>> 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

gb news. >> it's 11:00. you're with gp >> it's11:oo. you're with gp news. in a moment. headliners but first, let's take you through the latest news headlines. this hour, the prime minister and the labour leader have both faced a tv q&a tonight ahead of the release of labour's electoral manifesto tomorrow. dufing electoral manifesto tomorrow. during the programme tonight,

sir keir starmer said that his party's manifesto will focus on wealth creation, adding there'd be no tax rises for working people. >> i think requires us to raise taxes and i'll tell you, no, no, i do want i challenge me and i want to deal with this . i want 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 driven up spending. i want to 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 tax lever, we're not going to do that. >> sir keir starmer well, rishi sunak was quizzed on migration and the nhs and he admitted the conservatives hadn't made as much progress on cutting waiting lists as he would have liked. he also accepted that immigration was a too high a level, but he vowed the government's flagship rwanda plan would work .

rwanda plan would work. >> we've done is already started detaining people airfields on standby, planes have booked. the date for the first flight is out on the 24th. i think it is of july. and the important point here is this is about establishing a deterrent, because i believe that if people come here illegally, they shouldn't be able to stay. we need to have somewhere safe to remove them. and that's how we will stop the boats. and that's what rwanda is about. >> well, earlier on today, rishi sunak insisted he hadn't given up hope of winning the election , up hope of winning the election, but he did warn voters not to give labour a blank check. the prime minister was campaigning at a school in lincolnshire as new figures showed the economy recorded no growth in the month of april. it's something of a setback for the prime minister after his recent claim that britain's economy had turned a corner. the tories pointed to figures that showed there was growth in the months before april, but the liberal democrats said rishi sunak had utterly failed to on his failed to deliver on his promises. the green party

launched its election manifesto today 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 1% of workers and would raise national insurance by 8% on those earning more than £50,000 a year. the greens say it would raise £50 billion, which they want to invest in health and social care in order to defend and restore the nhs, they said. 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. that's the news. for the latest stories, do sign up to gb news alerts , scan sign up to gb news alerts, scan the qr code on your screen or go to gbnews.com slash alerts. time now for headliners . now for headliners. >> hello and welcome to

headliners >> it's the newspaper preview show, which takes a pinch of the next day's stories and adds a punch of comedians. i'm andrew doyle, i'm joined by the follically challenged josh howie and steve and alan. it's a battle of the baldies, apparently. how are you both so bald? yeah. are you are you in a good mood , josh? i'm great mood. good mood, josh? i'm great mood. >> it's lovely to have you. i haven't been on with you as a host for a little bit. no, that's been deliberate. >> yes, but nevertheless, it is. it is pleasing to see you and you, steve. i just want to point out that today i gave blood because i'm an au type. because you know, the russian hackers means that everyone needs they need the au blood . do they? need the au blood. do they? i didn't know that. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> isn't the au blood the one that you can inject into anyone? it's the universal donor. yeah i literally give more than i receive. that is not just true in blood. just relationships work. all of it, really. but i just wanted to mention it. just that i'm better than everyone. you're a good, good person. i'm just better than you, too. i think that is the definition of virtue signalling via blood. there we go. well, we're going to start by looking at the front of thursday's newspapers. the daily mail is leading with a tory wipe—out risks one party

socialist state. quite an alarmist headline there. the times has got growth and prosperity. our priority, says starmer and the telegraph. starmer and the telegraph. starmer paves the way for tax rises. the guardian has got sunak aid bet on election date before announcement. that's a funny story. we're going to get to that in a bit. and i news has got labour set to announce big cuts to public services in the uk. finally, the daily star nothing to do with the election. instead it's a three loins on a shirt. those are your front pages. right. we're going to kick off with the daily mail on thursday. josh, you've got the details. >> yes, a tory wipe—out risks one party socialist state. this is the new tactics of the tories. they're bringing this one out early. they were probably going to have to at some point, but we've still got a month to go or so. >> this is the tories. this is the daily mail. no, no, no but this is no, no.

