than either of those deeper than either of those factors. and the green party has issued its manifesto, which includes a wealth tax on the wealthiest in society. but will it be long before jokes about being green with envy begin .7 being green with envy begin? we'll be getting into another gb news exclusive as steven edgington reveals more civil service wokery working against the conservative government plus, the brits have a drinking problem. the germans seemingly, seemingly seem to think so as it emerges authorities have halved the strength of beer in england's first game in the euros, halved that strength. well the state of the nation starts now . starts now. i'll also be joined by my panel, the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop, and the writer, broadcaster and occasional gb news presenter emma webb. that's

all coming up after your very latest headlines with polly middlehurst . middlehurst. >> tom. thank you. good evening . >> tom. thank you. good evening. the top story from the newsroom tonight, the prime minister and the labour leader are facing questions tonight ahead of the release of labour's electoral manifesto tomorrow. during the q&a session , sir keir starmer q&a session, sir keir starmer said that his party's manifesto will focus on wealth creation, adding there'd be no tax rises for working people. >> nothing requires us to raise tax and i'll tell you, no, no, i do want to challenge me and i want to deal with this. i want to do things differently. i want to do things differently. i want to grow our economy. i accept that previous labour leaders have sort of pulled the tax lever every single time and dnven lever every single time and driven up spending. i want to grow our economy . the manifesto grow our economy. the manifesto tomorrow will be a manifesto, a plan for wealth creation. now, you may not hear a labour leader say that very often, but for me thatis say that very often, but for me that is the most important

thing. and i want and therefore i'm not going to do what other labour leaders have done and be tempted to simply say every time we're going to pull the tax lever, we're not going to do that. >> sir keir starmer well, earlier on today, rishi sunak insisted he hasn't given up hope of winning the election, but he has warned voters not to give labour a blank check. the prime minister was campaigning in a school in lincolnshire as new figures showed the economy had recorded no growth in april. it's something of a setback after his recent claim that britain's economy had turned a corner. the tories pointed to figures that show there was growth in the months before april . but growth in the months before april. but the liberal growth in the months before april . but the liberal democrats april. but the liberal democrats said rishi sunak had utterly failed to deliver on his promises . the green party has promises. the green party has launched its election manifesto with a promise to tax the super rich to help mend what they're calling broken britain. the party says it would tax the wealthiest i% of workers and would raise national insurance by 8% for those earning more than £50,000, the greens say it would raise £50 billion, which

they want to invest in health and social care in order to what they describe as defend and restore the nhs. the greens have also pledged to bring water companies, railways and the big five retail, energy companies into public ownership and build more social housing in scotland. msps have backed the government and their plans to release prisoners early to ease pressures on the system over 500 prisoners will be released in four waves starting at the end of this month. only inmates serving short sentences of under four years who have 180 days or fewer to serve will be considered for release, the justice secretary, angela constance, announced the move last month following a spike in inmate numbers and concerns about the current limited capacity of prisons. she was clear that the emergency release is part of a plan that requires long term thinking. that's the news. for the latest stories, do sign up to gb news alerts, scan the qr code on your screen or go

to gb news. commou alerts . to gb news. commou alerts. >> thank you polly. now welcome back to state of the nation . back to state of the nation. this morning we learned that the united kingdom economy experienced no growth in april. zero. zilch now across the quarter, the uk is still expected to grow . this is still expected to grow. this is still a recovery. but why on earth is this recovery so bumpy? so sluggish? well, here's a clue. when hollywood wanted to build a new film studio on the site of an old quarry next to the a404 , an old quarry next to the a404, well, last week it was blocked. the local council said no, a £750 million investment with tens of millions for local infrastructure to boot in an industry that is trying to boom industry that is trying to boom in the uk. and the local politicians told that foreign investment where to go zero development, zero growth when

investors tried to build a $3 billion, $3 billion data centre right next to the m25 , the right next to the m25, the government blocked all of that private investment and the jobs that go with it. get this on the grounds that it would spoil views from the busy motorway. yes spoil the view from the m25 . yes spoil the view from the m25. now, when the largest airport in the country has been heaving and straining to build a third runway, politicians have continually blocked the move for decades. competitor paris charles de gaulle has four runways amsterdam schiphol airport has five over an anti—growth uk. however politicians continue to block private investment and hobble our largest airport. now, when mgm entertainment group wanted to invest $2 billion, yes, that's billion with a b in a state of the art new spherical entertainment venue in stratford's olympic park in east london, the london mayor said no waving goodbye to all of that

investment, rejecting the high tech jobs and tech led growth that came with it . even those that came with it. even those dastardly water companies have been trying to build new reservoirs, but due to rounds of consultations, campaigns from local politicians and decades of local politicians and decades of local vetoes, no new reservoir in the south—east has been built in the south—east has been built in the south—east has been built in the last 30 years. instead, we face hosepipe bans and more limited construction. indeed the environment agency is now blocking a cancer hospital. a cancer hospital on the grounds of a lack of water. if only we could build a reservoir. and as for energy, which i'll remind you, is twice as expensive in the uk as it is in the us, it's hard to find a form of energy that parties have supported fracking has been banned under the tories. the labour party want to ban new oil and gas licences in the north sea. the

tories banned onshore wind farms and the lib dems blocked new nuclear power stations when they were in government for their part, the snp maintain a ban on new nuclear power in scotland. as for solar power project, after project is being rejected all for the sake of the rural environment and when it comes to offshore wind farms, amazing . offshore wind farms, amazing. only amazingly, you'll find the green party campaigning against them. is it any wonder we're seeing zero growth? we can choose to build? we can choose to be the build. nothing country approve nothing country, allow nothing country. but if we do that, we're choosing to be the high tax country, the low growth country , a stagnant economy country, a stagnant economy country. there's real low hanging, easy to reach growth out there . all it takes is for out there. all it takes is for politicians of all parties to stop saying no . well, joining me stop saying no. well, joining me now is the editorial director of the institute of economic

