with keir starmer hoping to follow these two into downing street, hoping his picture will one day hang there, too, if he wins. the polls — and real votes at by—elections — suggest labour is well on course. but there are months to go before the real test will come. so our one big question this morning — how should the uk's leaders cope with crises abroad now, in an increasingly uncertain world? who better to ask than the foreign secretary, david cameron — now a member of the house of lords? but if he makes it to number 10, how would keir starmer deal with the evolving threats around the world?

morning, morning. and with me at the desk — actor and all—round superstar alan cumming, journalist isabel oakeshott, and the editor—in—chief of the independent, geordie grieg. good morning to all of you. lord cameron, have you got any tips for the opposition leader, sir keir? have you got any tips for him, lord cameron? — have you got any tips for him, lord cameron? , have you got any tips for him, lord cameron?- what _ have you got any tips for him, lord cameron?- what might - have you got any tips for him, lord cameron?- what might they have you got any tips for him, lord - cameron?- what might they be? cameron? plenty. what might they be? get a lan. cameron? plenty. what might they be? get a plan- anything — cameron? plenty. what might they be? get a plan. anything that _ cameron? plenty. what might they be? get a plan. anything that might - cameron? plenty. what might they be? get a plan. anything that might be - get a plan. anything that might be helful to get a plan. anything that might be helpful to you? — get a plan. anything that might be helpful to you? well, _ get a plan. anything that might be helpful to you? well, 2010 - helpful to you? well, 2010 exnerience _ helpful to you? well, 2010 experience when _ helpful to you? well, 2010 experience when he - helpful to you? well, 2010 experience when he went i helpful to you? well, 2010 - experience when he went from opposition into government would be interesting to discuss, but we have -ot interesting to discuss, but we have got a _ interesting to discuss, but we have got a plan, — interesting to discuss, but we have got a plan, he will be glad to know. we will_ got a plan, he will be glad to know. we will hear from you both shortly later in the programme. let's see what's in

the papers this morning. both of our guests have already been busy. david cameron has told the sunday telegraph that the uk had no choice but to strike the houthis in yemen. on the front of geordie's paper keir starmer accuses iran of sponsoring terrorism. the sunday mirror marks 100 days since the war between israel and hamas began. more on the post office — sunday times reports that paula vennells, the former boss, was given a cbe despite warnings being raised. and in the last half hour, news agencies are reporting that four migrants have died trying to cross the channel to get to the uk — we'll bring you more details when we have them. right, something important has happened around the world this week, with american and british military strikes, do you think this is going to change the tone of the conversations are?- to change the tone of the conversations are? there is definitely — conversations are? there is definitely a _ conversations are? there is definitely a scramble - conversations are? there is definitely a scramble for. conversations are? there is - definitely a scramble for leadership and what happens with these very,

very uncertain difficulties, how to keep the highways safe, how to not get into a war, how to show strong moral control of what the argument is, in what we do as a nation, and our role in the world. with the huge necessity not to get over involved and this to become a wider conflict, and this to become a wider conflict, and in the independent we saw keir starmer saying how he wanted to try to combat the injustice of pirates, of people doing wrong, getting involved, echoed by david cameron so we are seeing a scramble for, let's be the grown up in the room, let's try to find a way to show strength, authority, trust and moral common sense. . , . authority, trust and moral common sense, ., , ., ., authority, trust and moral common sense. ., ., ., ,�* sense. that is a tall order, isn't it, isabel. _ sense. that is a tall order, isn't it, lsabel. it— sense. that is a tall order, isn't it, isabel, it is— sense. that is a tall order, isn't it, isabel, it is risky _ sense. that is a tall order, isn't it, isabel, it is risky for - it, isabel, it is risky for politicians to take military action, isn't it? ~ .., politicians to take military action, isn't it? ~ _, ., ., isn't it? welcome at the moment we have near political— isn't it? welcome at the moment we have near political unity _ isn't it? welcome at the moment we have near political unity on - isn't it? welcome at the moment we have near political unity on this - have near political unity on this from _ have near political unity on this from all— have near political unity on this from all sides, this stuff is hugely

important. — from all sides, this stuff is hugely important, absolutely it is, and yesterday— important, absolutely it is, and yesterday we saw huge demonstrations in centrai— yesterday we saw huge demonstrations in central london over some of the related _ in central london over some of the related issues but if you look at polling — related issues but if you look at polling now over what matters most to british _ polling now over what matters most to british voters in an election year. _ to british voters in an election year. at — to british voters in an election year, at the top of the list is still— year, at the top of the list is still the _ year, at the top of the list is still the economy, followed by health. — still the economy, followed by health, followed by immigration. so, i health, followed by immigration. so, idon't _ health, followed by immigration. so, idon't think— health, followed by immigration. so, i don't think we should get too carried — i don't think we should get too carried away about the extent to which _ carried away about the extent to which this— carried away about the extent to which this will shake the way voters plan to— which this will shake the way voters plan to go — which this will shake the way voters plan to go. but which this will shake the way voters [an to no. �* , , plan to go. but it is interesting, alan, in the _ plan to go. but it is interesting, alan, in the last _ plan to go. but it is interesting, alan, in the last 24 _ plan to go. but it is interesting, alan, in the last 24 hours - plan to go. but it is interesting, alan, in the last 24 hours also l plan to go. but it is interesting, i alan, in the last 24 hours also we have had british politicians saying things, like the prime minister and the foreign secretary, like, this is potentially the most dangerous time we have had in the world in decades. do you feel that as a citizen? yes. do you feel that as a citizen? yes, i am terrified, _ do you feel that as a citizen? yes, i am terrified, i _ do you feel that as a citizen? yes, i am terrified, i mean, _ do you feel that as a citizen? yes, i am terrified, i mean, i— do you feel that as a citizen? yes, i am terrified, i mean, i was - do you feel that as a citizen? yes i am terrified, i mean, i was pretty terrified before, but it is just an accident waiting to happen. it is interesting geordie talks about this moral obligation, ifind interesting geordie talks about this moral obligation, i find it interesting geordie talks about this moral obligation, ifind it hard to countenance the idea that we would have these attacks, we take action, and our economy and when the shipping routes are being

threatened, ratherthan shipping routes are being threatened, rather than taking it for compassionate reasons at the beginning of the attack on israel and the war in gaza, that to me is a sign of where our politicians are at. ., , ., ., , sign of where our politicians are at. ., , ., .,, ., sign of where our politicians are at. ., at. lots of dilemmas to unpick with our cuests at. lots of dilemmas to unpick with our guests this _ at. lots of dilemmas to unpick with our guests this morning. _ events that sometimes seem a million miles away have been brought close to home this week. the prime minister says the world is the most unstable it's been for decades after taking his first military action — air strikes against the houthi rebel group backed by iran. it has been attacking ships travelling through the red sea risking trade, which risks higher prices for us all. on thursday night america and britain said enough. the houthis control most of yemen, a country that's been plagued by conflict for years, and which controls the red sea coastline. this morning we asked the brother of one of the main houthi leaders, hussain al bukhaiti, if the strikes will stop their attacks.

they have made it clear that the only target are israeli—linked ships or ships that is heading towards israeli ports, and they have said even though the attack from the uk and as well from the united states, they will not stop because they are at war with israel because at the beginning, before even targeting any ships, they have declared war against israel and have launched ballistic missiles and drones against israel. it is very clear, though, the houthi rebels have been targeting ships that have nothing to do with israel, breaking international law, endangering innocent crew on these ships who've got nothing to do with this conflict whatsoever. what is the international law on what is going on in gaza, the genocide, the killing, the mass bombing, that is why here in yemen they believe that those rules actually they are set to oppress countries like yemen and like palestine. the houthis have said there will be retaliation against the us

and the uk for these strikes, what does that mean? i believe if the united states and the uk will continue their attack, yemeni forces will attack united states battleships and uk ships, maybe using hundreds of drones and missiles and cruise missiles. mr al bukhaiti, thank you so much forjoining us from sanaa this morning. the foreign secretary is with us, good to have you here for the first time. we havejust heard good to have you here for the first time. we have just heard there, good to have you here for the first time. we havejust heard there, far from stopping these attacks, the houthis are vowing retaliation, it is clear from speaking to that man there, they have got no intention of following your action with the cessation of what they are doing in the red sea, what has given you the impression that this would make any difference? ~ ., difference? well, i would turn the auestion difference? well, i would turn the question round _ difference? well, i would turn the question round the _ difference? well, i would turn the question round the other - difference? well, i would turn the question round the other way - difference? well, i would turn the question round the other way and | difference? well, i would turn the . question round the other way and say look at what has happened since the 19th of november, we have had 26 attacks on ships, notjust ships heading to israel or israeli linked ships but ships of all kinds, and

those attacks have been getting worse, we've given warning after winning, we've taken the case to the united nations and had a very clear statement there about the importance of freedom of navigation, and yet the attacks continued. 0ne of freedom of navigation, and yet the attacks continued. one of the last attacks, which included hms diamond, the destroyer, involved over 20 that drones and missiles, so not acting is also a policy that wasn't working and it is right that we have sent this very clear, unambiguous message that we are prepared to follow our words and warnings with actions. but prepared to follow our words and warnings with actions.— warnings with actions. but what makes you _ warnings with actions. but what makes you think _ warnings with actions. but what makes you think it _ warnings with actions. but what makes you think it will- warnings with actions. but what makes you think it will actuallyl makes you think it will actually stop the attacks? because perhaps it might have been worth it as a punishment but do you think it will actually stop a single thing? there are two things _ actually stop a single thing? there are two things it _ actually stop a single thing? there are two things it does, _ actually stop a single thing? there are two things it does, firstly, - actually stop a single thing? there are two things it does, firstly, it i are two things it does, firstly, it does degrade some of the houthi capacity to launch these missiles and drones and we will look at the assessment of that in the coming hours and days, but also it sends this very clear message, that america and others, an alliance of countries backing this action, an alliance of countries including

britain taking part in this action but also including countries like the netherlands, canada and australia, are prepared to take action backing their words and i think that is very important. find think that is very important. and are ou think that is very important. and are you prepared to keep going, if the strikes keep happening and america keeps asking, will you keep going? we america keeps asking, will you keep auoin ? ~ . america keeps asking, will you keep hoin?. ., , america keeps asking, will you keep a oin t ? ~ ., , ,., ., america keeps asking, will you keep hoin?. ., , ., ., going? we are prepared to back a words with _ going? we are prepared to back a words with actions, _ going? we are prepared to back a words with actions, that - going? we are prepared to back a words with actions, that is - going? we are prepared to back a words with actions, that is what l words with actions, that is what they houthis need to know and that i think is the right thing to do. without limit?— think is the right thing to do. without limit? ., ., , without limit? no, look, of course, we look without limit? no, look, of course, we locket— without limit? no, look, of course, we look at all _ without limit? no, look, of course, we look at all of _ without limit? no, look, of course, we look at all of these _ without limit? no, look, of course, we look at all of these things - without limit? no, look, of course, we look at all of these things very l we look at all of these things very carefully and i want to make the point, it is quite interesting going back into government and watching this prime minister, who is very meticulous and careful and looks at every question, are there alternatives, as every other policy been exhausted, have we consulted with colleagues, are we looking at the effect on the region? he goes into every detail in completely the right way, but then is a strong and determined leader who wants to take the right action to try and stop these appalling attacks from happening, and that is the way he will approach it and i think that is entirely right. to will approach it and i think that is entirely right-—