>> what's happened is all the tory party, they've gone cuckoo, cuckoo and they've all what have they done. >> they've gone cuckoo. >> they've gone cuckoo. >> what noise is that. >> what noise is that. >> it's the list. everybody join in together because we've got a message that we thought you'd gone mad for a moment. >> i have gone mad. yes, i'm mad with the tory. >> no, what it is. >> no, what it is. >> yeah. this is what they do. so they're all sending out the same tweet, and they tweet the word of the day is supermajority. so they're all saying whatever you do, don't vote for labour because they'll get a supermajority. get a superm ajority. >> get a supermajority. >> so let's let's think about this more broadly though. isn't steve the idea of a supermajority, the idea of a wipe—out of one of the two major parties actually could be a bad thing, whichever way you vote. well, if that were the case, then why weren't they mentioning this in 2019? there were no posters saying vote tory. but you know, come on, don't go too crazy on it because if it's that bad for democracy, then they should be saying that back then, where all of a sudden it seems to be when the supermajority goes the other way towards laboun goes the other way towards labour. oh, this could be the end of it. this could be absolutely terrible. grant shapps was doing an interview and he was saying that this could be really bad for. i mean, i love that they've changed position from vote for a tory

win to don't let us lose too badly. come on. i mean, we've all had a laugh, but come on, don't embarrass us like this. yeah, although grant shapps because some people how that would work anyway. oh, some of you vote for us, some of you don't vote for us. and we'll we'll work it out somehow. yeah. you just want to say the measure of the public. that's what a general election is about. you just have to put your policies out there and people vote for the ones they like best. what about that? well that would be much better. >> but i think that, as you were saying, yeah, this is a but they should be just a bit more honest. like, look how dangerous it is when you have a supermajority. look how badly we messed up . you don't want to messed up. you don't want to have. so that that might be also what they want to do as well. you just say there's a lovely bit in the grant shapps interview where he says that, i mean, it's not all over. >> there's still all to play for. yeah. if keir starmer keeps gaffing not just gaffing, he'd have to gaffe a quicker rate than rishi gaffing to catch up with him and overtake. yeah, but you never know. with politics. i mean, you know, he could kill someone, he could do a gaffe and a guff. he could do all sorts of things. you never know. anyway, we're going to go to the front

cover of the times. who's got this one? is this you, steve? yep. growth and prosperity are priorities, says starmer , labour priorities, says starmer, labour leader refuses to rule out tax rises . it's interesting. leader refuses to rule out tax rises. it's interesting. this is the times they talk about the plan for prosperity. some other newspapers are taking exactly the same news and saying that labour are clearing the path for tax rises. and if you look at it, all they've done is they said they won't increase vat, they won't increase national insurance and they won't increase income tax. but they've not mentioned capital gains. and therefore dot dot dot the path is open. i mean maybe that's where they're going to increase it. but they've been speaking about wanting to have a plan to grow the economy. it's almost liz truss esque, right? without the doing things in such a way that absolutely cause a big old kerfuffle. the rishi's also, there's a whole thing in there where they were asking keir starmer about backing jeremy corbyn back in 2019, and he says, like, there was a time when he knew that jeremy wasn't going to win. it sounds like a terrible answer. but also remember that rishi stabbed your beloved boris johnson in the back. none of these have great histories, but they're