affairs, doctor kristian niemietz doctor christine, what do you make of my theory here that actually, this growth stuff is not too difficult ? is not too difficult? >> that's exactly right. yes. i mean, that is the reason why the british economy has been stagnant for more than one and a half decades now. we're not much ficher half decades now. we're not much richer than in two thousand and seven. median incomes are barely higher than they were then. productivity is barely higher than it was then, and it really is not too difficult to work out why there are economies in the world where, you know, people write long phd thesis about why is it, what's the problem with their economies here? it is really pretty clear cut, investors do want to invest. it's just that every day you read stories like the ones that you've just highlighted this. these are not isolated, cherry picked examples. you can find this from pretty much every day and across the board, across every sector, across the whole country . and then it's no country. and then it's no surprise if you just say no to everything. well economic activity has to take place somewhere. it needs places , it

somewhere. it needs places, it needs premises, it needs some, you know, it has to , take place you know, it has to, take place somewhere. someplace. >> and yet, why then are we only feeling that pinch now? we had reasonable growth in the 1990s. in the early 2000, we've had a pretty stagnant level of productivity since the global financial crisis. have we just started saying no to a lot more stuff? a lot more recently ? stuff? a lot more recently? >> well, it is partly that nimbys have been getting better over time at weaponising the planning system in their favour, but then again, it was already an issue even in the 90s. even in the 2000, it just didn't feed through to the extent that it does today. but there were people in think tanks such as my own, but also some of the some of the allied neighbouring ones who have been writing about this in the 90s. in our case, we have publication 1988, which was already pointing out this problem. it seemed at the time that britain could still get away with a lot of nimbyism. it didn't seem to matter that much then, but it's just feeding through into growth rates now.

>> i suppose there are sort of a number of reasons why the economy can be held back in any given country. and perhaps in the 1980s there was easy catch up growth when it came to our very high tax rates , which were very high tax rates, which were reduced or are incredibly restrictive. labour market regulations which were liberalised. i suppose now that those are back to sort of normal levels of most normal countries, although tax has risen a bit in the last couple of years, perhaps the thing that sets the uk apart from many countries , uk apart from many countries, particularly some european countries, is that we're just so much more restrictive on building things. >> that is the factor that makes britain different from most of its neighbour economies or from other oecd economies. so of course i would rather have lower taxes than higher ones. but on taxes than higher ones. but on tax rates, britain is really not that unusual in terms of labour laws. of course, there are lots of things that could be cut back or that that are unnecessary. but again, in that in that aspect, britain is not unusual. you could say the same about dozens of other economies too. it really is just this, this ,

it really is just this, this, this restrictiveness clamping down on economic activity that is what makes britain different. >> so here's where we get to the political question, because most economists would say that tighter restrictions on on the labour market are going to be bad for economic growth. but the labour party is promising to introduce restrictions , on, on introduce restrictions, on, on the labour market. they're going to have much more powerful unions and all the rest of it. my unions and all the rest of it. my question is, can they get away with doing that? can they get away with some things that perhaps free market economists would say would be unambiguously bad for the economy ? if on the bad for the economy? if on the other side of the ledger, they liberalise the planning system. have a look at what the secretary of state, the shadow secretary of state, the shadow secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, peter kyle, said he's obviously in the labour shadow cabinet, pure economic vandalism. he described blocking the building of that data centre because of the view from the m25. he's saying that the labour party would have allowed the construction of that data centre. can we believe them

if they are really serious about liberalising planning, then yes, if you get the basics right, if you just allow a lot more economic activity, then you can get away with a lot of bad stuff on the other side. >> ideally you wouldn't do the bad stuff, you would just have good economic policies across the board. but you can compensate for, higher taxes or. yes. so if you look at france, that would be the classic example. france is about in the same league as britain in terms of gdp per capita , they have of gdp per capita, they have much higher taxes, much more restrictive labour laws. but they allow stuff to be built. >> so what we could do is just swap. we could stay about where we are, which is low growth , a we are, which is low growth, a pretty stagnant economy. but the way we get there is with much higher taxes but easier building instead of lower taxes and harder building. it's almost like we're swapping one form of stagnation for another one. >> that could happen. yes ideally, of course, you would have neither of those. you would just have, liberal planning laws and liberal labour markets and

low taxes. that will be the best of all worlds. but nonetheless, if you, really aggressively liberalise planning and get some other things wrong, you can get away with a lot . it really is away with a lot. it really is the planning side that matters. but of course, you're an economist. >> you're looking at the numbers here. there'll be lots of people who talk about their quality of life, people that perhaps don't want lots of new homes near them, might not want the noise and the disruption of construction . then what about construction. then what about the people who make the argument for quality of life over economic growth? >> well, i mean, nimbyism are preventing housing construction, preventing housing construction, preventing investment , preventing investment, preventing investment, preventing the building of infrastructure that also massively lowers quality of life for a lot of people, especially if we take the housing market, the people who are at the sharp end of the housing crisis, who have to worry about rent increases, who live in cramped accommodations that has a massive impact on their quality of life. and i think they have a much stronger claim on for wanting to see for wanting change in that area, then somebody who might be a bit