entirely right. to what you didn't do, entirely right. to what you didn't do. though. _ entirely right. to what you didn't do. though. is— entirely right. to what you didn't do, though, is consult _ entirely right. to what you didn't| do, though, is consult parliament and it has been reported in the last couple of days that the decision was actually taken on tuesday, is that true? ~ . ., ., ., ., true? well, we have had a range of meetinas true? well, we have had a range of meetings going _ true? well, we have had a range of meetings going back _ true? well, we have had a range of meetings going back sometime - true? well, we have had a range of - meetings going back sometime because i soon these attacks started, we with others have been looking at what we can do to try and stop this action in the red sea, how we can keep this vital shipping lane open. it's notjust the goods that come here and the effect on our economy, this is also grey being taken to desperately poor countries. this is about why you _ desperately poor countries. this is about why you didn't _ desperately poor countries. this is about why you didn't seek - desperately poor countries. this is about why you didn't seek the - about why you didn't seek the consent? ., , about why you didn't seek the consent? . , ., consent? let me answer that directl . consent? let me answer that directly- so. _ consent? let me answer that directly. so, we _ consent? let me answer that directly. so, we have - consent? let me answer that directly. so, we have given i consent? let me answer that| directly. so, we have given all consent? let me answer that - directly. so, we have given all of these warnings, including warnings that have been given in parliament, and in my view the prime minister followed all the correct procedures, assembling ministers, listening to legal advice, consulting with allies, and there will be a statement in parliament on monday. i don't think it would have been right to have a debate and a vote before this sort of action because i think it is important for reasons of operational security to come on this occasion, take the action and then have a statement in parliament afterwards, but as you will hear

from keir starmer, he was briefed on this, the labour party are supporting this action, so i think we are doing this in exactly the right way. we are doing this in exactly the riaht wa . �* . we are doing this in exactly the riuhtwa. �*, ., ~ we are doing this in exactly the riuhtwa. �*, ., ,, ., we are doing this in exactly the right way-— right way. let's talk about the wider forces _ right way. let's talk about the wider forces at _ right way. let's talk about the wider forces at play _ right way. let's talk about the wider forces at play here, - right way. let's talk about the i wider forces at play here, then. you've said it is nonsense to say that what the houthis are doing is about the conflict between israel and gaza, except they're very clear view, expressed very firmly, is that it is absolutely the houthi group taking action because they are unhappy about what is happening in gaza. flit unhappy about what is happening in gaza. . ., . unhappy about what is happening in gaza. , ., , unhappy about what is happening in gaza. ., , gaza. of course that is what they sa , but gaza. of course that is what they say. but they _ gaza. of course that is what they say, but they have _ gaza. of course that is what they say, but they have attacked - gaza. of course that is what they | say, but they have attacked every sort of ship going through the red sea including ships flagged in india or singapore, and it is unacceptable to allow this to continue. and i do separate the two things. when it comes to israel and gaza, we are doing everything we can to get aid in, we took a whole series of steps last week with the israelis to say they've got to do more to get the number of lorries going into gaza to go up. and also we're doing everything we can to try to get to that sustainable ceasefire. but

foreian that sustainable ceasefire. but foreign minister, you can say whatever you like, these two things are not connected, that is not the way it is seen in the region, these strikes have been interpreted by the villainy —— by the houthis by others in the region is absolutely part of the jigsaw of what is going on in the jigsaw of what is going on in the middle east, and your defence secretary grant shapps has connected this to wider things, he said to iran, we see you, talking about hezbollah, iraq and syria, he says, we see you doing it. 50. hezbollah, iraq and syria, he says, we see you doing it.— we see you doing it. so, your defence _ we see you doing it. so, your defence secretary... - we see you doing it. so, your defence secretary... i- we see you doing it. so, your - defence secretary... i completely agree with grant shapps, we can see what iran is doing in the region, with its proxies of hezbollah and hamas and the houthis, and of course the iranian—backed militia groups in iraq, in all these occasions, they are playing a very malign role, and it is absolutely right that we call it is absolutely right that we call it out, both publicly, as grant has quite rightly done, and also i had a call with the iranian foreign minister to make precisely this point. minister to make precisely this oint. ~ . , ., minister to make precisely this oint. ~ . y., minister to make precisely this oint. ~ . ., minister to make precisely this oint, . ., y., ., n

point. what did you say to him? i said that the _ point. what did you say to him? i said that the houthi _ point. what did you say to him? i said that the houthi action - point. what did you say to him? i said that the houthi action is - said that the houthi action is unacceptable, it is illegal, it is dangerous, it could well result in a severe loss of life and the sinking of ships and it has to stop, they have considerable influence over the houthis, we know that they supply them with weapons, and they should act and i think it is important to be able to have that conversation and i wanted to make sure it was as clear as it possibly could be. but does the uk _ clear as it possibly could be. but does the uk and us action not risk escalation?— does the uk and us action not risk escalation? no, the escalation has been caused _ escalation? no, the escalation has been caused by — escalation? no, the escalation has been caused by the _ escalation? no, the escalation has been caused by the houthis. - escalation? no, the escalation has been caused by the houthis. since| been caused by the houthis. since the 19th of november, we have had these 26 attacks, there have been more of them, they've been getting worse, and not acting is also a policy, and it is a policy that doesn't work. we've seen the is collation take place, so what we're doing is saying, your actions have a consequence, we've given these warnings, we've very much treated military action as a last resort, the strikes themselves were limited, proportionate, targeted, legal, but they were also necessary. but i think it is also worth standing back from all of this as you did in your

introduction and saying, this is a time when it is hard to remember a more unstable and dangerous, uncertain world. very much of the lights, from where i sit in the foreign office, the red lights on the global dashboard are very much flushing. and at that moment it is very important you have in no 10 downing street someone who is a strong leader who takes all of these issues into consideration but has a clear plan for how we enhance this country's security. it feels if the red lights are flashing, many sympathetic to the uk, like the un, there is what iran describes as in excess of resistance to israel. we see iran having links with russia and china. we say the red lights are flashing. should people feel worried and insecure? they should be worried... we have a war in europe, instability in the middle east, we have what war is

taking place in africa and there have been for decades. we have the terrorist threat that is always with us, but added to that we have the state threat of states taking action against people in this country. a whole range of threats, quite aside from climate change and other things we could talk about, and that is exactly why you need a government thatis exactly why you need a government that is thinking very carefully, how do we enhance our security, keep our alliances are strong, work with friends and partners, strengthen our defences against terrorism, make sure our defence budget is capable of doing all the things we need it to do. and i think one of the reasons i came back into government as i look at rishi sunak is a very strong capable leader, not only capable because he has a huge brain but capable because he has the right values. ~ ., , ., values. would it help, given how dangerous _ values. would it help, given how dangerous the _ values. would it help, given how dangerous the world _ values. would it help, given how dangerous the world is, - values. would it help, given how dangerous the world is, if - values. would it help, given how dangerous the world is, if you i dangerous the world is, if you called much more robustly, much more firmly, for israel to end its bombardment of gaza? it has been going on for 100 days now. the hamas

run health ministry says more than 20,000 people have been killed. is it now time for the uk to say enough, there must be an immediate ceasefire? it is enough, there must be an immediate ceasefire? . ., enough, there must be an immediate ceasefire? , ., ._ enough, there must be an immediate ceasefire? , ., ., ceasefire? it is time to say do thin . s. ceasefire? it is time to say do things- one — ceasefire? it is time to say do things. one is _ ceasefire? it is time to say do things. one is a _ ceasefire? it is time to say do things. one is a humanitarian| ceasefire? it is time to say do - things. one is a humanitarian pause where we can get aid in and hostages out would be really helpful and we would support that straight on this question of more general ceasefire, i want it to be sustainable, and you can't have a situation where hamas are in power, still launching rockets, still capable of launching terrorist attacks against israel. that will not be a sustainable ceasefire. it can make you feel better to call for an immediate all—round ceasefire but if it is not going be sustainable you are not really doing something that is going to bring this situation... you really doing something that is going to bring this situation. . ._ to bring this situation... you said this week you _ to bring this situation... you said this week you are _ to bring this situation... you said this week you are worried - to bring this situation... you said this week you are worried israel i to bring this situation... you said . this week you are worried israel may have been breaking international law. doesn't it require, then, a firm at level of protest or rebuke from allies to the uk? we

firm at level of protest or rebuke from allies to the uk?— firm at level of protest or rebuke from allies to the uk? we have been incredibly fun- _ from allies to the uk? we have been incredibly fun. we _ from allies to the uk? we have been incredibly fun. we are _ from allies to the uk? we have been incredibly fun. we are a _ from allies to the uk? we have been incredibly fun. we are a friend - from allies to the uk? we have been incredibly fun. we are a friend and i incredibly fun. we are a friend and ally of israel but we do not hold back and the conversations we have with them about applying international unitarian law, about crucially, right now, what i most want them to do is to allow ships to arrive at the port so we can get aid into gaza that way. we have about 150 trucks a day going into gaza with eight, we need 500. there are people who are hungry and could be starving. people who are ill and we could see real outbreaks of disease. we need that action now. it is not just israel that needs to act, the un needs to do more, the egyptians need to deal with bureaucracy, we need to deal with bureaucracy, we need to deal with bureaucracy, we need to make aid available. there are a whole series of steps, including making sure that the un has that trucks, people and fuel to distribute that aid around gaza. the whole set of steps need to take place right now and we don't hold back from making those points to the israelis. ~ ., ., , ., , israelis. with all of these dangers that ou israelis. with all of these dangers that you have _ israelis. with all of these dangers that you have described, - israelis. with all of these dangers that you have described, would i

israelis. with all of these dangers that you have described, would it| that you have described, would it help if donald trump returns to the white house, a politician who you described as behaving in protectionist xenophobic and misogynistic ways. we protectionist xenophobic and misogynistic ways.— protectionist xenophobic and misogynistic ways. protectionist xenophobic and misoa nisticwa s. ~ ., ., ., ~' misogynistic ways. we have to work with whoever _ misogynistic ways. we have to work with whoever at _ misogynistic ways. we have to work with whoever at the _ misogynistic ways. we have to work with whoever at the us _ misogynistic ways. we have to work with whoever at the us chooses - misogynistic ways. we have to work with whoever at the us chooses asi with whoever at the us chooses as their president and one of the things i saw as prime minister, with barrett and balmer and i got on well, so that was ok, —— barack 0bama. you can have disagreements, prime ministers and presidents of different hues but we have to make that relationship work. it is one of the things that helps to keep us safe in the well, not shown grand eloquent gesture by the uk. what i care about is, do we have the intelligence, the partnerships, to keep our own partners and country safe and that relationship with america is absolutely vital. ever the americans choose to do we will have to try and make it work. you are a diplomat — have to try and make it work. you are a diplomat now, _ have to try and make it work. you are a diplomat now, i noticed in not repeating language you have previously used about donald trump. let's see what happens in the us. you have more information now about

