sort of
Speaker 1: strategic plans for you know, it's strategy where the folks
Speaker 1: on Europe was cultural change mildly and where it was
Speaker 1: you know, this is like the most important issue facing Europe,
Speaker 1: and Spain is really kind of modeling the opposite of that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I mean that document was mad, by the way,
Speaker 6: totally like the most like pulled out of Elo Musk's brain,
Speaker 6: you know, clash Civilizations dance and which I mean, if
Speaker 6: I remember, he basically said that Europe is no longer
Speaker 6: rety partner because it's not white enough, basically, but that
Speaker 6: was pretty basically europe civilization is collapsing because they've got
Speaker 6: too many immigrants. And the interesting thing is like, actually
Speaker 6: the experience in Spain has been quite interesting because they
Speaker 6: take a different approach on all sorts of different things.
Speaker 6: They're actually they're one of the few EU countries that
Speaker 6: it is experiencing like significant economic growth and people.
Speaker 2: Are asking why immigration.
Speaker 1: It's actually like and the acknowledge that in the amnesty
Speaker 1: he said, this is why we're doing it. We're doing
Speaker 1: it because these people will grow our economy over time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was very clear about it at Sanchez and.
Speaker 6: And you know, basically what it's done is it's shown
Speaker 6: we're also living in this very bizarre time that basicity
Speaker 6: Europe is like going to be undergoing like like a
Speaker 6: pretty profound demographic crisis in Spain. Is basically said, yeah,
Speaker 6: we are going to go through a demographic crisis. We're
Speaker 6: going to drop some of the racism that stops us
Speaker 6: from actually dealing with us in the pragmatic terms, and
Speaker 6: we are going to have immigrants and we're going to
Speaker 6: empower them and give them the ability to build lives
Speaker 6: and they will generally speaking, knuckle down and they'll work hard,
Speaker 6: and they'll advance the economy. I mean generally speaking, you
Speaker 6: can't have you know this, I do wonder and this
Speaker 6: is a random straight thought that I've had, So let's
Speaker 6: let's throw it out there. That might be just total nonsense,
Speaker 6: right as a like we'd whether like neoliberalism has like
Speaker 6: destroyed the understanding of labor, Like it's like understand like
Speaker 6: it's destroyed the concept of like you don't have economic
Speaker 6: growth up people like fundamentally, Like I was, I was
Speaker 6: thinking about this the other day because John Heally was
Speaker 6: giving a press a press conference and he said, you know,
Speaker 6: in it was to business people and he said, I'm
Speaker 6: so I'm so glad to see you or hear you
Speaker 6: guys are the wealth creators. And I was like, I
Speaker 6: was so furious by that statement. I was like, no,
Speaker 6: they're literally not the wealth creators. And you're the labor party.
Speaker 6: It used to be doctored in the layor party the
Speaker 6: people who create wealth as labor. That's actually who creates wealth.
Speaker 6: And it feels like people have lost sight of that
Speaker 6: that you you do. You know, fundamentally, all economic growth
Speaker 6: is based on human endeavor until such time was replaced
Speaker 6: by robots. And it's a different discussion altogether. But you know,
Speaker 6: we've got this idea that you could grow an economy indefinitely,
Speaker 6: which you probably shouldn't be doing anyway with our people,
Speaker 6: with our young people, the people who are going to
Speaker 6: be working, and we're not having even in the UK,
Speaker 6: like actually serious mature conversations about like, oh, well, if
Speaker 6: we're not creating the conditions for people to be having
Speaker 6: lots of children and we are allowing on immigration, then
Speaker 6: maybe from a working class and from a class aurdarity perspective,
Speaker 6: if you're going to be bringing loads of people to
Speaker 6: work for you, and they're not give them any rights,
Speaker 6: which is basically what shabano moda is doing. You were
Speaker 6: going to be affecting everybody's class position in a negative way.
Speaker 6: What Spain is basically done is, you know, they attacked
Speaker 6: this is all they're running like a las f faire economy,
Speaker 6: you know, allowing amergacy. What they've actually effectively done is
Speaker 6: they've said to a million people, you now have workers' rights,
Speaker 6: You've now been regularized, you now can't be abused by
Speaker 6: your employer. That's actually what their process does. It's not
Speaker 6: actually just about you are not Spanish, it's actually, now
Speaker 6: you have Spanish rights, you have rights under EU law.
Speaker 6: You can't be working sixteen eighteen hours a day and
Speaker 6: undermining the wages of older people here. And that's actually
Speaker 6: the way you bring people onside and immigration debate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 1: It's interesting the thing you say about neilberalism and the
Speaker 1: notion of labor. I've had like a thought recently from
Speaker 1: the other side, which is neoliberalism is also like convinced
Speaker 1: everyone that governments can't do anything anymore. It's like this
Speaker 1: feature of like what I like to call like the
Speaker 1: clapped right. You know, used to think of like the
Speaker 1: right in politics and somehow being like the engine of
Speaker 1: innovation and whatever. And now every right wing person is like,
Speaker 1: you suggest though, maybe we could do this, and they're
Speaker 1: just like, we can't do anything. And really, like any
Speaker 1: corporations can do these things. Companies can do the things,
Speaker 1: but like, we can't do it.