politicians, you know? i mean, that's what they do. but you know, this is the week when the manifestos are out. so this is what all the excitement is about. people are sort of scouring through for something to make the election a bit more exciting. >> well, so that and finally we're going to actually see what labour are about. >> yes. because they've constantly said we've got all the answers, but then be specific about what those answers are. well, they kind of have here. >> they're saying that they're going to do a lot of, investment in house building. and that is really the way to go. they obviously realise what the problem is , but and they've also problem is, but and they've also identified how to deal with it, which is dealing with the red tape. there's a few issues i just i happen to have read an in depth article about it. that's why i'm so knowledgeable more than showing off. just tell us what the issue is, as well as giving blood and, but one of the things they're talking about is like new towns. that's not the way to go, right? it's about really getting into the green belt. even like a 2% of the green belt would sort out everything and cutting the red tape, that's where to go. >> so we'll see. well josh has all the answers, even if the manifesto doesn't, we're going to move on to the front cover of

the guardian. what's going on there? >> oh, it's a fantastic story, sunak. i'd bet on election date before announcement. so this is rishi sunak's closest parliamentary aide. you bet £100 that there would be a, july election. what happened? a couple of days. >> hey. >> hey. >> hello. what a coincidence. >> hello. what a coincidence. >> well, you know, he might just have guessed it, right. >> he might have. yeah, because rishi sunak said, hey, there's going to be a july election. and then it came to him in a dream. so now the gambling commission are on it, and he's trying to be like, oh, i don't want to get involved. i don't want to like look guilty or anything. it's like me, you know, he said, yeah, i should have thought how it looks. it looks like you're guilty. >> well, look, i don't want to cast aspersions. we don't know is the truth. yes, but, steve, it doesn't psychic. it doesn't look, yes, i want to give him the benefit of the doubt. it doesn't look great, does it? well, i'll defend him even more strongly than you. andrew. this guy deserves to win this money because he's so clearly going to because he's so clearly going to be out of a job. they're all going to be out of a job. give him a chance to get some sort of retirement fund. and this illegal betting is one way.

well, that's the other thing. maybe he was just thinking, let's, let's make some money while i can, you know? what else is he going to bet on? >> you go over to reform. that's what everyone else is doing. >> he should have bet that rishi wasn't going to turn up at the d—day celebration. that would have been a big winner. that was planned beforehand. so he could have known. >> we don't know what bets this guy could, but i'm going to. i think he's got psychic powers. >> yeah, i think so too. that's that's that's my position. absolutely nothing wrong. let's move on now to the daily star, steve, what's this about three loins on a shirt? this is, england stars have been given special permission to cover up their tackle. it's a footballing phrase, but also means the junk, if they want to use a naked spa in a hotel. and i think. if they want to use a naked spa in a hotel. and i think . yeah. i in a hotel. and i think. yeah. i never really understand the rules. like you have to be naked in a spa. isn't that like a sex crime? forcing someone to get their bits out? i actually don't understand the story. so there's a certain hotel where you have to be germany. >> they love getting naked. >> they love getting naked. >> is it in germany? >> is it in germany? >> germany? they get nude. dodi >> germany? they get nude. dodi >> and so that's the law, is it? >> and so that's the law, is it? >> well, it's like the cultural norms. >> it's like they're saying because you're foreigners,

because you're foreigners, because you're foreigners, because you're english, you can cover up. yes. and because you're famous footballers. >> maybe i don't understand the three loins because the three of them or three lions, i get that. but why? but like , i don't know, but why? but like, i don't know, maybe there's three of them with loins. do you guys go nude in these circumstances? >> i don't go. i mean, i don't go to things like this, a spa or something. but i suppose if i was in a country where that was the norm, i would feel it was racist. not to, you know, do what they normally do. right. get your eyes away from my junk. yourjunk looking eye weird your junk looking eye weird person. i mean, i don't like that you like this word so much, you said. well, i'm trying to find a broadcastable phrase for penis and loin. did it? don't say the loins. fine. loin is fine. >> loins. loins. >> loins. loins. >> loins. loins. >> loin is fine. >> loin is fine. >> you might think word loin. si king. no, it's a steak, isn't it? you know, don't look. don't look at my meat. actually, no, that would work. oh, i'm going to put an end to this anyway, we have dealt with the front pages, but look, coming up, got human rights, tv hardships and leaflet gate. see you