what happened in the channel in the early hours of this money. four people have died, 72 people have been rescued, this is reported by french news agencies. —— early hours of this morning. a very distressing incident and yet more evidence that after many years of trying to grapple with this problem, your conservative party has been unable to stop this, unable to protect vulnerable people, unable to stop what many people think is a ghastly, illegal trade. what many people think is a ghastly, illegaltrade. it is what many people think is a ghastly, illegal trade-— illegal trade. it is heartbreaking when these _ illegal trade. it is heartbreaking when these things _ illegal trade. it is heartbreaking when these things happen - illegal trade. it is heartbreaking when these things happen and i illegal trade. it is heartbreaking i when these things happen and the loss of life that takes place and you can only think about what an appalling end it would be, the cold waters of the channel in the middle of the night. it breaks my heart. it just shows we have to stop the boats, we have to stop this illegal trade in human beings. we have done huge amounts amount, we have given a vast amount of money to help the french with policing operations, a

vast amount in the channel itself, but ultimately the only way you can stop the boats is by busting the model of the people smugglers, making sure if someone goes from .8 in france to point b in britain they do not stay in britain. that route does not work —— from point a in france. ideally you will send them straight back to france in the trade would collapse. that is not available which is why we are pursuing the policy with 0rlando which is why the bill will be asked next week, where the treaty has been signed. it may be unorthodox or unusual but unless we can get flights off and get that system working so people know there is no point getting on that boat in france, because if you do, you will not be able to stay in the uk. 0nce not be able to stay in the uk. once we have done that, we will be able to collapse this trade even more. yes or no, is now a member of the house of lords, will this get through the house of lords? i hope so, sadly i — through the house of lords? i hope so. sadly i don't— through the house of lords? i hope so, sadly i don't have _ through the house of lords? i hope so, sadly i don't have a _ through the house of lords? i hope so, sadly i don't have a personal. so, sadly i don't have a personal majority but i will do everything i

can to help get it through because it is essential. 0f can to help get it through because it is essential. of course it is about dealing with illegal migration and shutting this down but also about saving lives.— and shutting this down but also about saving lives. there will be an interestin: about saving lives. there will be an interesting debate _ about saving lives. there will be an interesting debate in _ about saving lives. there will be an interesting debate in the _ about saving lives. there will be an interesting debate in the coming i interesting debate in the coming daysin interesting debate in the coming days in westminster. let's talk about you and your return to government and what you are doing while you are out of office. 0ut government and what you are doing while you are out of office. out of office you pursued various different business, commercial interests. 0ur viewers might remember that you work for greensill capital. you contacted former colleagues in government on their behalf, a committee of mps, there you are with lex greensill, a committee of mps found you show a significant lack ofjudgment. you significant lack of judgment. you answer some significant lack ofjudgment. you answer some of these claims before but you have never before it said how much money you were paid. documents seen by the bbc say you received about £10 million, is that true? it received about £10 million, is that true? . �* received about £10 million, is that true?- how _ received about £10 million, is that true?- how much - received about £10 million, is that true?- how much did - received about £10 million, is that true?- how much did you l true? it isn't. how much did you receive? while _ true? it isn't. how much did you receive? while it _ true? it isn't. how much did you receive? while it was _ true? it isn't. how much did you receive? while it was out - true? it isn't. how much did you receive? while it was out of - true? it isn't. how much did you i receive? while it was out of office the most important _ receive? while it was out of office the most important thing - receive? while it was out of office the most important thing i - receive? while it was out of office the most important thing i did - receive? while it was out of office | the most important thing i did was to help alzheimer's research uk race millions of pounds for people

battling with dementia, the number one thing i did. i have to stop that now i'm back in government and i havejust that onejob. now i'm back in government and i have just that one job. this issue on greensill has been examined by all these inquiries... you on greensill has been examined by all these inquiries. . ._ all these inquiries... you never answered _ all these inquiries... you never answered how _ all these inquiries... you never answered how much _ all these inquiries... you never answered how much money - all these inquiries... you never| answered how much money you all these inquiries... you never- answered how much money you paid and now you are packing up and it comes with scrutiny that i'm sure you understand, as someone who was in the front line politics for a long time. how much money when you pay by greensill capital? what time. how much money when you pay by greensill capital?— greensill capital? what i have done since coming _ greensill capital? what i have done since coming back— greensill capital? what i have done since coming back into _ greensill capital? what i have done since coming back into office - greensill capital? what i have done since coming back into office is - since coming back into office is resign every otherjob i had. i have given all the information to the person responsible for registering ministers' interest and they have information about the jobs i had ministers' interest and they have information about thejobs i had on the things i did and they are able to make a decision about declaration. during that period i was a private citizen, 2016 to when i took this job. fiur was a private citizen, 2016 to when i took this job-— i took this 'ob. our viewers would believe it i took this job. our viewers would believe it is _ i took this job. our viewers would believe it is relevant _ i took this job. our viewers would believe it is relevant that - i took this job. our viewers would believe it is relevant that you - i took this job. our viewers would believe it is relevant that you are | believe it is relevant that you are a former british prime minister, so there is definitely a public interest in what you did during that time, and now you have returned as foreign secretary so our viewers

will want to know. you say you have registered all your interests now, thatis registered all your interests now, that is perfectly legitimate. but why will you not tell people how much you are paid? there is a figure out there you say is wrong so tell us the right one.— us the right one. because i was a rivate us the right one. because i was a private citizen, _ us the right one. because i was a private citizen, i _ us the right one. because i was a private citizen, i had _ us the right one. because i was a private citizen, i had a _ us the right one. because i was a private citizen, i had a number i us the right one. because i was a private citizen, i had a number of different interests and things i did, including important charitable work and as a private citizen you are entitled to do that and i have done that. on coming back into government i resign every single job, position, everything i did. you make a declaration of your interests, you have to explain companies you have been working for to the person who registers these interests, and that is what they decide to publish. you interests, and that is what they decide to publish.— interests, and that is what they decide to publish. you are now back after a period _ decide to publish. you are now back after a period of _ decide to publish. you are now back after a period of absence, _ decide to publish. you are now back after a period of absence, we - decide to publish. you are now back after a period of absence, we can i after a period of absence, we can show people you taking a red army in the house of lords. —— red arm. what was it like watching your party tearing itself apart during those chaotic conservative years? it was busil a chaotic conservative years? it was busily a difficult _ chaotic conservative years? it was busily a difficult period _

chaotic conservative years? it was busily a difficult period for - chaotic conservative years? it was busily a difficult period for the - busily a difficult period for the country and for the conservative party. i took the view that on leaving office, the best thing to do was not to comment, not to give a running commentary. they were of the moments i wanted to speak out. what moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? — moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? the _ moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? the point _ moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? the point is _ moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? the point is it _ moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? the point is it is - moments i wanted to speak out. what where they? the point is it is hard - where they? the point is it is hard enou:h where they? the point is it is hard enough being _ where they? the point is it is hard enough being prime _ where they? the point is it is hard enough being prime minister- where they? the point is it is hard i enough being prime minister without all your predecessors telling you what to do, so i was relatively silent. there were one or two occasions i spoke out about particular things but on the whole i tried to say very little. i did not go and refresh a whole lot of relationships with european leaders because we were doing important negotiations in europe and i didn't want in any way to go behind the back of government. in some ways may be that has made it easier now to come back in because i am now responsible for a lot of our relationships with european leaders and our relationship with the european union, and so i think it has perhaps been helpful but i haven't sit out 1 million has perhaps been helpful but i haven't sit out1 million positions since 2016. i hated leaving in 2016 but i think it was the right thing

to do because the country have made a choice and it needed new leadership. i think sometimes when you leave office everyone must make their own choice but mine was to get out of the way. but their own choice but mine was to get out of the way-— out of the way. but you are not uuite out of the way. but you are not quite done _ out of the way. but you are not quite done and _ out of the way. but you are not quite done and now— out of the way. but you are not quite done and now you - out of the way. but you are not quite done and now you are - out of the way. but you are not i quite done and now you are back. david cameron, we are pleased to have you in the studio. thank you very much indeed. do tell us what you think and in a few minutes we'll be speaking to keir starmer, too. we will focus a lot on what has been happening around the world. let's see what our panel had to make of what the foreign secretary will say and remember you can tell us what you think. e—mail us or using social media. jordi, what did you think? the great rolls—royce is back, smooth, persuasive —— geordie? there were bombs in the road is when you asked about financial questions. also there was a slight element of have we been there before? tremendously good explanation about why we should go in with houthi and

beat defending against bad things. did you literallyjust say beat defending against bad things. did you literally just say the beat defending against bad things. did you literallyjust say the great rolls—royces back, about david cameron? — rolls—royces back, about david cameron? he rolls-royces back, about david cameron? . , rolls-royces back, about david cameron?— rolls-royces back, about david . cameron?_ such rolls-royces back, about david - cameron?_ such a cameron? he is very smooth. such a flatterer! i — cameron? he is very smooth. such a flatterer! i could _ cameron? he is very smooth. such a flatterer! i could feel... _ cameron? he is very smooth. such a flatterer! i could feel... a _ flatterer! i could feel... a fascinating _ flatterer! i could feel... a fascinating interview. - flatterer! i could feel... a fascinating interview. you flatterer! i could feel... a - fascinating interview. you covered flatterer! i could feel... a _ fascinating interview. you covered a huge _ fascinating interview. you covered a huge amount of ground. a lot of things— huge amount of ground. a lot of things stood out. he didn't deny that these strikes won't make a huge amount— that these strikes won't make a huge amount of— that these strikes won't make a huge amount of difference, he didn't deny the decision was taken several days before _ the decision was taken several days before any— the decision was taken several days before any of the rest of us knew about _ before any of the rest of us knew about it — before any of the rest of us knew about it. he is of course probably still very— about it. he is of course probably still very bruised from that historic— still very bruised from that historic moment when he did ask the commons _ historic moment when he did ask the commons whether they would approve strikes _ commons whether they would approve strikes on _ commons whether they would approve strikes on syria in 2030 and the come _ strikes on syria in 2030 and the come said — strikes on syria in 2030 and the come said no and that was huge humiliation so that was very interesting. do humiliation so that was very interesting.— humiliation so that was very interestinu. ., , , interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade _ interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade us _ interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade us to _ interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade us to try _ interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade us to try to _ interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade us to try to get - interesting. do we worry he will try to persuade us to try to get in - to persuade us to try to get in foreign territory, firing disputes with weapons, with our soldiers?