inconvenienced that there might be, their view might be, slightly obstructed or that the countryside might be a little bit further out. i mean, i really have little sympathy with, with those people. >> well, it'll be very, very interesting to see if we believe the polls , what the next the polls, what the next government actually does on this. i have to say, i spoke to the, shadow secretary of state, jonathan reynolds, a little bit earlier today. he couldn't give me a clear answer on whether the labour party would approve the third runway at heathrow, for example. so, even though there's some more construction rhetoric from the labour party , it would from the labour party, it would be all that different, i suppose that remains to be seen . but that remains to be seen. but thank you very much. kristian niemietz of the institute of economic affairs . now, niemietz of the institute of economic affairs. now, amidst the green party's pledge to tax the green party's pledge to tax the wealthiest in society, after the wealthiest in society, after the break, i'll be speaking to one millionaire. millionaire who wants be taxed more. at least

sinner. i'm tom harwood. well the green party launched its manifesto today. and one of its key pledges was to hike taxes on wealth in society. yes, multi millionaires and billionaires . millionaires and billionaires. the party claims as a means of raising at least £50 billion for pubuc raising at least £50 billion for public services , as well as public services, as well as their very, very expensive climate policies . well, such climate policies. well, such taxes could include a 1% tax on on wealth of those with assets above 10,000,002% on those with assets above £1 billion. but why on earth would the rich stick around for that? these seemingly small tax rates would in actuality halve the wealth of a billionaire like sirjames dyson in the space of three decades? it's all cumulative . well, my it's all cumulative. well, my next guest, guy singh—watson , is next guest, guy singh—watson, is the founder of riverford organics and a member of a group

called patriotic millionaires uk . now, guy, please just explain for us what is patriotic millionaires uk , we're a group millionaires uk, we're a group of wealthy individuals who believe that the rich should be taxed more so that we can invest in the public services that i think so many people in the uk want to see. >> i suppose my first question to you in that case is, do you make voluntary contributions to hmrc ? hmrc? >> and no. and i think that's a ridiculous assertion . we are ridiculous assertion. we are campaigning that this should be obligatory. i make donations to charities and i do a lot of charitable work . but no, i don't charitable work. but no, i don't i don't take any, sort of proactive of, measures to avoid paying proactive of, measures to avoid paying tax , but yeah, no, i paying tax, but yeah, no, i don't and i, you know, get asked that ridiculous question many times . times. >> it just seems quite strange because if the group is called patriotic millionaires, your whole idea is that rich people

should pay more to hmrc. i mean, you could put your money where your mouth is. >> yeah. our highly patriotic prime minister could do that, couldn't he? he pays 20% tax. someone of his income should be paying someone of his income should be paying over 50% if it was taxed. as most people are taxed , he's as most people are taxed, he's not setting a very good example. you know, if he did. sorry. >> are you trying to imply that the prime minister is improperly paying the prime minister is improperly paying tax? because, of course, as you know , taxation on, on, on as you know, taxation on, on, on capital gains is a different rate that we have . we have a rate that we have. we have a different parties have set because they want to encourage investment in this country. >> he takes most of his income through capital gains. and typically, you know, with capital gains, you pay anything from 10 to 28. it's very easy to arrange your affairs so that you do pay round about 20, which is probably the tax rate that most, you know, very rich people are , you know, very rich people are, are paying, you know, i don't

think that's a patriotic thing to do. i mean , you know, when to do. i mean, you know, when you're on capital gains, you can be paying you know, on shares marginally less than 20, and you're not paying any. >> can we apply some realpolitik? >> continuing with my point and answering your question when you'll be paying, if you're a, paying you'll be paying, if you're a, paying paye, you would be paying , you know, with national insurance, over 50. why should people who make their money through capital gains pay less than working people? it's just nonsensical . nonsensical. >> well, it's a question that was put to gordon brown when he was put to gordon brown when he was chancellor, and of course, it was the labour party that actually lowered capital gains tax. i'm not standing it. >> i'm not standing here that, income taxes were because they wanted to encourage investment. >> and actually, do you know what britain got investment as a result of those tax changes and the economy grew faster , that the economy grew faster, that may coincidentally have been the case, but i can assure you, i've

spent 40 years building up a business and investing in it. and i can tell you, when i was making those investments and working those long days, i was not thinking about what level of capital gains tax i would be paying capital gains tax i would be paying at the end of my life. and i've never met an entrepreneur who actually made anything, as opposed to just the one who sort of traded things who ever did. i mean, that's not what guides or guides our decisions. >> isn't that precisely the point, though? of course, there will always be brilliant entrepreneurs who want to make amazing things, and many things will drive them. besides the amount of money that they'll make, but also, and perhaps most predominantly in every wealthy country, in every financial centre, in the world, particularly the city of london and new york city. there'll be lots of people who make their money by moving money around, and they can choose to put their money into funding things like investments in the uk that actually have spill—over growth effects , or they can choose to effects, or they can choose to put their money elsewhere. my contention to you is that if these taxes on investments are doubled, perhaps more than

doubled, perhaps more than doubled, as some people are suggesting, as rachel reeves, i think once suggested that would drive that capital flow elsewhere , reducing investment elsewhere, reducing investment to the uk and reducing growth . to the uk and reducing growth. >> i mean, people who trade in shares , that may well be the shares, that may well be the case, people who actually run businesses and make things . i businesses and make things. i really don't think it is the case and it's not. and there are people actually the vast majority of millionaires, i think over 70% of them actually believe that they should be paying believe that they should be paying more tax . they do think paying more tax. they do think it's iniquitous. they are patriotic. they want to invest in their country. and it's quite a small minority who will go and offshore their funds into the, you know, cayman islands and, you know, cayman islands and, you know, cayman islands and, you know, to my mind, act so very unpatriotically and avoid paying very unpatriotically and avoid paying their fair share . paying their fair share. >> well, of course, millionaires in the past have of course , in the past have of course, donated their own personal wealth towards the country. i think it was a balfour, our arthur balfour, our former prime minister, who donated anonymously a large proportion