Speaker 6: First of all, corporations can't do most things they're going
Speaker 6: to do. Yeah, but you know, I've had this conversation.
Speaker 6: This is going to be a bit of a weird tangent.
Speaker 6: But have you ever read The Three Body Problem?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 6: Right, okay, now, very interesting series of books, sci fi books.
Speaker 6: The thing that really struck me about I was like,
Speaker 6: what's it going to be?
Speaker 14: Like?
Speaker 6: I've never actually read like a Chinese novel maybe aby Tannel.
Speaker 6: He really doesn't it, it's like and the thing that
Speaker 6: like is actually the most sci fi aspect of that
Speaker 6: novel is like it goes through all these different phases
Speaker 6: of like human endeavor as it plans for this particular
Speaker 6: there's in engagements of how we're going to deal with aliens,
Speaker 6: and there's multiple different human responses and every human response
Speaker 6: is like, we built amazing underground cities that look like
Speaker 6: trees and leaves.
Speaker 2: And I was like, well, on a.
Speaker 6: Second, where is your belief And it's caerly coming from
Speaker 6: I was like, oh, this is like a Chinese author,
Speaker 6: Chinese perspective. Actually you can do anything, you can do
Speaker 6: any Actually the state is going to build these are
Speaker 6: massive underground cities with leaves and trees and stuff like that.
Speaker 6: And it made me think like there really has been
Speaker 6: the sense and it was a it was a created sense,
Speaker 6: a manufactured sense, and the state is bad at doing stuff,
Speaker 6: you know, and basically.
Speaker 2: You mean it's sometimes bad.
Speaker 6: I mean the famous example there was always used to
Speaker 6: defend your liberalism was the Spanish phone network, the Mexican
Speaker 6: phone network where which is a nationalized phone network, where
Speaker 6: it took you two years to get a phone connection,
Speaker 6: and that was always held up as like this shows
Speaker 6: you why. But like monopolies are bad. Why you know,
Speaker 6: if you have five different phone networks, then you know
Speaker 6: you'll get better services, which might be true for certain
Speaker 6: types of things, it's very much not true. For water,
Speaker 6: it's very much not true for like long term like
Speaker 6: infrastructure development. It's it's certainly not true, for like doing
Speaker 6: anything that might be good for humanity that doesn't necessarily
Speaker 6: turn a profit, like build the internet, right, Like, but
Speaker 6: I think you're right. There is the sense that maybe
Speaker 6: that's why Burnham is so interesting as a character, because
Speaker 6: he thinks the state can do things well. So he's
Speaker 6: the first person who's basically said the computer says yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly exactly, and like, actually, that's that's right.
Speaker 1: Hates it because they're so sort of you know, convinced
Speaker 1: of the absolute impossibility of anything ever changing.
Speaker 6: But also they will also at the same time this
Speaker 6: is the hypocrisy in like the we're not the hypocrisy,
Speaker 6: but certainly that this juncture of the thinking. So they'll
Speaker 6: also then hank back so and imagine Great Britain, which
Speaker 6: is all about the state, like the things will be
Speaker 6: thinking about it is like our response to World War two,
Speaker 6: or you know, we only we only privatized our defense
Speaker 6: industry in the nineteen eighties, which is a disaster, by
Speaker 6: the way, we should never have done that for sorts
Speaker 6: of different reasons. But like the war was about the
Speaker 6: Second World that's state driven. If the NHS is a
Speaker 6: state in city after World War two, greatest boomer living standards.
Speaker 6: The state basically nationalized like sixty percent of the economy
Speaker 6: and built amazing, amazing, amazing things. I just feel like
Speaker 6: I remember seeing something on I was actually it was
Speaker 6: Rifker Brown Navarro who did that article which that was
Speaker 6: so interesting about finished trains and it went like totally
Speaker 6: vile around the world, and I was like, this is
Speaker 6: what happens with you just the state just spent some
Speaker 6: money on infrastructure, and it was actually speaking to Americans, know,
Speaker 6: like I thought that all trains just had to be
Speaker 6: absolutely awful. Covering like rats looked like a hell escape
Speaker 6: and you know, you basically go into like an underground
Speaker 6: apocalyptic world where you may not emerge, and it's like,
Speaker 6: oh no, you kind actually just build nice things if
Speaker 6: you put some money into it and you have some
Speaker 6: project management skills.
Speaker 16: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, that was all a bit of a tangent, a
Speaker 1: great an interesting one from from from from Christ.
Speaker 2: So let's go on to our our last story.
Speaker 1: Britain's first black woman MP and the mother of the House,
Speaker 1: Dian Abbott, has finally been readmitted to the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: That's after her suspension was lifted by Prime Minister Andy
Speaker 1: Burnham's new Chief Whip, Annalisa Midgeley, following the completion of
Speaker 1: an internal process. So what was Abbot alleged to have done?