without asking? flan with weapons, with our soldiers? without asking?— with weapons, with our soldiers? without asking? can i pick up on the greensill issue, _ without asking? can i pick up on the greensill issue, the _ without asking? can i pick up on the greensill issue, the lobbying. - without asking? can i pick up on the greensill issue, the lobbying. you i greensill issue, the lobbying. you challenged him, was he pay £10 million? — challenged him, was he pay £10 million? his denial was a very, very weak— million? his denial was a very, very weak one — million? his denial was a very, very weak one i— million? his denial was a very, very weak one. i think you are in the right— weak one. i think you are in the right ballpark. we weak one. i think you are in the right ballpark.— right ballpark. we will see what ha--ens right ballpark. we will see what ha ens if right ballpark. we will see what happens if others _ right ballpark. we will see what happens if others try _ right ballpark. we will see what happens if others try to - right ballpark. we will see what happens if others try to pick - right ballpark. we will see what happens if others try to pick up | right ballpark. we will see what i happens if others try to pick up on what really happened in that quite murky business. alan, what did you think? i murky business. alan, what did you think?- i don't— murky business. alan, what did you think? er. .. i don't think we have think? er... i don't think we have ever made _ think? er... i don't think we have ever made alan _ think? er... i don't think we have ever made alan cumming - think? er... i don't think we have ever made alan cumming speechless. think? er... i don't think we have - ever made alan cumming speechless. a foreign secretary who is unelected and is _ foreign secretary who is unelected and is the — foreign secretary who is unelected and is the person— foreign secretary who is unelected and is the person who _ foreign secretary who is unelected and is the person who took - foreign secretary who is unelected and is the person who took us - foreign secretary who is unelected and is the person who took us outi foreign secretary who is unelected i and is the person who took us out of europe _ and is the person who took us out of europe and — and is the person who took us out of europe and this _ and is the person who took us out of europe and this is _ and is the person who took us out of europe and this is the _ and is the person who took us out of europe and this is the person- and is the person who took us out of europe and this is the person in- europe and this is the person in charge — europe and this is the person in charge of— europe and this is the person in charge of our— europe and this is the person in charge of our foreign _ europe and this is the person in charge of our foreign policy- europe and this is the person in charge of our foreign policy as i europe and this is the person in| charge of our foreign policy as a government _ charge of our foreign policy as a government. that— charge of our foreign policy as a government. that is— charge of our foreign policy as a government. that is pretty- government. that is pretty terrifying _ government. that is pretty terrifying. secondly, - government. that is pretty terrifying. secondly, this. government. that is pretty. terrifying. secondly, this man government. that is pretty- terrifying. secondly, this man is saying _ terrifying. secondly, this man is saying he — terrifying. secondly, this man is saying he believes _ terrifying. secondly, this man is saying he believes rishi - terrifying. secondly, this man is saying he believes rishi sunaki terrifying. secondly, this man is| saying he believes rishi sunak is terrifying. secondly, this man is . saying he believes rishi sunak is a strong _ saying he believes rishi sunak is a strong leader— saying he believes rishi sunak is a strong leader and _ saying he believes rishi sunak is a strong leader and has— saying he believes rishi sunak is a strong leader and has a _ saying he believes rishi sunak is a strong leader and has a huge - saying he believes rishi sunak is al strong leader and has a huge brain. his academic— strong leader and has a huge brain. his academic credentials _ strong leader and has a huge brain. his academic credentials are - strong leader and has a huge brain. i his academic credentials are without guestion~~~ — his academic credentials are without cuestion. .. , , .,

question... during member of the disaster of — question... during member of the disaster of boris? _ question... during member of the disaster of boris? that _ question... during member of the disaster of boris? that is - question... during member of the disaster of boris? that is not - question... during member of the disaster of boris? that is not the l disaster of boris? that is not the oint, we disaster of boris? that is not the point, we could _ disaster of boris? that is not the point, we could talk— disaster of boris? that is not the point, we could talk for- disaster of boris? that is not the point, we could talk for that - disaster of boris? that is not the i point, we could talk for that about hours _ point, we could talk for that about hours. ~ , ., ,., point, we could talk for that about hours. ~ , ., point, we could talk for that about hours. . , ., ., point, we could talk for that about hours— he i point, we could talk for that about hours— he is hours. why do you say that? he is 'ust hours. why do you say that? he is just talking _ hours. why do you say that? he is just talking the — hours. why do you say that? he is just talking the talk _ hours. why do you say that? he is just talking the talk and _ hours. why do you say that? he is just talking the talk and spewing i just talking the talk and spewing out stuff — just talking the talk and spewing out stuff. like _ just talking the talk and spewing out stuff. like a _ just talking the talk and spewing out stuff. like a smooth - out stuff. like a smooth rolls—royce! _ out stuff. like a smooth rolls—royce! and - out stuff. like a smooth rolls—royce! and i- out stuff. like a smooth rolls—royce! and i feell out stuff. like a smooth - rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked _ rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked up — rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked up at — rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked up at the _ rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked up at the end _ rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked up at the end about - rolls—royce! and i feel that... he talked up at the end about the - rolls—royce! and i feel that... hei talked up at the end about the way he had _ talked up at the end about the way he had used — talked up at the end about the way he had used his— talked up at the end about the way he had used his power— talked up at the end about the way he had used his power and - talked up at the end about the way he had used his power and his - talked up at the end about the way i he had used his power and his access to government — he had used his power and his access to government for— he had used his power and his access to government for his _ he had used his power and his access to government for his own _ he had used his power and his access to government for his own financial. to government for his own financial -ain to government for his own financial gain -- _ to government for his own financial gain -- about— to government for his own financial gain -- about you— to government for his own financial gain —— about you talked _ to government for his own financial gain —— about you talked about. - to government for his own financial. gain —— about you talked about. here he is _ gain —— about you talked about. here he is back— gain —— about you talked about. here he is back in— gain —— about you talked about. here he is back in government, _ gain —— about you talked about. herej he is back in government, unelected. another— he is back in government, unelected. another example _ he is back in government, unelected. another example of— he is back in government, unelected. another example of the _ he is back in government, unelected. another example of the way - he is back in government, unelected. another example of the way that - another example of the way that westminster— another example of the way that westminster does— another example of the way that westminster does not— another example of the way that westminster does not listen - another example of the way that westminster does not listen to i another example of the way that i westminster does not listen to the people _ westminster does not listen to the people. politicians _ westminster does not listen to the people. politicians are _ westminster does not listen to the people. politicians are not - people. politicians are not listening _ people. politicians are not listening-— people. politicians are not listenin.. listening. rolls-royce can crash. are ou listening. rolls-royce can crash. are you trying — listening. rolls-royce can crash. are you trying to _ listening. rolls-royce can crash. are you trying to rescue - listening. rolls-royce can crash. are you trying to rescue what - listening. rolls-royce can crash. | are you trying to rescue what you said? lets talk about some of the substance of what he said. he was very clear, his metaphor was that the red lights are flashing around the red lights are flashing around the world. 1, . ,, ., . the world. back to the current metaphor _ the world. back to the current metaphor -- _ the world. back to the current metaphor -- current - the world. back to the current i metaphor -- current metaphor. the world. back to the current - metaphor -- current metaphor. oh, god. metaphor -- current metaphor. oh, god- what — metaphor -- current metaphor. oh, god. what does _ metaphor -- current metaphor. oh, god. what does that _ metaphor -- current metaphor. oh, god. what does that mean - metaphor -- current metaphor. oh, god. what does that mean for- god. what does that mean for viewers? _ god. what does that mean for viewers? the _ god. what does that mean for viewers? the worry _ god. what does that mean for viewers? the worry is, - god. what does that mean for viewers? the worry is, does i god. what does that mean for viewers? the worry is, does it

become a _ viewers? the worry is, does it become a bigger— viewers? the worry is, does it become a bigger thing - viewers? the worry is, does it become a bigger thing than i viewers? the worry is, does it i become a bigger thing than this small attack? we have to remember that the houthis had their foot on the windpipe of our bread, our oil, our gas, ourtrade. the windpipe of our bread, our oil, our gas, our trade. what has been argued by both keir starmer and david cameron, i think is correct, but yes, there are amber lights flashing, possibly read. you also can't deny _ flashing, possibly read. you also can't deny that — flashing, possibly read. you also can't deny that the _ flashing, possibly read. you also can't deny that the action - flashing, possibly read. you also can't deny that the action in i flashing, possibly read. you also can't deny that the action in this| can't deny that the action in this way is _ can't deny that the action in this way is connected _ can't deny that the action in this way is connected to _ can't deny that the action in this way is connected to the - can't deny that the action in this way is connected to the war i can't deny that the action in this way is connected to the war in i can't deny that the action in this i way is connected to the war in gaza. i way is connected to the war in gaza. i found _ way is connected to the war in gaza. i found the _ way is connected to the war in gaza. i found the foreign _ way is connected to the war in gaza. i found the foreign secretary - way is connected to the war in gaza. i found the foreign secretary saying| i found the foreign secretary saying it was not _ i found the foreign secretary saying it was not about _ i found the foreign secretary saying it was not about that, _ i found the foreign secretary saying it was not about that, this - i found the foreign secretary saying it was not about that, this action, i it was not about that, this action, not about— it was not about that, this action, not about the _ it was not about that, this action, not about the conflict, _ it was not about that, this action, not about the conflict, is - it was not about that, this action, not about the conflict, is insane. i not about the conflict, is insane. even _ not about the conflict, is insane. even a _ not about the conflict, is insane. even a battle _ not about the conflict, is insane. even a battle over— not about the conflict, is insane. even a battle over setting - not about the conflict, is insane. even a battle over setting the i not about the conflict, is insane. i even a battle over setting the terms of this debate. thank you for now. we will hear from you after that we speak to keir starmer. last week the prime minister told us repeatedly we must "stick to the plan". labour's new pre—manifesto says, not surprisingly, it's time for change. sir keir starmer has been out and about in the north—west

of england this week pushing that message. but events around the globe are at the top of the list today. so let's start with that. we are going to be again with what we know about what happened in the channel, we know that sadly, for people have died, 72 people have been rescued. what do you make of what we know? mi; been rescued. what do you make of what we know?— been rescued. what do you make of what we know? my first reaction is a human reaction, _ what we know? my first reaction is a human reaction, this _ what we know? my first reaction is a human reaction, this is _ what we know? my first reaction is a human reaction, this is a _ what we know? my first reaction is a human reaction, this is a tragic i human reaction, this is a tragic loss of life, there will be family members and friends grieving at the awful way in which these four individuals lost their lives. i don't know the details, in a sense we don't need to know the details, to lose your life in a small dinghy or boat in the winter sea in the channel is just awful and i'm sure thatis channel is just awful and i'm sure that is where everybody starts on this issue. ., ., ., this issue. david cameron also said it was heartbreaking, _ this issue. david cameron also said it was heartbreaking, as _ this issue. david cameron also said it was heartbreaking, as you've i it was heartbreaking, as you've expressed your own sadness about this kind of event, but he also made