of his fortune to pay off war debt after the first world war. indeed, many people bequeathed much of their personal wealth to the state after they die in order to pay down the national debt or pay for public services, perhaps patriotic millionaires might think about doing similar things, but guys singh watson, really appreciate your time. thanks for having a spirited conversation with me. really appreciate it. thank you. with me now is gb news prime time provocateur, adam cherry , who's provocateur, adam cherry, who's been looking meticulously at the fine print of this green party manifesto. because it's not just wealth taxes on billionaires and millionaires . what else? no, it millionaires. what else? no, it really is. >> and there's a lot going on here. top. so it's a 48 page document a little bit a little bit shorter than, labour. and obviously we've got, we've got labour tomorrow the length of the tory, half the length of the tory, i think, lib dems are on about 100 pages, but nonetheless it's, it's packed with quite a lot of stuff. first of all, on tax and spend, it's worth saying that it's not just millionaires and billionaires who will pay more under a green so—called government is it will also be middle earners because above 50 k you're going to start paying more national insurance. but anyway, that's by the bite, right? the main point here is

the 48 pages, 46 mentions of a fairer , greener society. now, fairer, greener society. now, you might ask, what does that actually mean? it basically means spending a lot of money, billions and billions here, there and everywhere. so just top line stuff. we've got . well, top line stuff. we've got. well, first of all, we've got votes for 16 year olds, pr, all that sort of stuff that you might see at corbynite labour manifesto. that's all there. that's baked in. you've also got 50 billion a year by 2030 on health and social care. 5 billion a year on arts and culture, 8 billion on schools, 2529 billion, sorry, over five years. insulating homes, not building them, insulating them. >> so these are all billions with a b, billions with a b, not millions with no no no no. i was once told that the best way to learn about the difference between 1 million and 1 billion is to think of it in seconds that, that 1,000,000 seconds is around about seven days. 11 days.i around about seven days. 11 days. i think something like that. yeah, 11 days is 1,000,000 seconds. 1,000,000,000 seconds is 31 years. these are quantitatively different things. yeah. >> i mean, they hope to raise 50

to 70 billion via these tax rises , which we've discussed. rises, which we've discussed. but no, the point is not just that. so let's talk about you mentioned planning. let's talk about planning and housing okay. right. so tories are saying they will build 1.6 million homes over the next parliament. labour slightly under that 1.5 million. still quite a lot. not so much of the green party. they're not quite as interested in that. they are saying they'll build 150,000 new social homes a year . 150,000 new social homes a year. and then these are their words and the so—called right to buy scheme. that comes to 750,000 in total. okay. and if you look a little bit deeper , they're little bit deeper, they're really aggressively going after the planning. the planning stuff is not quite what you'd to hope see on on a manifesto. right. so let's take a look at this, so all new developments must come with access to public services, and green spaces must be protected , there needs to be. protected, there needs to be. they need to maximise the use of solar panels and heat pumps. and by the way, they're going to spend where is it, i think? yeah. 20 odd billion on

insulating . insulating. >> and so the new homes that they do build will be very very expensive. very. >> so on this point they say building thousands of unaffordable homes isn't the answer . and unaffordable homes isn't the answer. and you think, well, part of the reason they'd be so expensive under this so—called under this manifesto is because they're adding so much to the planning system, or gum it up and make it much more difficult to build anything. >> you can't build it without this, that and the other, now, goodness me, that is the green party. but, adam, you've also noficed party. but, adam, you've also noticed something else tonight. yeah. >> you're right. as prime time provocateur, we're going to we're going to change tack a little bit here because earlier tonight, keir starmer, during his interview, his leadership interview used a very similar line . you might have heard this line. you might have heard this line. you might have heard this line a few times before, but it didn't quite go the way you'd expect. so take a look at this. >> this is earlier today when i grew up, my dad was a toolmaker. he worked in a factory. it's true. my mum was a nurse and actually we couldn't make ends meet. >> goodness me, that was an audience reaction. there earlier today. yeah. laughing at keir starmer . starmer. >> yeah. it didn't go so well. as i say, this is a line the

reason they're laughing is because this line is used repeatedly over and over. and he must until he's blue in the face. in fact, to prove the point, i think we can. we've got a little montage here to show you just how many times this line has been used, and why he's now being derided for it. take a look at this. >> my dad was a toolmaker. my dad was a toolmaker. he was skilled as a toolmaker , highly skilled. >> and your dad, i think, is right to say was a toolmaker. >> he was a toolmaker? yeah. that was a toolmaker. my dad was a toolmaker. my dad, he was a toolmaker. my dad was a toolmaker. my dad was a toolmaker. dad was a toolmaker. mum was a nurse . mum was a nurse. >> adam was keir starmer's dad, a toolmaker ? a toolmaker? >> i think we need some clarity on the issue. we need to speak to the labour party and make sure we understand that clearly. the reality is, i don't think he can get away with saying this line again. it's just it's been dnven line again. it's just it's been driven into the ground and it just goes to show that he struggles with this sort of