Speaker 1: The suspension relates to a letter Abbot published in The
Speaker 1: Observer back in twenty twenty three, in which she claimed
Speaker 1: that Irish people, Jewish people and travelers suffered from prejudice, which,
Speaker 1: while similar to racism, is not in fact racism, which
Speaker 1: she appeared to define as relating only to skin color.
Speaker 1: Those groups, she said quote are not all their lives
Speaker 1: subject to racism. That letter got her into hot water,
Speaker 1: and though Abbott apologized at the time, then leader of
Speaker 1: the party Kirstarma, withdrew the whip. The whip was then
Speaker 1: restored in May twenty twenty four, and just a month
Speaker 1: before the July general election, Abbot was confirmed as the
Speaker 1: party's candidate for her seat in Hackney North, although it
Speaker 1: was very clear to outsiders that the Parliamentary Labour Party
Speaker 1: were doing everything in their power to stop her from
Speaker 1: being that candidate. But in July last year, Abbot appeared
Speaker 1: on Radio four where, according to some she reiterated the
Speaker 1: points she'd made in the letter and will come to
Speaker 1: that radio interview in just a moment. She also posted
Speaker 1: around the same time and quickly deleted, very quickly deleted,
Speaker 1: a tweet in which she called the idea for the
Speaker 1: Jewish defense Forces. Later that month, she was suspended from
Speaker 1: the Labour Party again, with a senior party official telling
Speaker 1: the paper it was unlikely she'd ever be readmitted to
Speaker 1: the party.
Speaker 2: Well how wrong they were.
Speaker 1: In a statement posted online on Thursday, Abbot said this today,
Speaker 1: following a process conducted in line with party rules and
Speaker 1: approved by the independent review Process, I have been readmitted
Speaker 1: to the Labour Party. I've been issued with a formal
Speaker 1: warning for a tweet I previously posted by inadvertently referring
Speaker 1: to the Israeli Defense Force as the Jewish Defense Force.
Speaker 1: I used wording that conflates the actions of the State
Speaker 1: of Israel with the Jewish community. I am deeply sorry
Speaker 1: for any hurt caused by that conflation and apologize for
Speaker 1: any hurt caused by it. I have been and remain
Speaker 1: a lifelong anti racist and remain deeply committed to opposing
Speaker 1: racism in all of its forms. Now you'd think that
Speaker 1: would be that, except on Thursday night, Newsnight dedicated more
Speaker 1: than half the program to Abbot's readmission to the party
Speaker 1: and it began. The show's political editor Nicholas What revealing
Speaker 1: he had a pretty one sided Labor Party contact book.
Speaker 16: I am hearing unease amongst Labor MPs who are supportive
Speaker 16: of the Jewish community. One of them I spoke to
Speaker 16: and they said, oh my God, for God's sake, they
Speaker 16: said to me. They talked about real disappointment. I spoke
Speaker 16: to another Labor MP. They said to me, this is
Speaker 16: absolutely outrageous. They fear that this could be a step backwards,
Speaker 16: and they were particularly uneasy that this has happened during
Speaker 16: the recess, when there's no ability for Labor MPs to
Speaker 16: walk up to their whip immediately and say what is
Speaker 16: going on there? Amongst members of the Jewish labor movement,
Speaker 16: they are supportive and have confidence in Andy Burnham. But
Speaker 16: one said to me they were worried that this could
Speaker 16: provide a pretext for those on the left, those who
Speaker 16: still have admiration for Jeremy Corbyn, that they could say,
Speaker 16: in the words of this person, let's overcome the injustice
Speaker 16: that was done to people who were removed from the
Speaker 16: Labor Party over allegations of anti't worried about that. I
Speaker 16: was speaking to Dame Louise Elman, of course, her formerly
Speaker 16: prominent Labor MP who left the Labour Party over the
Speaker 16: anti antisemitism allegations and then came back at the invitation
Speaker 16: of Keir Starmer. She was slightly concerned by the wording
Speaker 16: of dian Abbot's statement today. So the adverse finding against
Speaker 16: Diana Abbot which led her to apologize was a tweet
Speaker 16: a year ago in which she described the Israeli Defense
Speaker 16: Forces as the Jewish Defense Forces. She apologized for that
Speaker 16: because there was an adverse finding on that. And then
Speaker 16: this is what Dian Abbot said, I am deeply sorry
Speaker 16: for any hurt caused by that conflation and apologized for
Speaker 16: any hurt caused by and it was used of the
Speaker 16: word any that Louise Elman picked up on, and Louise Elman,
Speaker 16: this is what she said to me. There have been
Speaker 16: a succession of unfortunate errors in relations to Diane's perception
Speaker 16: of Jewish people. I'm not sure whether she understands the
Speaker 16: mistake she's made, or whether she has found a form
Speaker 16: of words to allow the whip to be restored.