the case that this displays why the government should take the kind of radical action, government should take the kind of radicalaction, doing government should take the kind of radical action, doing something as dramatic as saying, actually, migrants are going to be sent to an african country rather than continue with what is a failed model of asking the french to do a bit more, and it doesn't seem to make much difference, what you say to that? i think he's wrong about that, i absolutely agree that we need to stop these channel crossings. they're dangerous, we've lost control of our borders, and we need to do something to stop the boats. now, i think the starting place for thatis now, i think the starting place for that is to go after the criminal gangs that are running this vile trade. if you look at what is happening, those boats that are being used now are bigger than they were, they are being made to order, they're being brought across europe to the north coast of france, and then people are being put in those boats, it is a vile trade, it makes for the traffickers millions of pounds. i think that we need to

smash those gangs.— pounds. i think that we need to smash those gangs. which is very similar to what _ smash those gangs. which is very similar to what the _ smash those gangs. which is very similar to what the government i smash those gangs. which is very i similar to what the government says, too, but that does not seem to change very much, the national crime agency is already working on this? before i was a politician i was the chief prosecutor for five years of england and wales, we had to deal with terrorist plots, we had to deal with terrorist plots, we had to deal with those that were smuggling guns and drugs into our country. the way we dealt with that was to join with other countries where those gangs were operating and take them down using data, sharing intelligence, having joint operations, i've done this before, i am convinced that it can be done in relation to these gangs. that is where i put my political muscle, if you like, rather than a gimmick which is the rwanda scheme. so i am absolutely up for this challenge, i know we have got to get to grips with it, i went over to europol to talk to them about what sort of further agreement we could do with them, but having seen this done for terrorist gangs, having seen this done for guns and for drugs, i refuse to accept that

somehow, these gangs are untouchable and we can't do anything about it. let's talk about the military strikes taken by america and britain this week. now, you were brief, you endorse the attacks, david cameron was explicit that this might happen again, would you back more of these kind of strikes? brute again, would you back more of these kind of strikes?— kind of strikes? we will look at the case to government _ kind of strikes? we will look at the case to government puts _ kind of strikes? we will look at the case to government puts forward. | case to government puts forward. you're right, they did briefly, the secure briefing, in relation to this, shortly before the operation, and that is as it should be. we support the action that has been taken. 0bviously support the action that has been taken. obviously there needs to be a statement in parliament tomorrow from the prime minister and a debate in parliament about it. at the moment, what i've been briefed about is the operation that has taken place. i will have to listen carefully to whatever the government says about any further action that may be needed. but says about any further action that may be needed.— says about any further action that may be needed. but theoretically you miaht may be needed. but theoretically you mi . ht do it may be needed. but theoretically you might do it again. _ may be needed. but theoretically you might do it again, that's _ may be needed. but theoretically you might do it again, that's clear. - may be needed. but theoretically you might do it again, that's clear. do i might do it again, that's clear. do you believe, like the government

does, that iran bears some of the responsibility of these attacks, do you think iran is an enemy of our country? i you think iran is an enemy of our count ? ~ . you think iran is an enemy of our count ? ,, . ., country? i think that there are clear links _ country? i think that there are clear links obviously _ country? i think that there are clear links obviously to iran, i country? i think that there are i clear links obviously to iran, there is no issue on that. but i think it is no issue on that. but i think it is important to look at what houthis are doing in the red sea, because those attacks are taking place, they were ramping up and escalating, and sitting back and simply doing nothing in that situation is not an appropriate way to respond, and that is why i back the operation of the government. but is why i back the operation of the government-— is why i back the operation of the government. but you have written very strongly _ government. but you have written very strongly in — government. but you have written very strongly in the _ government. but you have written very strongly in the independent i government. but you have written i very strongly in the independent on sunday today about the wider threats from iran, do you think iran is an enemy of our country? i from iran, do you think iran is an enemy of our country?— from iran, do you think iran is an enemy of our country? i don't want to wrap up — enemy of our country? i don't want to wrap up the _ enemy of our country? i don't want to wrap up the rhetoric, _ enemy of our country? i don't want to wrap up the rhetoric, i _ enemy of our country? i don't want to wrap up the rhetoric, i do i enemy of our country? i don't want to wrap up the rhetoric, i do have i to wrap up the rhetoric, i do have serious concerns, as most people do, about iran, the activities that they are involved in around the region, you listed it with the foreign secretary, and of course, there are sanctions in place in relation to iran. so, iam sanctions in place in relation to iran. so, i am supportive of all of that, i'm deeply concerned about all of this, but i do think that the

operation that took place just a few days ago was very clearly an operation to deal with the houthi attacks in the red sea, this is commercial shipping, these are civilians. in commercial shipping, these are civilians. . ., ., ., civilians. in much of the are world, as ou civilians. in much of the are world, as you know. _ civilians. in much of the are world, as you know, that _ civilians. in much of the are world, as you know, that is _ civilians. in much of the are world, as you know, that is not _ civilians. in much of the are world, as you know, that is not the i civilians. in much of the are world, | as you know, that is not the houthi view, or the view of much of the arab world, that actually this is about this wider pattern? well, i think that is _ about this wider pattern? well, i think that is hard _ about this wider pattern? well, i think that is hard to _ about this wider pattern? well, i think that is hard to sustain i about this wider pattern? well, i | think that is hard to sustain when you look at the targets of the attacks in the red sea, which looked to me to be pretty arbitrary. but in the end, laura, what you're putting to me is that somehow there should be no response to these attacks in the red sea. i don't think that that's appropriate. i haven't actually met or talked to anybody who says the right thing to do is simply to allow these attacks to happen, if they escalate, so be it. nobody thinks that. so, action had to be taken. i was pleased to be briefed about it, we supported that action, the prime minister needs to make a statement. if there is to be further action, and i don't know because i have not been briefed on that, i would expect that briefing,

i would expect the prime minister to make a statement, and we will consider it. make a statement, and we will consider it— consider it. some of your colleagues, _ consider it. some of your colleagues, though, i consider it. some of your colleagues, though, and| consider it. some of your i colleagues, though, and other opposition parties, have said that parliament could have and should have been consulted as a matter of principle, and someone you know rather well used to also believe parliament should always be consulted as a matter of principle. ijust consulted as a matter of principle. i just want to show you something. i would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if — first — the lawful case for it was made — secondly, there was a viable objective — and thirdly, you got the consent of the commons. now, it was one of your own solemn promises to your party members that you would make it mandatory under a prevention of military intervention act that there would be the consent of parliament. have you changed your mind? ., �* , ., of parliament. have you changed your mind? ., �*, ., ,, _ mind? no, there's no inconsistency here. mind? no, there's no inconsistency here- really? _ mind? no, there's no inconsistency here. really? there's _ mind? no, there's no inconsistency here. really? there's obviously i mind? no, there's no inconsistency here. really? there's obviously a i here. really? there's obviously a hue here. really? there's obviously a huge distinction _ here. really? there's obviously a huge distinction between i here. really? there's obviously a huge distinction between an i huge distinction between an operation the like of which we have

seenin operation the like of which we have seen in the last few days and military action, a sustained campaign, military action usually involving troops on the ground. that is recognised by everybody, national security must come first, there will always be urgent situations where parliament can't be consulted beforehand, but the principle that if there is to be a sustained campaign, if we are going to deploy our troops on the ground, that parliament should be informed, there should be a debate, the case should be made and there should be a vote, i do stand by that in principle, absolutely. but i do stand by that in principle, absolutely-— i do stand by that in principle, absolutel . �* . , ., , absolutely. but that small print was not in our absolutely. but that small print was not in your promise _ absolutely. but that small print was not in your promise that _ absolutely. but that small print was not in your promise that you i absolutely. but that small print was not in your promise that you may i absolutely. but that small print was not in your promise that you may to your party, you didn't say, only in certain kinds of situations, so, are you saying that only applies if you're actually talking about boots on the ground?— you're actually talking about boots on the ground? yes, because what i said when i — on the ground? yes, because what i said when i made _ on the ground? yes, because what i said when i made that _ on the ground? yes, because what i said when i made that pledge i on the ground? yes, because what i said when i made that pledge was i said when i made that pledge was that what i wanted to do was to codify the convention, the cabinet manual, as you know, has this in it as a convention, the foreign secretary, now when he prime

minister, really established the convention, which is, if there is to be a sustained campaign, the deployment of troops on the ground... deployment of troops on the ground- - -— deployment of troops on the ground... deployment of troops on the round... , ., , , ground... so, the small print is about the _ ground... so, the small print is about the sustained _ ground... so, the small print is about the sustained campaign. | ground... so, the small print is i about the sustained campaign. hear me out, because _ about the sustained campaign. hear me out, because what _ about the sustained campaign. he: me out, because what david cameron down as prime minister did what i think right, which was to say, if we are going to deploy our troops, there has to be a viable case, and that should be put before parliament and the information made available as far as it can be, there has to be as far as it can be, there has to be a proper legal basis because we are deploying our troops, and there should be a vote.— deploying our troops, and there should be a vote. think our viewers would like to _ should be a vote. think our viewers would like to know, _ should be a vote. think our viewers would like to know, if _ should be a vote. think our viewers would like to know, if you - should be a vote. think our viewers would like to know, if you win i should be a vote. think our viewers would like to know, if you win the i would like to know, if you win the election, will you still introduce that lord? election, will you still introduce that lord?— election, will you still introduce that lord? ~ ., ., , that lord? well, i want to codify that, it that lord? well, i want to codify that. it could — that lord? well, i want to codify that, it could be _ that lord? well, i want to codify that, it could be by— that lord? well, i want to codify that, it could be by a _ that lord? well, i want to codify that, it could be by a law, i that lord? well, i want to codify that, it could be by a law, it- that lord? well, i want to codifyi that, it could be by a law, it could be by some other means, but i am absolutely clear that is a principle i want to see entrenched. you won't commit to passing _ i want to see entrenched. you won't commit to passing it _ i want to see entrenched. you won't commit to passing it as _ i want to see entrenched. you won't commit to passing it as a _ i want to see entrenched. you won't commit to passing it as a law? i'm i commit to passing it as a law? i'm not rulin: commit to passing it as a law? in not ruling out law. but laura of course there will be urgent situations, because when we are on joint operations, where it simply is not possible always, or even wise