thing. he's very rehearsed, he's very robotic, and he's finally been caught out on that one. >> if he was against anyone other than, rishi sunak, perhaps we'd be talking about the labour gaffes in this election. perhaps it would seem a bit theresa may like a bit robotic, a bit stilted in the way that it comes across. but i suppose his great benefit here is he's up against a government that's been in power for a long time, a global economy that's hit the rocks in the wake of a war, in a pandemic . i mean, he's a very, very lucky campaigner . . i mean, he's a very, very lucky campaigner. he's a lucky leader of the opposition. yeah. but for all of the reasons why he's a lucky leader of the opposition, he might be an unlucky prime minister. >> yeah. his his support is broad but shallow, as many have said already. but you know, you can tell just by looking at the polling, his personal polling. he personally is not a particularly popular politician. yeah. the labour party , as we've yeah. the labour party, as we've already discussed this evening, are miles ahead, than over the conservatives. but him personally he may struggle once he's in to control the party. >> no. really really interesting stuff. i noticed in the most recent yougov poll that showed

that 20 point lead as it has been, that 20 point lead for month after month after month . month after month after month. that lead comes about from a very low conservative figure. keir starmer is actually getting a lower share of the vote currently in that latest yougov poll, lower than boris johnson got in 2019 for the conservatives. interesting stuff. well thank you, adam cherry, for bringing us all of that. now, after the break, we'll be digging into yet another gb news exclusive, revealing the extent of hmrc. what i'm told is wokery. plus, i'll be speaking to a former premier league manager football about germany's booze ban on brits at the

welcome back to state of the nafion welcome back to state of the nation at 8.34. my name is tom harwood. now it's another day. which means another story has broken about the civil service by gb news us correspondent stephen edgington. gb news can

reveal that civil servants working for his majesty's revenue and customs have been raising resisting moves against diversity initiatives from the elected government . with these elected government. with these supposedly impartial officials reportedly saying it was their role to fight fascism well. steve has also revealed that civil servants held a reflection session upon the death of african american man george floyd in america . well, joining floyd in america. well, joining us now to discuss this is gb news us correspondent stephen edgington. and stephen, break it down for us. what have you found on the 22nd of may? >> civil servants in hmrc held a reflection session discussing the death of george floyd. this was four years after his death. in this discussion , civil in this discussion, civil servants questioned the government's priorities on tackling so—called wokeness in the civil service. one question put to senior civil servants was the government is currently

attacking edi. that's equality, diversity and inclusivity. how are we going to ensure that these policies are protected and well funded within hmrc? that question was approved by an hmrc hr officer, who you know who then put it to these senior leaders. they didn't actually reply to that question. i don't think that's very surprising. other interesting things that happenedin other interesting things that happened in this call. one civil servant, senior civil servant, said that she cried at every single meeting following george floyd's death. another civil servant said that they were a race lead for hmrc. servant said that they were a race lead for hmrc . they have race lead for hmrc. they have all these positions within the civil service race champions race leads and so on where civil servants can volunteer to push their race activism at work. and in this role they said they ianed in this role they said they invited their cousin, who's a professor of decolonised , asian professor of decolonised, asian and race, to a lecture with hmrc civil servants. so i think a lot of civil servants here breaking the civil service code, they're not being impartial whatsoever.

and when i put this to hmrc, they vehemently denied, that any of that was true. and they claim that my representation of events, despite the fact i was quoting exactly what civil servants said, was not right . servants said, was not right. >> pretty extraordinary that the impetus for this was a four year anniversary after an african american man died in america . american man died in america. but this is the british treasury we're talking about, isn't it? >> absolutely. it's it is extraordinary . one of the extraordinary. one of the comments that one of the civil servants and by the way, these were all pretty senior civil servants within hmrc , one of the servants within hmrc, one of the comments was that they had been accused of being racist against white people and of importing american problems to britain. and they said that one of the positive things that's happened recently is that those comments have now essentially dried up. now, i think that these people in this reflection session perhaps want to reflect a little bit on those criticisms of themselves . one of the people

themselves. one of the people was talking about being the race lead for wales, the welsh region of hmrc, and that in that department. and they said that they'd invited all sorts of people to discuss, famous ethnic minority , important figures from minority, important figures from welsh history. now i can't think of too many of them. so it does seem again that they believe they're in this american society which has had african american people for hundreds of years , people for hundreds of years, britain isn't like that. we're not america. and i think these civil servants have totally imported these american ideas on race. >> you're quite right to say we're not america, but we do have our own challenges with racism in britain, although very, very different to how the united states has these challenges. i wonder, is this all imported , or is this all imported, or is this actually perhaps a direct consequence of a piece of legislation that was passed in the dying days of the last labour government, the equality act? and after all, the government does have to follow acts of parliament, given royal

assent statute in the uk and doesn't the equality act, as it was passed in 2009, actually require a lot of this stuff ? require a lot of this stuff? >> it doesn't specifically compel civil servants to discuss george floyd's death in meetings . it doesn't compel civil servants to break, political impartiality by supporting black lives matter and other political causes. it doesn't compel them to do any of the things that i've talked about that's happenedin i've talked about that's happened in this call just a few weeks ago. what it does say is that government departments have a duty , to foster relations a duty, to foster relations between different groups , between different groups, essentially between, people with different genders or sexes or races or whatever, that can be interpreted in many, many ways, and it certainly is used as a justification given by many of these civil servant activists who want to push their own political ideologies within work time and within working hours. so i think you're totally right to , in one part, blame the

to, in one part, blame the equality act for this stuff. but at the same time, the equality act does not specifically state that they should do any of these things. and this is merely an interpretation given by activists, civil servants . activists, civil servants. >> well, steven edgington, thank you very much for bringing us yet another exclusive of, opening, peering into what is going on within the civil service of this country. appreciate it. well, joining me now is my panel, the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop , and broadcaster tessa dunlop, and broadcaster tessa dunlop, and the writer, broadcaster, occasional gb news presenter to emma webb, tessa, what do you make of this story? are we importing problems particular to america, into the united kingdom? it is appropriate in the civil service to be talking about it . about it. >> just watched you two, and i sort of feel like i'm existing in a parallel universe. >> two young white men doing really well, thank you very much . on a news channel that has been called out for a lack of diversity, your boss in front of