Speaker 1: I guess the implication of that is that the use
Speaker 1: of the any suggests somehow that Abbot doesn't really mean
Speaker 1: it and has just found a kind of formalistic form
Speaker 1: of words which allow allows it to be resorted. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure how you can, you know, infer
Speaker 1: that from from the apology.
Speaker 2: It's just the use of the word any her.
Speaker 1: I would also say any of her if I was
Speaker 1: apologizing to somebody. I don't didn't really understand that that
Speaker 1: inference there.
Speaker 2: But what we do know is that.
Speaker 1: Abbot wasn't required to apologize over the remarks she made
Speaker 1: on Radio four about racism, so that was followed when
Speaker 1: she had the whip restored after the original suspension over
Speaker 1: the Observer article. She then a little while later went
Speaker 1: on the radio and made some remarks that we're going
Speaker 1: to come to and she those remarks haven't been any
Speaker 1: that she doesn't seem to have had to apologize for
Speaker 1: those they don't seem to have that doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be have been a finding about about those remarks on
Speaker 1: the radio program. This was now Phil Rosenberg, president of
Speaker 1: the Board of Jewish Deputies, giving his take.
Speaker 17: Well, I'm very sad and very concerned. I'm sad because
Speaker 17: in many way Dyanabbot is an icon, you know, the
Speaker 17: longest serving female and p the first black female MP
Speaker 17: out of the House, another of the House, and so
Speaker 17: you'd hope that we would find common cause in fighting
Speaker 17: racism in all its different guises. But over and over
Speaker 17: again she's making these statements that are offensive to the
Speaker 17: Jewish community at a time when there is heightened an Semitism,
Speaker 17: deadly anti semitism as we saw at Heaton Park, and
Speaker 17: just completely full statements. You know, when the Nazis developed
Speaker 17: their racial prejudice laws, they were basing them on discrimination
Speaker 17: against African American people under the Jim Crow laws. There
Speaker 17: is Jews and black people should be fighting racism together.
Speaker 17: And unfortunately Dynabber over and over again makes these comments,
Speaker 17: then doubles down on them, and just once again she's
Speaker 17: apologized for the thing, and well she didn't.
Speaker 13: Double down this time. She actually apologized for the tweet.
Speaker 17: Which she apologized, but not for the original thing that
Speaker 17: she had double down for. Right, And I'm just really
Speaker 17: sad and I'm concerned because, as you were implying, we've
Speaker 17: seen this movie before and it doesn't end well for
Speaker 17: the Jewish community. And it does and well, for Labor.
Speaker 1: So that was a reference to Abbot apparently doubling down
Speaker 1: on her comments about her original comments in The Observer
Speaker 1: about racism in that later Radio four interview that also
Speaker 1: became the subject of a heated exchange between News Nights
Speaker 1: presenter Adam Fleming and Labor mp BE Robero adding.
Speaker 18: Something that was said earlier that was wrong talking about
Speaker 18: the interview that she did say that. Diane said in
Speaker 18: the interview that she had done nothing wrong. I think
Speaker 18: this is where some of the issues arise, where sometimes
Speaker 18: you know, the wrong sense is taken out of what
Speaker 18: Diana had said. She didn't say that, and she actually
Speaker 18: reiterated her She said she stood by her apology that
Speaker 18: she made regarding the Observer letter in that same interview.
Speaker 18: So it's very strange that it was reported in that
Speaker 18: way and that you reported it that way today.
Speaker 13: We no just so people are clear. If you go
Speaker 13: back and listen to the GYM Knotty program, which was
Speaker 13: broadcast on Radio four last year, he says to Diane Abbott,
Speaker 13: do you regrets what you said in that letter? And
Speaker 13: she said no, and that is what led to her
Speaker 13: being suspended this latest time.
Speaker 18: The thing is, I think you actually have to listen
Speaker 18: to the whole interview because she I think the way
Speaker 18: in which it was clipped following her saying no, she
Speaker 18: was referring to what he had asked her before whether
Speaker 18: or not she was clear on the fact that people
Speaker 18: experienced racism differently. She also said that she stands by
Speaker 18: the apology that she gave after after having written after
Speaker 18: having written the letter, So I think you have to
Speaker 18: listen to it in its full context and regardless of
Speaker 18: trying to pick at these particular things. Diane has been
Speaker 18: very clear about where she's offending somebody, of offending a
Speaker 18: group of people, being apologetic of it and understanding what
Speaker 18: has gone wrong. And everybody knows that Dan is someone
Speaker 18: who's challenged all forms of racism.
Speaker 13: That exchange continued, But Belle, we're not picking at these
Speaker 13: things in your words, We're reflecting genuine concerns.
Speaker 18: That particular interview. I'm saying, if you wanted to refer
Speaker 18: to anything else that has been said, which I might,
Speaker 18: I must note she's gone and apologized for I would
Speaker 18: like to say, if you listen to the interview properly
Speaker 18: as many people have, what people inferred from it and
Speaker 18: what was reported from it was not entirely accurate. That
Speaker 18: is all I'm saying. And Diana's been very very clear
Speaker 18: about her apology, her initial apology and the apology that
Speaker 18: she's reiterated today. She's very pleased to be back in
Speaker 18: the Labor Party now. I think you'll find that many
Speaker 18: people are pleased that she is. Also, thirty five thousand
Speaker 18: people signed a petition saying that she should be reinstated,
Speaker 18: and I think that's an important thing to note.