always, to consult parliament beforehand because of the disclosure of information, and that is why having been briefed on the operation this week i haven't called for anything more than the statement that i am expecting from the prime minister tomorrow. you that i am expecting from the prime minister tomorrow.— minister tomorrow. you also said back then that _ minister tomorrow. you also said back then that you _ minister tomorrow. you also said back then that you had _ minister tomorrow. you also said back then that you had a - minister tomorrow. you also said i back then that you had a commitment to review all uk arms sales, would you still do that if you win the election? . . you still do that if you win the election?— you still do that if you win the election? , , ., election? yes, we still need to carry out _ election? yes, we still need to carry out that _ election? yes, we still need to carry out that review _ election? yes, we still need to carry out that review of i election? yes, we still need to carry out that review of arms i election? yes, we still need to i carry out that review of arms sales. and would you, as you used to say, stop selling arms to saudi arabia? well, we would do a review of the sales, look at the countries and the relationships that we have, obviously that follows the review. but you used to say, you said in february 2020, we should stop the sale of arms to saudi arabia. is that still your position? we sale of arms to saudi arabia. is that still your position?- that still your position? we will review the _ that still your position? we will review the situation _ that still your position? we will review the situation and i that still your position? we will review the situation and the i that still your position? we will. review the situation and the review will give us the answer to those questions. 50 will give us the answer to those questions-— will give us the answer to those cuestions. ., . , ., questions. so you may not anymore romised questions. so you may not anymore promised to — questions. so you may not anymore promised to stop — questions. so you may not anymore promised to stop the _ questions. so you may not anymore promised to stop the sale _ questions. so you may not anymore promised to stop the sale of i questions. so you may not anymore promised to stop the sale of arms i questions. so you may not anymore| promised to stop the sale of arms to saudi arabia, which is what you used to say in 2020? we saudi arabia, which is what you used to say in 2020?— to say in 2020? we will review the situation, to say in 2020? we will review the situation. the _ to say in 2020? we will review the situation, the review _ to say in 2020? we will review the

situation, the review will _ to say in 2020? we will review the situation, the review will clear i situation, the review will clear what the position is. i situation, the review will clear what the position is.— situation, the review will clear what the position is. i think today ou are what the position is. i think today you are perhaps— what the position is. i think today you are perhaps slightly - what the position is. i think today you are perhaps slightly backing i you are perhaps slightly backing away from some of the things that you said a few years ago. so, you said when you make your prevention of military action promise, it wasn't there in the small print that you only meant boots on the ground. you've just you only meant boots on the ground. you'vejust said... i you only meant boots on the ground. you've just said. . ._ you've just said. .. i would challenge _ you've just said. .. i would challenge that, _ you've just said. .. i would challenge that, laura, i you've just said. .. i would i challenge that, laura, because i made it very clear when i was saying that that it was to codify the existing convention. it's absolutely clear from the cabinet manual, it's absolutely clear from what david cameron did as then prime minister that that was about a sustained campaign with troops on the ground. i'm not sure that our labour activists listening to you understood that complexity. laura, no labour activist _ understood that complexity. laura, no labour activist has _ understood that complexity. laura, no labour activist has ever - understood that complexity. laura, no labour activist has ever said i understood that complexity. laura, no labour activist has ever said to, | no labour activist has ever said to, if urgent action is needed, we should stop that in order for parliament to be convened. this isn't something that is put... fin isn't something that is put... on arms sales. _ isn't something that is put... 0n arms sales, you used to say that you would stop the sale of arms to saudi arabia, you're now saying that you might not do that. i

arabia, you're now saying that you might not do that.— might not do that. i said we will review, might not do that. i said we will review. and _ might not do that. i said we will review, and we _ might not do that. i said we will review, and we will— might not do that. i said we will review, and we will review. i might not do that. i said we will i review, and we will review. people on the left. _ review, and we will review. people on the left, listening _ review, and we will review. people on the left, listening to _ review, and we will review. people on the left, listening to promises i on the left, listening to promises that you make to them in 2020, and even people who have got to know you as opposition leader, they might have heard quite a few times you shifting your position on things, there is nothing wrong with people changing their mind but do you accept that sometimes you give people that impression, there are contradictions between the keir starmer of 2024 and the keir starmer of 2020. ., ., ., ., of 2020. laura, we are in a different — of 2020. laura, we are in a different position _ of 2020. laura, we are in a different position when i of 2020. laura, we are in a different position when it i of 2020. laura, we are in a i different position when it comes to geopolitics and the conflicts that are going on and obviously we have to adapt to the situation in front of us, but let me push back on this wider point, because labour party members are predominantly, overwhelmingly, behind what we've done with the party, to change the party. fouryears done with the party, to change the party. four years ago we were picking ourselves up, bruised, from a terrible election result, and most people, the pessimists in the party, thought that the labour party will never, everwin

thought that the labour party will never, ever win an election again. the optimists thought it would take us at least ten years. we have ruthlessly change the labour party, put ourselves in a position where we can credibly content in the election this year, and the overwhelming majority of labour party members and supporters are delighted, because the reason that theyjoined the labour party, the reason they're active in the labour party, is because we want a labour government. and a lot of your colleagues would say that you've got to that position actually by being ruthless about ditching some of your own positions, and one of the things that many labour members and many of our viewers also that is a ceasefire in gaza. now, we are 100 days into the conflict between israel and gaza after those appalling attacks by hamas into israel, the israeli bombardment of gaza has been intense and has created enormous suffering, we can all see that every single day. is it time now for you as

labour leader to say enough, there must be a ceasefire? the united nations has said it, emmanuel macron has said it, is keir starmer going to say it? has said it, is keir starmer going to sa it? ., ,. , to say it? you described the situation — to say it? you described the situation in _ to say it? you described the situation in gaza, _ to say it? you described the situation in gaza, and i to say it? you described the situation in gaza, and it - to say it? you described the situation in gaza, and it is l situation in gaza, and it is intolerable, the sheer number of deaths, particularly percentage of those, the proportion of those, that our children. the desperate need for humanitarian aid, the fact that hostages are still being held effectively at gunpoint. this is intolerable. and i do think we need a sustainable ceasefire. the question is, how do we get there? i think the first step is, we need a truce, we need a humanitarian truce that allows the space for a number of things to happen. firstly, for humanitarian aid to get in, in much greater quantities and volumes about is at the moment. secondly, we have to have those hostages released. it is very difficult to see how you get to a sustainable ceasefire until that happens. that's truce provides the space for the dialogue that is

needed then towards the political process, which in the end is the only way through this, to a two—state solution. only way through this, to a two-state solution.- only way through this, to a two-state solution. , two-state solution. our viewers will hear clearly — two-state solution. our viewers will hear clearly this _ two-state solution. our viewers will hear clearly this morning, _ two-state solution. our viewers will hear clearly this morning, you - two-state solution. our viewers will hear clearly this morning, you are i hear clearly this morning, you are not going to put yourself in a similar position to emmanuel macron, who says, ceasefire, israel, stop? sustainable ceasefire, the question is how we get there. immediate truce, calling off hostilities, aid neededin truce, calling off hostilities, aid needed in greater volumes to come into gaza to alleviate the awful situation there. the release of hostages. and then the thought about those displaced in this conflict must be allowed to go home and to rebuild their homes and there cannot be any question of is really occupation. that is the road map i see towards a sustainable ceasefire. you have outlined that. before we move on to matches at home, your party has been complaining that rishi sunak using privatejets. we

learnt this week that you accepted a private jet flight from the qatari government. isn't that a contradiction?— government. isn't that a contradiction? , ., ., contradiction? let me explain that. i was at com _ contradiction? let me explain that. l was at com in _ contradiction? let me explain that. l was at com in dubai, _ contradiction? let me explain that. i was at cop28 in dubai, had - contradiction? let me explain that. i was at cop28 in dubai, had a - i was at cop28 in dubai, had a meeting with the mayor of qatar, organised, he had to go back home —— emir of katai. he wanted a meeting with me to discuss the hostage situation in gaza, the cessation of hostilities in gaza can't do occur and offered to fly me to that meeting that we could no longer have in dubai, where i was. mir? meeting that we could no longer have in dubai, where i was.— in dubai, where i was. why is it not ok for the — in dubai, where i was. why is it not ok for the conservative _ in dubai, where i was. why is it not ok for the conservative leader - in dubai, where i was. why is it not ok for the conservative leader to l ok for the conservative leader to take a private jet but 0k ok for the conservative leader to take a private jet but ok for you? there is a distinction.— take a private jet but ok for you? there is a distinction.- i l there is a distinction. really? i will explain _ there is a distinction. really? i will explain it. _ there is a distinction. really? i will explain it. a _ there is a distinction. really? i will explain it. a distinction - will explain it. a distinction between flying in the circumstances i havejust between flying in the circumstances i have just described, between flying in the circumstances i havejust described, and using privatejets i havejust described, and using private jets to jet around england, when trains would get you there nearly as quickly. look, the long

and short of it was that in dubai i was having a number of discussions with international leaders about climate change, as you would expect, but of course i was having a nearly equal number about the conflict in the middle east, how do we have a sustainable path to that ceasefire? the emir of qatar, very important player particularly at that point when there was huge pressure on the situation with hostages, he wanted that meeting and the only way i could have that meeting was to go and see him on a plane.— could have that meeting was to go and see him on a plane. there were len of and see him on a plane. there were plenty of scheduled _ and see him on a plane. there were plenty of scheduled flights - and see him on a plane. there were plenty of scheduled flights between j plenty of scheduled flights between dubai and dell and you said you wouldn't take world cup tickets from them, you are not happy about the human rights record. that them, you are not happy about the human rights record.— them, you are not happy about the human rights record. that you know what these i — human rights record. that you know what these i like, _ human rights record. that you know what these i like, but _ human rights record. that you know what these i like, but we _ human rights record. that you know what these i like, but we are - human rights record. that you know what these i like, but we are trying | what these i like, but we are trying to fit in back—to—back meetings with world leaders, an opportunity to have conversations that would take months to together in a programme back here. i wanted to take the opportunity for the one—to—one

meeting with the emir about really important international issues and i stand by that. important international issues and i stand by that-— stand by that. let's talk about an im ortant stand by that. let's talk about an important issue _ stand by that. let's talk about an important issue at _ stand by that. let's talk about an important issue at home - stand by that. let's talk about an important issue at home one - stand by that. let's talk about an important issue at home one of. stand by that. let's talk about an . important issue at home one of your central promises to viewers, we have talked to you and rachel reeves about it, greenjobs, green energy, that by the end of the parliament, if you win, you say you would invest £28 billion to create. the tricky thing is you started off promising the 28 billion extra every single year, and now you are saying that money might not be forthcoming and you will only spend that much if you can afford it. except you are still promising people the green jobs, green energy, but that doesn't stack up green energy, but that doesn't stack up if you are not committed to paying the price, how can you commit to the promise? let paying the price, how can you commit to the promise?— to the promise? let me be clear what we are committed _ to the promise? let me be clear what we are committed to. _ to the promise? let me be clear what we are committed to. we _ to the promise? let me be clear what we are committed to. we have - to the promise? let me be clear what we are committed to. we have a - to the promise? let me be clear whatl we are committed to. we have a green prosperity plan. that is a growth plan about the next generation of jobs, there is a revolution going on in terms of green energy. other countries are in the race, we need to be in the race for the next generation ofjobs. i also have committed to clean power by 2030. that is renewables, that gives us