a house of commons committee saying he would love to employ more people from a diverse background, but whoops, he only has one presenter of colour and your presenters of colour. you've got one main albie amankona nana akua okay, 22i amankona nana akua okay, 221 have an entire legion you've named two and we've just had two white men. >> so diversity is more than just racism. >> i'm just taking one example. but if you want political diversity, you're all stacked up on the right. so there isn't my point. my point being that no, but i'm not a presenter. i should be sitting there with jacob away, but instead it's piloted in a white right wing man. because this is gb news and you guys are frothing at the mouth getting angry about people in the civil service, a government body actually saying, we need to make sure that we do have diversity , equality and have diversity, equality and inclusion. well, my point being is that if you don't have diversity, equality and inclusion , you end up with inclusion, you end up with a product that looks like gb news. you're an example of what

happens when we don't observe. >> it's interesting because i think i think it might be that a project like gb news is actually something that is offering diversity in what is quite a plain and stale media landscape in this country. but let's bring in this country. but let's bring in emma webb. what do you make of all that? >> i just think this is absolutely extraordinary. vie firstly, i think it's abhorrent that you're attacking tom on the bafis that you're attacking tom on the basis of his race and sex. and secondly, i think it's wonderfully ironic. >> you've already said your bit. i thought that that was a very calm, collected , factual and calm, collected, factual and peaceful conversation interview that you had there with stephen both agreeing with each other. >> so of course it was peaceful and amicable. >> well, this is why we can have it out now, tessa. because there's diversity of opinion on there's diversity of opinion on the show, but there's not diametrically opposed to it. >> but we are all bright white. and he was bright white. so that's four out of four bright whites. why? >> i mean, it is i just find it extraordinary that that you're putting so much stock on people's race. i actually think it's i mean, i'm not an easily offended person. i'm not saying i'm offended, but i think it is somewhat offensive.

>> but let's not get sidetracked to be let's not let's i'm not pretending to be called out. i think that we're all one ethnicity. i think it's morally wrong. actually, there are three people sitting here. >> yeah, if there were four, let's include stephen because he kicked off the debate. obviously 25% of the country isn't black, right. and of course , we have right. and of course, we have many different people on this panel across many different weeks of many different races, of many different hues. i actually think we probably get quite close to the average percentage in the united kingdom i >>i -- >> i can absolutely assure you that you don't. >> we're getting completely sidetracked from the topic that we can have it out. >> we can have it out about this in a separate debate. >> tessa, if you'd like to. i'm always up for an example of what happens when you don't observe eddie, i equality, diversity and inclusion is you get a product thatis inclusion is you get a product that is positively discriminates in favour of the white male and it's great. >> i'd love to see you there. you look great. young, fresh. you've got loads of energy and you push a certain line from a white male perspective. i don't think that i two men, two women, particularly typical of a line on many, many issues. >> i don't know .

on many, many issues. >> i don't know. i mean, you could probably back me up on that. tom and i disagree very strongly on on trans issues, but tessa, on this on this fundamental issue isn't the story here, not the particulars of what was being said, but the idea that a civil service that is meant to be impartial and is meant to do what the government says is actually organising , says is actually organising, having meetings and saying, we don't like what the government is saying. how do we stop them? isn't that the story here? >> but they're employees . >> but they're employees. they're just pushing for better employment rights, better diversity, equality and inclusion across their, you know, their their range of employers. so it's a bit like i may be a politician, but i want to join a club that supports my rights as a white woman. and all they're doing is within the civil service saying that actually are we being treated fairly? are we being given proportional advantage or promotion depending on our ethnicity , our religion, our ethnicity, our religion, our colour? these are questions that are totally valid for any organisation or set of employees. i just find this identity obsession completely

obsessed. can you through this debate up? >> i just want to read out quickly this quote from hmrc, because i think this makes the point . and stephen said, you point. and stephen said, you know, they said that he had exaggerated when he was just simply quoting things that were said during this meeting . so said during this meeting. so this hmrc spokesman said the account put to us grossly misrepresents the context and content of the event, which was focused on positive contributions and progress and not about critical race theory. now everything that stephen cited that was included in this report , it is absolutely report, it is absolutely saturated with critical race theory. critical race theory is partisan. it is a contested position to be against. critical race theory is not to be pro racism or anti—progress critical race theory or critical race theory is, i mean, that's that's a very difficult question to answer in a nutshell, tom, but it is a very, i would say, a highly ideological position on race that stratifies , society race that stratifies, society according to intersecting

identities . and it is highly identities. and it is highly contested. and if you'll just let me finish my point, tessa, that i think that, you know, who pays for this? it's the taxpayer who pays for this. this is not what civil servants should be doing. now, that's not to say that people shouldn't get positions on the basis of merit. i don't think that identity should pay play a part. and i and i'm going to i'm going to play and i'm going to i'm going to play the identity game here and say, as a woman , i have been say, as a woman, i have been ianed say, as a woman, i have been invited on to certain panels of, speaking, engaged agents where i've been told that i am being ianed i've been told that i am being invited as a woman or if i'm not able to do it. and they say to me, could you suggest another woman now, should we give a final word to tessa? >> just why do we need equality, diversity and inclusion? benchmarks and quotas . just let benchmarks and quotas. just let me give you two statistics in every ethnic group , a higher every ethnic group, a higher percentage of men than women were in higher managerial positions. that's from the gender point of view. and data for men showed that men from bangladesh, black, caribbean,