Speaker 13: Bell just before you interrupted me, which is the wrong
Speaker 13: way around for these things to work. I think in
Speaker 13: TV and news, I was going to say, we're not
Speaker 13: just picking at things she said in interviews and fixating
Speaker 13: on them. Nick has been reflecting back genuine concern from
Speaker 13: your colleagues in labor.
Speaker 18: I'm making a point about specific Yes to the point
Speaker 18: I'm making that. I'm making your point specifically about what
Speaker 18: you have said.
Speaker 4: And you made that point.
Speaker 13: I'm asking you to make a different point about your
Speaker 13: colleagues tonight and how they're feeling about this.
Speaker 18: I have no issue with my colleagues having concerns, and
Speaker 18: I think it's right for them.
Speaker 2: To express it.
Speaker 18: I know I was talking about your point let's be
Speaker 18: very very clear, I was talking about what you said
Speaker 18: in regards to the interview. Correct, yes, no, no, But
Speaker 18: it's important to make that to make to make a
Speaker 18: proper statement when you're when you're reflecting back on something
Speaker 18: that someone has said. So to now try and say
Speaker 18: that I have said that an entire communities issues should
Speaker 18: or members of my colleagues should be my colleagues issues
Speaker 18: shouldn't be of any concern. That is also not something.
Speaker 2: I'm giving you. I'm giving you a chance.
Speaker 1: So I actually don't agree with rivera ADDIE's take on
Speaker 1: the interview, which we're going to listen to in a minute,
Speaker 1: But I do think she was like super sharp to
Speaker 1: catch that slide that was being made between her sort
Speaker 1: of arguing about the meaning of the interview and the
Speaker 1: inter if you were sort of then making it sound
Speaker 1: as though perhaps she was also dismissing concerns of MPs
Speaker 1: and the Jewish community.
Speaker 2: I think that was a very sharp catch there.
Speaker 1: But look, let's have a listen to the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five interview and see if Abbott really did double down
Speaker 1: on the Observer letter.
Speaker 19: You got into terrible trouble for a letter you wrote
Speaker 19: to the Observer about racism, and you appeared to suggest,
Speaker 19: in the view of some of your critics anyway, that
Speaker 19: the kind of anti semitism that the Jewish community suffered,
Speaker 19: or traveler suffered, or Irish people suffered, was somehow different
Speaker 19: from the racism that you, as a young black person
Speaker 19: had suffered. You were suspended and there was a great hookah.
Speaker 19: Do you look back on that with regret?
Speaker 14: No, not at all. Clearly, there must be a difference
Speaker 14: between racism which is about color, and other types of racism.
Speaker 14: Because you can see traveler Jewish person walking down the
Speaker 14: street you don't know, You don't know unless you stop
Speaker 14: to speak to or or you're in a meeting with them.
Speaker 14: But if you see a black person walking down the street,
Speaker 14: you see straight away that they're black. There are different types.
Speaker 19: Of racism, but the effect is the same. If you
Speaker 19: are going to a synagogue on a Saturday morning and
Speaker 19: you have to have guards outside because some people might
Speaker 19: come along and want to insult you or even throw
Speaker 19: things at you, that's pretty much the same as the
Speaker 19: kind of thing you describe in your book as happening
Speaker 19: to you as a black person. The fact is one
Speaker 19: is a person of color, and one isn't. It's neither
Speaker 19: here nor there. If you suffer it, it's still damaging.
Speaker 14: It is here because you can spot that person of
Speaker 14: color from one hundreds of yards away.
Speaker 20: That is what is different. You will do the thing
Speaker 20: you said.
Speaker 19: Look, if this is misunderstood as you thought it was,
Speaker 19: then I apologize for it. But from the you don't
Speaker 19: believe you did anything wrong, or you didn't attempt to
Speaker 19: say something that you didn't believe.
Speaker 14: I just think that it's silly to try and claim
Speaker 14: that racism, which is about skin color, is the same
Speaker 14: as other types of racism. I just I don't know
Speaker 14: why people would say.
Speaker 19: That, but you would, I assume, condemn anti Semitic behavior
Speaker 19: in the same way that you would condemn racist behavior
Speaker 19: against someone simply because of the color of the skin.
Speaker 14: Well, of course, and I do get a bit weary
Speaker 14: of people trying to pin the anti Semitic label on me,
Speaker 14: because I've spent a lifetime fighting racism of all kinds,
Speaker 14: and in particular fighting anti Sempittism, partly because the nature
Speaker 14: of my constituency.
Speaker 1: So I think it's like it's fairly subtle, was not
Speaker 1: actually even subtle at all. Actually, she said one thing
Speaker 1: in the Observer article, which was that racism was one
Speaker 1: thing and prejudice was a different thing, and they could
Speaker 1: were easily mistaken for one each other, but for one another.