cheaper bills, energy security, so putin cannot put his boot on our throat and gives the next generation of jobs. throat and gives the next generation ofjobs. the throat and gives the next generation of 'obs. , ., , throat and gives the next generation of 'obs. ,., , ., , ., of jobs. the point here is that you are promising _ of jobs. the point here is that you are promising those _ of jobs. the point here is that you are promising those goodies - ofjobs. the point here is that you | are promising those goodies which you are not any more committed to the cost that you used to say you would definitely cough up. that does not stack up unless you are suddenly going to find the money somewhere else and put taxes up to pay for it. hear me out. in order to get to clean power 2030 we need investment and i will come back precisely to your point. but also, when we are talking to those that we hope will partner with us on this journey to deliver clean power by 2030, they say to me, look, investment is one thing, but we also need the planning laws changed because it takes far too long to do anything in this country. we need the national grid to move at it much faster pace because at the moment it is giving connection dates to the 20 30s. that will never work. we need an industrial strategy. of course we need investment and i'm very pleased

to make the case for investment in the future and that is why we will invest £28 billion in total by the second half of the parliament, subject to what the government has already assigned to putting green prosperity and of course within our fiscal rules. that is straightforward but i do think this idea of it is only the money that counts, it isn't reflected in the conversations i am having with those that we want to partner with us. and for every pound the government puts in, we want to trigger £3 of private investment because i think when a government invests they are entitled to get the returns for the british taxpayer. to get the returns for the british taxa er. , ., ., j~ taxpayer. yes or no, will the £28 billion investment _ taxpayer. yes or no, will the £28 billion investment definitely - taxpayer. yes or no, will the £28 billion investment definitely be l taxpayer. yes or no, will the £28| billion investment definitely be in the labour manifesto?— billion investment definitely be in the labour manifesto? well, the way i have 'ust the labour manifesto? well, the way i have just described, _ the labour manifesto? well, the way i have just described, yes, _ the labour manifesto? well, the way i have just described, yes, of - i havejust described, yes, of course. , ., , course. yes, of course. keir starmer. — course. yes, of course. keir starmer, thank _ course. yes, of course. keir starmer, thank you - course. yes, of course. keir starmer, thank you for - course. yes, of course. keir i starmer, thank you for coming course. yes, of course. keir - starmer, thank you for coming in and covering such a range of topics.

interesting to talk about foreign affairs when very often in an election campaign we speak almost exclusively about domestic stock rate to have you with us. so what do our panel have to make of that? they have plenty to say about david cameron. what have keir starmer? alan, were you convinced by what he had to say?— had to say? convinced? i think if ou were had to say? convinced? i think if you were to _ had to say? convinced? i think if you were to look— had to say? convinced? i think if you were to look at _ had to say? convinced? i think if you were to look at these - had to say? convinced? i think if you were to look at these two i had to say? convinced? i think if- you were to look at these two people you were to look at these two people you have interviewed today, if you didn't know anything about them, if you are from another planet... sometimes feels like that. indeed, which do you _ sometimes feels like that. indeed, which do you think _ sometimes feels like that. indeed, which do you think would _ sometimes feels like that. indeed, which do you think would be - sometimes feels like that. indeed, which do you think would be a - sometimes feels like that. indeed, i which do you think would be a better leader, a more compassionate person an inspirational person that you want to lead your country? i would say keir starmer, absolutely. is it disappointing that he has gone back on some of his promises? it is disappointing me that he went to qatar after he said he would never visit after the human rights abuses. i think that was reasonable, he made a strong _ i think that was reasonable, he made a strong case. are we really getting so petty? _ a strong case. are we really getting so petty? he a strong case. are we really getting so .e ? , ., ., a strong case. are we really getting so -e ? , , a strong case. are we really getting soe ? ., , so petty? he stood up against the hue so petty? he stood up against the huge human _ so petty? he stood up against the huge human rights— so petty? he stood up against the huge human rights abuses - so petty? he stood up against the huge human rights abuses in - so petty? he stood up against the | huge human rights abuses in qatar and then he went but, as politicians

get near power they have to make bumper mice. i5 get near power they have to make bumper mice-— get near power they have to make bumper mice. is not the vision and the detail and _ bumper mice. is not the vision and the detail and the _ bumper mice. is not the vision and the detail and the persuasion - bumper mice. is not the vision and the detail and the persuasion that| the detail and the persuasion that we all— the detail and the persuasion that we all want — the detail and the persuasion that we all want from _ the detail and the persuasion that we all want from the _ the detail and the persuasion that we all want from the small- the detail and the persuasion that we all want from the small boatsl we all want from the small boats whichm — we all want from the small boats whichm you _ we all want from the small boats which... you know, _ we all want from the small boats which... you know, it— we all want from the small boats which... you know, it is- we all want from the small boats which... you know, it is not- we all want from the small boats which... you know, it is not a - which... you know, it is not a policy, — which... you know, it is not a policy. sending _ which... you know, it is not a policy, sending to _ which... you know, it is not a policy, sending to rwanda, . which... you know, it is not a policy, sending to rwanda, ii which... you know, it is not a - policy, sending to rwanda, i think is a great — policy, sending to rwanda, i think is a great idea _ policy, sending to rwanda, i think is a great idea. i— policy, sending to rwanda, i think is a great idea.— is a great idea. i thought he was very weak- _ is a great idea. i thought he was very weak- i _ is a great idea. i thought he was very weak. i think _ is a great idea. i thought he was very weak. i think they're - is a great idea. i thought he was very weak. i think they're a - is a great idea. i thought he was. very weak. i think they're a policy is ridiculous _ very weak. i think they're a policy is ridiculous. he has to focus on the pull— is ridiculous. he has to focus on the pull factor. all he can say again— the pull factor. all he can say again and _ the pull factor. all he can say again and again is we have to tackle the violent— again and again is we have to tackle the violent gangs. the governance has been — the violent gangs. the governance has been trying to tackle the so—called violent gangs, and they are vile. — so—called violent gangs, and they are vile. for— so—called violent gangs, and they are vile, for so long completely and effectively — are vile, for so long completely and effectively. —— the vile gangs. what will make _ effectively. —— the vile gangs. what will make headlines is his position on those _ will make headlines is his position on those u—turns that will upset the left of _ on those u—turns that will upset the left of the _ on those u—turns that will upset the left of the party. he said we have ruthlessly — left of the party. he said we have ruthlessly changed the labour party and many— ruthlessly changed the labour party and many of us will agree with the u-turns _ and many of us will agree with the u-turns he — and many of us will agree with the u—turns he has made but a wing of his party— u—turns he has made but a wing of his party will be infuriated at that backtracking on the commitment he

made _ backtracking on the commitment he made to— backtracking on the commitment he made to ask parliament to approve military— made to ask parliament to approve military action. he kept on trying to make — military action. he kept on trying to make a — military action. he kept on trying to make a distinction about this being _ to make a distinction about this being about boots on the ground. back when— being about boots on the ground. back when that vote took place on syria _ back when that vote took place on syria we _ back when that vote took place on syria we were never planning to send in the _ syria we were never planning to send in the army— syria we were never planning to send in the army to syria so that was complete — in the army to syria so that was complete nonsense. on sales of arms to saudi _ complete nonsense. on sales of arms to saudi arabia, let's not beat to saudi arabia, let's not heat about— to saudi arabia, let's not heat about the _ to saudi arabia, let's not heat about the bush any further here, he kept on _ about the bush any further here, he kept on saying we will review it. basically — kept on saying we will review it. basically that means he has rowed back _ basically that means he has rowed back. ., ~' basically that means he has rowed back. ., ~ . ., , ., , back. you think clearly he has ditched two — back. you think clearly he has ditched two other _ back. you think clearly he has ditched two other things. - back. you think clearly he has| ditched two other things. what back. you think clearly he has - ditched two other things. what about the position on a ceasefire? he talked about a sustainable ceasefire, about having a truce, allowing humanitarian aid into gaza, which everybody would want more help to get in to alleviate the suffering. but there are many in the labour party who absolutely want him to say stop the bombing, have a ceasefire. do you think it matters still that he will not go there? i think it matters to a large part of the further— think it matters to a large part of the further left. _

think it matters to a large part of the further left. find _ think it matters to a large part of the further left.— think it matters to a large part of the further left. and a lot of young --eole. the further left. and a lot of young people- itut _ the further left. and a lot of young people- itut he _ the further left. and a lot of young people. but he is _ the further left. and a lot of young people. but he is also _ the further left. and a lot of young people. but he is also trying - the further left. and a lot of young people. but he is also trying to - the further left. and a lot of young j people. but he is also trying to get elected and _ people. but he is also trying to get elected and what _ people. but he is also trying to get elected and what is _ people. but he is also trying to get elected and what is key _ people. but he is also trying to get elected and what is key to - people. but he is also trying to get elected and what is key to him - people. but he is also trying to get elected and what is key to him is i people. but he is also trying to get| elected and what is key to him is to be the _ elected and what is key to him is to be the centrist _ elected and what is key to him is to be the centrist social— elected and what is key to him is to be the centrist social party. - elected and what is key to him is to be the centrist social party. not - elected and what is key to him is to be the centrist social party. not ani be the centrist social party. not an extreme _ be the centrist social party. not an extreme party _ be the centrist social party. not an extreme party he _ be the centrist social party. not an extreme party. he is— be the centrist social party. not an extreme party. he is trying - be the centrist social party. not an extreme party. he is trying to - be the centrist social party. not an extreme party. he is trying to be l extreme party. he is trying to be blair-light — extreme party. he is trying to be blair-light he _ extreme party. he is trying to be blair—light. he doesn't _ extreme party. he is trying to be blair—light. he doesn't have - extreme party. he is trying to be blair—light. he doesn't have thel blair—light. he doesn't have the charisma — blair—light. he doesn't have the charisma or— blair—light. he doesn't have the charisma or at _ blair—light. he doesn't have the charisma or at the _ blair—light. he doesn't have the charisma or at the silver- blair—light. he doesn't have the charisma or at the silver tongue blair—light. he doesn't have the . charisma or at the silver tongue of blair~ _ charisma or at the silver tongue of blair~ let's— charisma or at the silver tongue of blair~ let's hope _ charisma or at the silver tongue of blair. let's hope he _ charisma or at the silver tongue of blair. let's hope he doesn't- charisma or at the silver tongue of blair. let's hope he doesn't have i blair. let's hope he doesn't have the judgment _ blair. let's hope he doesn't have the judgment like _ blair. let's hope he doesn't have the judgment like blair— blair. let's hope he doesn't have the judgment like blair to- blair. let's hope he doesn't have the judgment like blair to go- blair. let's hope he doesn't have| the judgment like blair to go into iraq, _ the judgment like blair to go into iraq, that — the judgment like blair to go into iraq. that was _ the judgment like blair to go into iraq, that was the _ the judgment like blair to go into iraq, that was the end _ the judgment like blair to go into iraq, that was the end of- the judgment like blair to go into iraq, that was the end of blair. . iraq, that was the end of blair. let's _ iraq, that was the end of blair. let's not — iraq, that was the end of blair. let's not forget _ iraq, that was the end of blair. let's not forget he _ iraq, that was the end of blair. let's not forget he is _ iraq, that was the end of blair. let's not forget he is hugely. iraq, that was the end of blair. - let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the _ let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the polls — let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the polls he _ let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the polls. he is— let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the polls. he is in— let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the polls. he is in the _ let's not forget he is hugely ahead in the polls. he is in the fortunatel in the polls. he is in the fortunate position— in the polls. he is in the fortunate position that — in the polls. he is in the fortunate position that he _ in the polls. he is in the fortunate position that he doesn't _ in the polls. he is in the fortunate position that he doesn't have - in the polls. he is in the fortunate position that he doesn't have to l in the polls. he is in the fortunatel position that he doesn't have to do very much — position that he doesn't have to do very much he _ position that he doesn't have to do very much. he doesn't— position that he doesn't have to do very much. he doesn't have - position that he doesn't have to do very much. he doesn't have to- position that he doesn't have to do very much. he doesn't have to do. very much. he doesn't have to do over— very much. he doesn't have to do over inspire, _ very much. he doesn't have to do over inspire, he— very much. he doesn't have to do over inspire, he just _ very much. he doesn't have to do over inspire, he just has - very much. he doesn't have to do over inspire, he just has to- very much. he doesn't have to do over inspire, he just has to be - over inspire, he just has to be there — over inspire, he just has to be there if— over inspire, he just has to be there if he _ over inspire, he just has to be there. if he is— over inspire, he just has to be there. if he is ahead - over inspire, he just has to be there. if he is ahead in - over inspire, he just has to be there. if he is ahead in the . over inspire, he just has to be i there. if he is ahead in the policy should _ there. if he is ahead in the policy should inspire. _ there. if he is ahead in the policy should inspire. if— there. if he is ahead in the policy should inspire.— should inspire. if he is in a position. _ should inspire. if he is in a position, show _ should inspire. if he is in a position, show who - should inspire. if he is in a position, show who you i should inspire. if he is in a| position, show who you are should inspire. if he is in a - position, show who you are and again, not listening to the people, not listening to the public. he should be showing the british people that he is inspiring, that he cares, that he is inspiring, that he cares, that he is different to what we have had before. no disrespect, but a lot of that, you are just doing your job... of that, you are 'ust doing your 'ob. .. ,