mixed white and black caribbean groups were the least likely to be in managerial positions. now i'm going to say to you again, do you understand why we need equality, diversity and inclusion benchmarks to try and make certain people in certain groups actually access opportunities that are available to people like statistics? >> why not white working class boys ? if it's just purely about boys? if it's just purely about statistics and not about race? we are running an ad break. >> but thank you very much for a spirited conversation. really, really appreciate it. and of course, we'll have much, much more after the break. now british fans say they may be served low alcohol beer amid hooliganism fears during the euros match against serbia. does britain have a drinking problem or do we need a drinking problem? well, i'll be speaking to a former premier

next. welcome back to state of the nafion welcome back to state of the nation at 10 to 9. my name is tom harwood. now german police

have reportedly demanded that british fans are served beer. that's only 2.5% british fans are served beer. that's only 25% alcohol. this amid security concerns for the euro 2024 match against serbia officials claim that there's a high risk that hooligans from both sides will cause violence both sides will cause violence both in and around the stadium . both in and around the stadium. well, first, spanish residents protest against british tourism and now concerns of hooliganism from the germans have we made a bad name for ourselves? joining me now to discuss this is the former professional football player and manager, tony cottee . player and manager, tony cottee. tony, thanks for joining me. firstly, were you surprised when you heard that we'd be at half strength beer . what is you heard that we'd be at half strength beer. what is this? >> yeah, well, i can speak from experience, tom, having followed my team, west ham, across europe this year, going to germany, i can tell you the beer is very strong in germany. so perhaps there's a reason and a thinking behind it. but, i think a lot of the problem, tom, is going to be the problem, tom, is going to be the 8:00 kick off, and i think there will be serious concerns .

there will be serious concerns. the fans are there. they're there to enjoy themselves. we know that . but when you're know that. but when you're around all day in the hot sunshine, if you're drinking lots of beer, you know it can get a bit steamy come kick—off time . so you know, if they time. so you know, if they aren't going to be serving reduced alcohol lager, there's probably a good idea. and obviously it just, you know, anything that can prevent any sort of hooliganism. we don't want that happening in this tournament. >> and i suppose the big question with hooliganism is , is question with hooliganism is, is this something that sort of naturally bubbles up from people who are very excited about the game? or crucially, are there people who simply turn up because they're looking for a fight ? fight? >> well, i think historically, as we well know, i'm old enough. you don't look old enough, tom, but i'm certainly old enough to remember the 70s, in the 80s and the, you know, the horrible things that were going on at football grounds. so, you know, we've made great progress in football. you know, the authorities, the fa, the premier league , you know, uefa, fifa, league, you know, uefa, fifa, they've all made great progress in kerbing hooliganism. but it is still there. you know, i'm not going to pretend tonight that it's not still there. there

will be a very small group of both serbian fans and england fans that are probably actually going out there and looking for a good punch up, and you can't say otherwise . and, you know, say otherwise. and, you know, i don't condone that. you know, i, i fully want the fans to go out there and, you know, watch their team follow their country and in a way represent the country as well, because we want the engush well, because we want the english fans to go out there, behave themselves, and we want england to bring the trophy and we don't want to have headlines of people fighting . of people fighting. >> why is it football hooliganism? why don't we see rugby hooliganism or cricket hooliganism or rowing hooliganism or rowing hooliganism , i think a lot of it hooliganism, i think a lot of it is to do with the passion of the game. >> i think we, you know, we all love football. most people in this country love football and we all get so passionate and so animated about it. and, you know, you can't take the passion out of the game. and sometimes that passion turns to anger. if your team loses or if you've been drinking all day, like i say, you know, things can turn a little bit ugly. but one thing i will say, tom, they are very strong. the german police, as i say, i experienced it myself.

you know, earlier this year. and they won't take any prisoners. they won't mess around. and that is actually good news because there's a lot of fans going out there. they want to enjoy the football. they don't want to be intimidated. and they certainly don't want thugs from either serbia or from england causing trouble. >> is this to some extent, the germans being , frankly, a bit germans being, frankly, a bit more efficient than we were? after all, when there was that euros final in wembley , it was euros final in wembley, it was a disaster. >> yeah, it was . i mean, let's >> yeah, it was. i mean, let's not forget it was covid times and there were certain it was almost like a perfect storm for that fine . you're referring to that fine. you're referring to the final back in 2021, when england played italy at wembley. and you know, they was awful, chaotic. scenes broke in people without tickets. absolutely and you know there you know that won't be happening in germany. you know we're now beyond the covid. what went on with that? we've got very, very efficient german police. you know, they've got their their policemen who will be there, there, there be a presence there, you know, you'll know they're there, but they won't, you know, they won't look for confrontation. but i can

promise you, if there is confrontation, they will sort it out very quickly. so, you know, i'm confident that that most of the fans, 95, 96 over that will percent of the fans, they're going for the football. they're not going to have a fight. of course they want to enjoy themselves. but if there is any trouble, the german police will clamp down on it. >> well, let's hope it all goes off without a hitch. and that england, of course, make it through and through and through and get to the finals, particularly so that the pubs can stay open later here in the uk, tony kwasi, thank you so much for joining uk, tony kwasi, thank you so much forjoining us. really, really appreciate it. let's turn to the panel now because, tessa, isuppose to the panel now because, tessa, i suppose there's something about football being the national game of england, that perhaps leads us to more passions. >> i think this includes a broader sector of the population , ian. and from the 19th century, we even had ruffs. we didn't call them hooliganism hoougans didn't call them hooliganism hooligans that came in in the in the 1980s. but there are certain factors. i'm less optimistic than tony that actually reducing the alcohol level will have any