Speaker 1: But you know, Jewish people, travelers, the Irish don't experience
Speaker 1: racism and experienced prejudice. And she also compared it to
Speaker 1: like the experience, you know, she'd use redheads as an
Speaker 1: example of experiencing prejudice. That was a mistake here in
Speaker 1: this interview. She's not actually saying any of that. She's
Speaker 1: just saying that actually there are differences in the way
Speaker 1: that that that racism is enacted and and experienced, and
Speaker 1: that some people some some racism, you know, is a
Speaker 1: result of directly the way that that's that some somebody
Speaker 1: looks and and and On LBC, coler Barry rang into
Speaker 1: the studio to give pretty much that take.
Speaker 2: On the on the Abbot case.
Speaker 20: People didn't hear the words she said, partly because she's
Speaker 20: a black woman, so they dismissed her. So they refused
Speaker 20: to hear the fact that she said that other people
Speaker 20: face prejudice. They do face prejudice. It doesn't mean that
Speaker 20: it's worse or better. It just means that it is.
Speaker 20: And I'm a black man, and when I walk down
Speaker 20: the street, doesn't matter that I'm almost fifty years old.
Speaker 20: People will still cross the road. They will still cross
Speaker 20: the road, they will still grab their handbags. I asked
Speaker 20: the question, are they being careful or are they being prejudiced.
Speaker 20: I've heard MPs say that they don't like black and
Speaker 20: brown faces on TV too many on adverts. There were
Speaker 20: some outrage, but you know what, there wasn't the same
Speaker 20: clamor they don't go on about it. They'ved she's okay,
Speaker 20: now she's still an MB. My racism is literally on
Speaker 20: my skin. Yeah, yours, Yes, you might use Yes, people
Speaker 20: are treated differently for other reasons, but mine is superficient.
Speaker 1: Paul, I'm not surprised that Abbott wasn't They didn't find
Speaker 1: anything wrong with what she said on the radio because
Speaker 1: I think what she said on the radio was completely
Speaker 1: true and it was different from the clumsily phrased thing
Speaker 1: and potentially false thing that she said in the Observer.
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, it's it seems, as she said,
Speaker 1: fairly obvious that there are different types of racisms which
Speaker 1: are just responses to different features of people. All of
Speaker 1: them are racism, but they have their experience differently and
Speaker 1: they are triggered differently. And I'm glad to have her
Speaker 1: back in the party, in the Labor Party.
Speaker 6: What do you think about this, this whole thing is
Speaker 6: is you know it possibly off so much to be
Speaker 6: honest and use my language, like watching all this again happening,
Speaker 6: it's like the most bad faith interpretation of what dan
Speaker 6: Abbott was trying to say and it's been trying to
Speaker 6: say for a very long time, which is an incredibly simple, straightforward,
Speaker 6: really uncontroversial point, really uncontroversial point pretty much anywhere in
Speaker 6: the world outside of like the hermetically sealed nonsense of
Speaker 6: the Labor Party, where like these issues become just storted
Speaker 6: beyond any sort of reasonable interpretation, and you know, it's
Speaker 6: filtering into a political process so toxified this discourse, you
Speaker 6: can't have a serious conversation. So I think, you know,
Speaker 6: first the first things first we have to do is
Speaker 6: like straighten ow what happened. She sent the letter to
Speaker 6: the Observer, where she was trying to make the point
Speaker 6: that there are differences in the ways the prejudice express
Speaker 6: depending on the axis on which the prejudice happens. So
Speaker 6: if you're a black person, it's on your skin, people
Speaker 6: respond to you. If you're Jewish, you might not be
Speaker 6: visibly Jewish. You might not be unless you were in
Speaker 6: a kipper, so you might be able to you might
Speaker 6: you know, you won't experience racism in the same way.
Speaker 6: That's totally uncontroversial thing to say that different types of
Speaker 6: prejudice express themselves differently, just in the same way that
Speaker 6: anti black racism, the types of stereotypes that will be
Speaker 6: associated with blackness is different to the type of sterious
Speaker 6: types that will be associated with people who are Jewish
Speaker 6: and who are Muslim, because they're all culturally determined by
Speaker 6: different historical processes. You know, black people, you know gray
Speaker 6: up in South Africa and a party like the racism
Speaker 6: towards black people is that they're thick, that they are smelly,
Speaker 6: that they are a different, that they're animalistic. The type
Speaker 6: of prejudice that's shown towards Jewish people is that they
Speaker 6: are too smart for their own good, that they are
Speaker 6: malevolent operators because their loan sharks, their shylocks that are
Speaker 6: and Muslims, you know, now, the culturally created prejudice around
Speaker 6: them is that they you know that the Islam is
Speaker 6: a fundamentally vinyl religion. These people will deep down, regardless
Speaker 6: of what country they live and actually have a Muslim
Speaker 6: gene that makes them under do Sharia law every area.