of that, you are just doing your job. . .- nit-picking - of that, you are just doing your job. . .- nit-picking and l job... trying. nit-picking and catchin: job... trying. nit-picking and catching him _ job... trying. nit-picking and catching him out _ job... trying. nit-picking and catching him out and - job... trying. nit-picking and catching him out and i - job... trying. nit-picking and catching him out and ijust i job... trying. nit-picking and i catching him out and ijust think job... trying. nit-picking and - catching him out and ijust think i am done with that in politics. what am done with that in politics. what would ou am done with that in politics. what would you have _ am done with that in politics. what would you have liked _ am done with that in politics. what would you have liked to _ am done with that in politics. what would you have liked to have heard? more _ would you have liked to have heard? more of— would you have liked to have heard? more of his — would you have liked to have heard? more of his heart and what he feels. interview today have been incredibly professionals, they are both very, very experienced politicians who know _ very experienced politicians who know how — very experienced politicians who know how to back off tricky questions. know how to back off tricky questions-— know how to back off tricky ruestions. ., , , ., ., ., questions. compassionate and ins - irin . questions. compassionate and inspiring readers, _ questions. compassionate and inspiring readers, that - questions. compassionate and inspiring readers, that is - questions. compassionate and inspiring readers, that is what| questions. compassionate and i inspiring readers, that is what we are lacking. for inspiring readers, that is what we are lacking-— are lacking. for a few seconds i thou . ht are lacking. for a few seconds i thought you — are lacking. for a few seconds i thought you were _ are lacking. for a few seconds i thought you were saying - are lacking. for a few seconds i thought you were saying i - are lacking. for a few seconds i thought you were saying i was. are lacking. for a few seconds i - thought you were saying i was being terribly professional. we will now hear from what you thought. you sent and lots of your thoughts during the interview. i promised we would hear from some of our viewers today. patricia whittick says... paul in liverpool says... alexander duguid says...

how indeed will both parties grapple with all the issues on their table in the next few months? we are going to have some fun because it has been heavy and important discussion. i have a question for you — would you be a traitor or a faithful? if you have been living under a rock, the traitors is a huge hit series here and huge across the atlantic where alan is the host rather than claudia winkleman in ever more ridiculous costumes. we can show you in the show. when you look at our politicians, who would be a traitor and he would be a faithful? the would be a traitor and he would be a faithful? , .,. ., would be a traitor and he would be a faithful? , ., , would be a traitor and he would be a faithful? , .,. ., , ., faithful? the very fact of being a olitician faithful? the very fact of being a politician means _ faithful? the very fact of being a politician means that _ faithful? the very fact of being a politician means that you - faithful? the very fact of being a politician means that you are - faithful? the very fact of being a l politician means that you are using all the traits of a traitor. automatically traitor. automatically. the thing about the show is that we watch people lie who have to lie and sadly that is kind of the very definition of a

politician.— of the very definition of a olitician. , i. ~ ., politician. isabel, you know westminster _ politician. isabel, you know westminster well, - politician. isabel, you know westminster well, he - politician. isabel, you know| westminster well, he would politician. isabel, you know- westminster well, he would be the traitors? i westminster well, he would be the traitors? ., ., ., ., ~ . ., traitors? i have to nominate michael gove, the ultimate _ traitors? i have to nominate michael gove, the ultimate machiavelli. - traitors? i have to nominate michael gove, the ultimate machiavelli. this| gove, the ultimate machiavelli. this is a man who stabbed borisjohnson in the back and then went on to somehow ingratiate himself back into government and brilliantly successful machiavelli. it is a two-way _ successful machiavelli. it is a two-way street, _ successful machiavelli. it is a two-way street, betraying i successful machiavelli. it is a two-way street, betraying or| successful machiavelli. it is a i two-way street, betraying or not two—way street, betraying or not betraying — two—way street, betraying or not betraying boris— two—way street, betraying or not betraying. boris would _ two—way street, betraying or not betraying. boris would consider. two—way street, betraying or not i betraying. boris would consider that rishi that _ betraying. boris would consider that rishi that him — betraying. boris would consider that rishi that him in — betraying. boris would consider that rishi that him in the _ betraying. boris would consider that rishi that him in the back, - betraying. boris would consider that rishi that him in the back, rishi i rishi that him in the back, rishi considers— rishi that him in the back, rishi considers boris— rishi that him in the back, rishi considers boris a _ rishi that him in the back, rishi considers boris a traitor- rishi that him in the back, rishi considers boris a traitor by- considers boris a traitor by stabbing _ considers boris a traitor by stabbing him _ considers boris a traitor by stabbing him in— considers boris a traitor by stabbing him in the - considers boris a traitor by stabbing him in the back. considers boris a traitor by. stabbing him in the back after considers boris a traitor by- stabbing him in the back after he left number— stabbing him in the back after he left numberio. _ stabbing him in the back after he left number 10.— stabbing him in the back after he left number 10. they are as bad as each other— left number 10. they are as bad as each other we _ left number 10. they are as bad as each other we can _ left number 10. they are as bad as each other we can agree _ left number 10. they are as bad as each other we can agree that i left number 10. they are as bad as each other we can agree that rishi| each other we can agree that rishi sunak will be _ each other we can agree that rishi sunak will be banished to. - each other we can agree that rishi sunak will be banished to. it i each other we can agree that rishi sunak will be banished to. it is i each other we can agree that rishi sunak will be banished to. it is a l sunak will be banished to. it is a lona wa sunak will be banished to. it is a long way to _ sunak will be banished to. it is a long way to the _ sunak will be banished to. it is a long way to the election. - sunak will be banished to. it is a long way to the election. keir i long way to the election. keir starmer it — long way to the election. keir starmer it would _ long way to the election. keir starmer it would be - long way to the election. keir starmer it would be accused of treachery — starmer it would be accused of treachery by _ starmer it would be accused of treachery byjeremy_ starmer it would be accused of treachery byjeremy corbyn i starmer it would be accused of| treachery byjeremy corbyn and starmer it would be accused of- treachery byjeremy corbyn and vice versa _ treachery byjeremy corbyn and vice versa. it _ treachery by jeremy corbyn and vice versa. , , , ., treachery by jeremy corbyn and vice versa. , , y., ., ., “ versa. it is everywhere you look, this treachery. _ versa. it is everywhere you look, this treachery. alan, _ versa. it is everywhere you look, this treachery. alan, you - versa. it is everywhere you look, this treachery. alan, you are i this treachery. alan, you are everywhere you look, you are in the uk with a new west end show, tell what you are up to yellow i am doing

cabaret show called alan cumming is not acting his age and cabaret show called alan cumming is not acting his ag— not acting his age and it is all on the theme of— not acting his age and it is all on the theme of getting _ not acting his age and it is all on the theme of getting older- not acting his age and it is all on the theme of getting older which | not acting his age and it is all on. the theme of getting older which is something we are clearly all doing. iq charming! what are you saying?! we are _ iq charming! what are you saying?! we are all— iq charming! what are you saying?! we are all ageing and some are seeking help in other ways. igrate we are all ageing and some are seeking help in other ways. we are all caettin seeking help in other ways. we are all getting older — seeking help in other ways. we are all getting older and _ seeking help in other ways. we are all getting older and i _ seeking help in other ways. we are all getting older and i hope - seeking help in other ways. we are all getting older and i hope we i all getting older and i hope we don't all feel too old. i all getting older and i hope we don't all feel too old.— don't all feel too old. i feel i have aged — don't all feel too old. i feel i have aged ten _ don't all feel too old. i feel i have aged ten years - don't all feel too old. i feel i have aged ten years this i don't all feel too old. i feel i i have aged ten years this morning. it has been great having you here this morning. thank you for being with us this morning. it's been an important few days, where rishi sunak took his first military action, with perhaps more to come. our politicians are having to lift their gaze to confront new dangers in the world. this morning we've had a flavour of how keir starmer might deal with them. rishi sunak will be pushed on his approach in parliament tomorrow. there will be more debate in westminster about his controversial law to send migrants to rwanda. a

big week ahead. in a few minutes i'll join paddy o'connell for this sunday's newscast. there he is. he is waiting for our next programme. and, as ever, you can watch anything you missed on iplayer. and i'll see you back here next sunday — same time, same place. goodbye.

live from london. this is bbc news. 100 days after hamas attacked israel, triggering war in gaza, relatives of the hostages taken on that dayjoin a rally in tel aviv. the foreign secretary tells the bbc strikes on houthi fighters in yemen were necessary to protect international trade. four migrants die and a fifth is in a critical condition after their boat sank as they tried to cross the channel from france. and a new king and queen of denmark will take to the throne later.

eric wattellier officially steps down. hello, i'm nicky schiller. breaking news from iceland. there is a new volcanic eruption. a new volcanic eruption has begun near the fishing town of grindavik in the southwest of iceland. this was the same town that was evacuated last month after there was an eruption there. we are told that the lava which you can see spurting out of that new fissure is hundreds of metres away now from the town of grindavik. the people who wear there, about 90 homes, have been safely evacuated. the local authorities have declared an emergency in the area. with more on this let's speak to our reporter meghan owen who is following in the story. dramatic pictures as we can see. tell us how this unfolded.

incredibly