impact , the alcohol level will have any impact, because research suggests that nowadays new versions of hooliganism are much more premeditated. they're planned, they tend to take place outside the stadium. so actually by stopping people drinking a lot inside the stadium, you're probably missing the cohort of individuals you need to target. serbia. keen links with russia, who delivered the major aggression in 2016. and france it was the russians. let's not pretend that russia isn't going to be involved. a lot of this goes on on the internet. it's premeditated. it's often organised. i'm kind of worried. if i was an english fan , i'd be if i was an english fan, i'd be keeping my head down. i'd tell you what my wits about me and i wouldn't be boozing too heavily just because it's specifically the english. the english serbian game is the is the one that they're really concerned about. and do you think there might be sort of central organisation to that or is it the russians that are organised? well, if you look, i think it was the 2000 championships that were hosted by netherlands and belgium. netherlands were totally on it in terms of their, you know, their criminal investigation, international links, far less hooliganism in belgium than in in the netherlands than there

was in belgium is also predominantly youth problem. it didn't happen when you had the world cup in america in 1996. why not a european soul? particular countries, england's guilty, serbia's guilty and look at serbia's relationship with russia totally goes. we never, never check these things out. balkans and russia. >> emma webb, what do you make of it all? >> well, just on the back of what tesla's saying, that, you know, if it is so premeditated and particularly if it is happening outside of the stadiums in particular, what use is cutting the alcohol, stadiums in particular, what use is cutting the alcohol , well, is cutting the alcohol, well, quite amount of alcohol content. >> it'll make much difference. >> it'll make much difference. >> it'll make much difference. >> i mean, if i were a hooligan, i'd just drink more beer, it's like when scotland tried to stop people drinking alcohol, so they taxed it very high. or they stopped people buying it after 10 pm. at night. and actually , 10 pm. at night. and actually, if anything, alcohol consumption went up in scotland because people just bought higher quality higher, higher, higher. alcohol content, alcohol and drank it at home. >> well, perhaps i mean maybe they're just seeing obviously they'll be taking other measures, but maybe they're just

seeing this as a sort of safeguard, an extra measure, perhaps they just think it's common sense. make sure that the it's hot. you know, they'd have to drink more quantities of beer in order to get some people who suggest, this is the germans. >> this is this is their revenge for brexit. >> i think that might be a bit of a stretch to even even now, some people would say you're encouraging hooliganism with comments like that. >> it's like that appalling tabloid headline from the 1996. do you not remember achtung, surrender or something bonkers that the daily. you were probably in short trousers at the time. but yeah, very triggering, i think is the word. >> right. well, i think i think we have calmed down on the chance of ten german bombers and all the rest of it. i think things have moved on. but to tessa and to emma webb, thank you so much for talking through a number of very big and important stories. of course, here on state of the nation, this , evening, one final this, evening, one final question, though , which is to question, though, which is to reflect on what, has been happening in the general election, is anyone paying

attention? tessa. >> well, for rishi sunak point of view, i would say i expect he's really hoping that nobody's been paying any attention because he's an absolute stinker of a week. but hey, glad to know that he doesn't watch your rival sky? at least he couldn't afford to when he was a child . to when he was a child. >> although, to be honest, i don't know how many people were actually watching sky in the early 1990s, emma? well well, i think it doesn't really matter what the conservatives policies are or what rishi does or says. >> i think he could promise the world and it's not going to make a great deal of difference, because i get the impression that people just simply don't believe anything that he promises , keir starmer is just promises, keir starmer is just so repetitive. you saw the clip earlier of him constantly saying his father is a toolmaker. it's the lady doth protest too much, so we'll see. when the labour manifesto comes out tomorrow. and i think people are paying some attention . but it's the some attention. but it's the attention of a disenfranchised population and all. i seem to be on farage interesting stuff . on farage interesting stuff. >> well, tesla, dunlop, emma webb, thank you very much for

joining us. that's it for state of the nation tonight. but i'm not going to be throwing you over to the weather. no. instead i'm going to be throwing you over to patrick christys who's got an extra special programme coming up. dissect a bit more about this strange election campaign. patrick >> yes, absolutely. i have just sat through that latest leadership event, so you didn't have to. there was unrelenting tosh from both sides there. there were gaffes. there were boos from the audience. there were laughs at times. did you know keir starmer's dad was a toolmaker? rishi sunak was held toolmaker? rishi sunak was held to account as well on a few of his failures. i'm going to take you right to the heart of the action now . action now. yes, indeed. the battle for number 10 is raging. this crazy general election campaign took yet another twist tonight, as rishi sunak and sir keir starmer got a grilling, with both of them trying to convince the nafion them trying to convince the nation that they are the man to lead britain before the polls

close on july the 4th. this hour i will take you right into the spin room. that's what you're looking at there. if you're watching us on tv or on youtube, where our political reporter katherine forster will be interviewing political heavyweights from both parties , heavyweights from both parties, going to be chock a block of big name interviews . we'll show you name interviews. we'll show you the best bits, like mr sunak giving this reason as to why you should vote for him. >> i actually have an appalling diet because i eat an enormous amount of sugar and i'm very unhealthy in that regard. >> and sir keir starmer malfunctioned at this question. >> you seem more like a political robot . how are you? political robot. how are you? how are you going to convince others like me to vote for you? >> well, the most well, the audience got a bit lively as well . well. >> it's the doctor's fault . the >> it's the doctor's fault. the point . point. >> and there was even some laughter. >> but when i grew up, my dad was a toolmaker. he worked in a factory .

factory. >> but yes, the nation took a drink. now,