Speaker 6: Like Obviously, different types of prejudice expressed differently, because all
Speaker 6: prejudice is socially constructed, and it's socially constructed at different
Speaker 6: times by different people for different reasons, usually economic domination.
Speaker 6: That's the key thing, right, So Dianahbud's first edited Observer
Speaker 6: is plainly clumsily written. She clearly says something that underplays
Speaker 6: the extent and consequence of anti Jewish presidents.
Speaker 2: Obviously, the Redhead's thing was crazy.
Speaker 6: Obviously I think she immediately apologizes for her right and
Speaker 6: she says, I'm really sorry. This was a drafting error.
Speaker 6: I sent her a Drafters that was wrong. I was
Speaker 6: dealing with my staff member a ment to sense her
Speaker 6: a lated draft where you corrected it and the wrong
Speaker 6: one got in.
Speaker 2: Of course, the question.
Speaker 6: Perhaps like why dubserver and said they knew didn't reflect
Speaker 6: the views that it's a different discussion. But she immediately apologized, right,
Speaker 6: and in that moment the key issue was well, how
Speaker 6: do you deal with an apology from Dynabod versus somebody
Speaker 6: like Steve ree Because Steve Reid made incredibly clumsy comments
Speaker 6: about Jewish businessman and he was immediately absolved. You know,
Speaker 6: he was like, it's fine, you know you made a mistake.
Speaker 6: We are going to you know, part of what drives
Speaker 6: so much British politics is basically who gets the benefit
Speaker 6: of the doubt in a situation like this. Steve Reid
Speaker 6: immediately got the benefit of the dart, Dynabo didn't, and
Speaker 6: dynabin't given the benefit dot for all sorts of reasons,
Speaker 6: not least racism, but also at least because the people
Speaker 6: who didn't want to give the benefit of the dart
Speaker 6: were the same people who make the decision about whether
Speaker 6: she suspends it or not. Right now that happens, they
Speaker 6: take a year to investigate a letter which is apologized for,
Speaker 6: which is an absurdity, and it's plainly designed to humiliate her.
Speaker 2: There's simply no.
Speaker 6: Reason for it to take a year to investigator, and
Speaker 6: they're clear her and they lie about her heatedly in
Speaker 6: that year that Kirstarmer gives an interview where he says,
Speaker 6: you know, one of the first things I did when
Speaker 6: I came in as leaders is I didn't get involved
Speaker 6: in this. She's going, you know, this is an independent process.
Speaker 6: You know, I have no role on this. By the
Speaker 6: time she had an interview, she'd already been cleared by
Speaker 6: the party of wrongby she'd gone through a process. All
Speaker 6: that happened was for the whip to be restored. They're
Speaker 6: repeatedly lied about it. Then we had the Frankester situation
Speaker 6: where she's racially you know, there's a horrible thing that
Speaker 6: Frank Kester says, there's there's a discussion in parliament, she's
Speaker 6: the only person not called.
Speaker 2: To give a discussion about it. Really treats her abominably.
Speaker 1: Right, And then he makes a big show of sort
Speaker 1: of going over it, right yeah, And she.
Speaker 6: Says, and there's a conversation. He says that anything I can,
Speaker 6: She's like, give you the godamn whip back. And basically
Speaker 6: she has to fight tooth and nail, im mobilize like
Speaker 6: a large left in constituency predominantly blackened her constituency to
Speaker 6: make sure she can actually just stand as the MP.
Speaker 6: And she wins that battle. Then she gives us interview
Speaker 6: to the BBC, where plainly what she's saying is I
Speaker 6: stand by the original point that I was making, which
Speaker 6: is entirely uncontroversial. It's so obvious that's what she Yeah,
Speaker 6: it's so obvious what she's saying is that I don't
Speaker 6: you know, she's not saying, oh, I actually meant the
Speaker 6: originally worded She's saying. The point that I'm trying to
Speaker 6: make is that different types of racism and prejudice express themselves,
Speaker 6: which is why I find for rosenbooks coming so discussed
Speaker 6: and really pisses me off this idea that she's not
Speaker 6: actually standing in solidarity to Jewish people by saying, actually,
Speaker 6: we should be sensitive to the unique ways in which
Speaker 6: anti semitism, anti black racism exploss is fundamentally showing your
Speaker 6: sensitive to the issue of anti semitism, like it pisses
Speaker 6: me off that he's even using that moment to imply,
Speaker 6: as far as I can understand, that he's saying that
Speaker 6: she's actually drawing some sort of negative distinction between the
Speaker 6: black and the Jewish community, and she's trying to draw
Speaker 6: where she's not. She's saying, needs are different experiences, and
Speaker 6: we can have a conversation about that right, the other
Speaker 6: thing that drives me mad, and I've got a lot
Speaker 6: of things to get off my chest. Yeah, if you
Speaker 6: can tell for it, I'm on a roll the thing
Speaker 6: that pisses me off about Newsnight so much. And I
Speaker 6: put this on Twitter today because and I've I've been
Speaker 6: trying to take a bit of a Twitter.
Speaker 2: Holiday for the last couple of days.
Speaker 6: But before the book came out, the first big story
Speaker 6: that I wanted to really a poor Openden, A poor
Speaker 6: Ovenden was at the time the book came about the
Speaker 6: chief of the head of Strategy at Number ten. He'd
Speaker 6: being in the Labor Comm's department for a long time,
Speaker 6: and I had these messages from twenty fourteen twenty fifteen
Speaker 6: where he's saying utterly despicable things about dyna Abbot. He's
Speaker 6: recounting he's telling another female staff for white female staffer
Speaker 6: in this conversation, recounting basically getting drunk while other stuff
Speaker 6: as the night before then having a game of you know,
Speaker 6: sex Mary kill about Dynabot and then make me sexualized
Speaker 6: comments about it.
Speaker 2: Really quite disgusting stuff.
Speaker 6: This stuff is plainly in the public interest, right, and
Speaker 6: we know it's the public interest because when I took
Speaker 6: it to a proper news outlet, they actually published it
Speaker 6: and immediately he resigned.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Right, And the reason it's in the public interest because
Speaker 6: you can't have somebody who's their head of strategy saying
Speaker 6: these things about black people and about Dyne Abert. Right now,
Speaker 6: the first people I took that story to was Newsnight.
Speaker 6: You know, I took the story to them, I think
Speaker 6: it was in August last year, and for six weeks
Speaker 6: Newsnight told me they were interested, they didn't run the
Speaker 6: stock and every conversation I had, and I'm not going
Speaker 6: to name the person I aspected was like, all very
Speaker 6: nice and icy, and we think it's such an important story,
Speaker 6: but we're having editorial discussions. We're having editorial discussions. We're
Speaker 6: having editorial discussions. And by the end of it, I
Speaker 6: basically got the message was like, you're just not going
Speaker 6: to touch this. Then I went to ITV the around
Speaker 6: it in three days.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: So Newsnight has a consistent pattern of misrepresenting and misreporting
Speaker 6: on Dynabo and not giving the alternative version.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: So, even in that platform, even in that panel right there,
Speaker 6: five six white people talking about racism, why on earther's
Speaker 6: in Martin Martin Ford on that panel. Martin Ford has
Speaker 6: repeatedly been asked to give, you know, discussions about Dynamic.
Speaker 6: He's worked at DYNAB, He's helped her to try and
Speaker 6: navigate some of her disability issues.
Speaker 2: Why isn't he being brought on board to discuss this issue?
Speaker 6: Instead we have this entirely tone deaf discussion which misrepresents
Speaker 6: what Dynaber says. The other thing, you know, really the
Speaker 6: reason she was resuspended is because of the BBC, because
Speaker 6: what actually happened at that moment is if you listen
Speaker 6: to that interview, it's plain what she's saying. The BBC
Speaker 6: clipped in Socials to make it sound like she was
Speaker 6: saying she didn't regret sending their letter, which wasn't true,
Speaker 6: and immediately as that happened, she was suspended again. There
Speaker 6: was a direct line between them posting of a misleading
Speaker 6: thing on socials and Dynaba being suspended.
Speaker 4: So we have a.
Speaker 6: Situation where they are repeatedly misrepresenting what she says. They're
Speaker 6: getting people on board who I am also I think
Speaker 6: giving the worst faith interpretation of what she has to say.
Speaker 6: They are giving no countervailing opinions. There's not a single
Speaker 6: person on that panel who's not white to speak about it.
Speaker 6: And this is also in the context in which they
Speaker 6: have been given hard evidence of a serious misconduct by
Speaker 6: a senior labor official in government, a buy down abbot,
Speaker 6: and they haven't run that story. Like I don't think
Speaker 6: at this point I'm looking at something. This is not
Speaker 6: a nice, lettered incident. This is a cultural problem within
Speaker 6: Newsnight that they are for some reason unable to report
Speaker 6: accurately and sensitively on this issue. And if they were
Speaker 6: able to report accurately incentives issue, it wouldn't be in
Speaker 6: half an hour, half and half of the episode. It'd
Speaker 6: be a two minute discussion. And part of that discussion
Speaker 6: would be this person has said two things in their life,
Speaker 6: two things in a life that's eighty years long, that
Speaker 6: you don't like on social media, and you think there
Speaker 6: counts more than eighty years of anti racist practice, I
Speaker 6: mean there's outrageous sort of stuff.
Speaker 2: It's outrageous stuff.
Speaker 6: And the BBC really should be ashamed of their conduct,
Speaker 6: should be ashamed of they conduct. Back in twenty twenty
Speaker 6: back in twenty twenty four, Syhu to spend it They
Speaker 6: should be ashamed of what they did there.
Speaker 1: Paul, thank you very much for that, and thank you
Speaker 1: for joining me tonight, and thanks everyone for tuning in.
Speaker 1: Come back on Monday for another live stream from six pm.
Speaker 1: For now you've been watching Navari Media.
Speaker 2: Good night,