evening. i'm tom >> good evening. i'm tom harwood, bringing you the state of the nation. tonight, the future of uk energy security has been thrown into doubt. as the supreme court rules, drilling sites can't be approved without taking into account the environmental impact of how that oil is used down the line. but what does this mean for your energy bills and the shadow chancellor, rachel reeves, has vowed to bring an end to the gender wage gap once and for all. but is there more to the gap than meets the eye and is labour's manifesto more radical than we first thought within.7 it contains the duty on public bodies to reduce inequality. but how might skiving lawyers or conniving lawyers leap up upon this duty to stop pro—growth policies .7 plus, as two policies? plus, as two candidates and a policeman are under investigation for election gambling, we'll be taking a closer look at these final days of rome like developments . state

of rome like developments. state of rome like developments. state of the nation starts now . of the nation starts now. i'll also be joined by my panel throughout gb news senior political commentator nigel nelson and the journalist and conservative peer paul goodman. that's all to come up after your very latest headlines with polly middlehurst. >> tom, thank you. good evening to you. well, as for main political parties, go head to head tonight in another election tv special michael gove has been saying today the tories are still capable of pulling off what he's described as a poll defying election victory, despite forecasts of a labour landslide. new yougov data suggests the conservatives will slump to their lowest number of seats ever, while labour could win a 200 seat advantage. it's

also predicting significant gains for the liberal democrats, winning 67 seats. that's six times their result gained in 2019. well, in other political news today, conservative candidate laura saunders, who's facing a probe over allegedly betting on the timing of the election, says she'll be cooperating with the gambling commission investigation . laura commission investigation. laura saunders and her husband tony lee, who's the campaign director for the conservative party, are both under scrutiny over the allegations. a solicitor for mrs. saunders said this afternoon she's also considering legal action against the bbc and other outlets for infringements of her privacy rights. that comes after another tory candidate, craig williams, admitted to an error of judgement after placing a bet on when the election would take place . government minister place. government minister michael gove says the allegations are reprehensible , allegations are reprehensible, as is the case that obviously any decision by anyone to use

inside information to bet on the election date, that is wrong, deeply regrettable , but i think deeply regrettable, but i think the individuals concerned are now being investigated and until that process is concluded, i think it's difficult for me to say more . well, sir keir starmer say more. well, sir keir starmer criticised the conservatives for this, saying that behaviour would never be tolerated by laboun >> this candidate should be suspended and it's very telling that rishi sunak has not already done that . if it was one of my done that. if it was one of my candidates, they'd be gone and their feet would not have touched the floor. >> sir keir starmer, the economy and the bank of england has held its interest rate at 5.25. that's the highest level since 2008. bad news for borrowers but good news for savers. the bank says it needs more certainty that inflation will remain low. but minutes from the bank of england's meeting hint at the possibility of a rate cut in august, when they next meet again . news coming through to us again. news coming through to us this evening that the actor donald sutherland, whose career

spanned more than seven decades, has died at the age of 88. his many film credits included the dirty dozen in 1967, the war comedy mash in 1970 and ordinary people in 1980, which won the academy award for best picture. most recently, he starred in the hunger games series of films. he was, of course, the father of kiefer sutherland, who announced his father's death on ex today. he's often cited as one of the finest actors never to have won an oscar. he did, however, win two golden globes and an emmy . two golden globes and an emmy. donald sutherland, who's died today. donald sutherland, who's died today . for the latest stories, today. for the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts. scan that qr code on your screen right now, or go to gbnews.com slash alerts . slash alerts. >> welcome back to state of the nation. i'm tom harwood. the

sight and sound of the demolition of a scottish oil rig. while this decommission add nonh rig. while this decommission add north sea rig had reached the end of its useful life , is this end of its useful life, is this a scene where to see far more often in the years to come? today marks what some are calling a serious shift for the future of uk energy security . future of uk energy security. for the past half decade, campaigners have fought surrey county council through the courts against their decision to allow the expansion of an oil well back in 2019. well, today the supreme court has ruled in their favour that planning permission for new fossil fuel extraction cannot be granted without taking into account the use of final oil products far down the chain. in short, construction has to take into account a far more than the environmental impact of the site itself. until day to day, the entire industry worked on the assumption that emissions from

constructing the wells, rather than the use of the final products, should be considered in their planning assessments . in their planning assessments. but this landmark case today changes that, and has serious implications for the future of oil and gas drilling in the uk. the complainant, sarah finch, spoke to the press outside the court and said other energy projects may now fall thanks to this ruling . this ruling. >> it's going to make it a lot harder for anyone to open a new oil or coal, whatever field, and it has implications for some that have already been agreed but are under , subject to legal but are under, subject to legal challenges, such as the coal mine in cumbria, the giant rosebank oil field in the north sea, the jackdaw field and not forgetting our sister site biscathorpe in lincolnshire . biscathorpe in lincolnshire. >> well uk oil and gas plc have today said they'll now ensure that future production will fall below the levels at which environmental assessment is

required limiting production, limiting revenue, limiting growth. and because the law on environmental assessments is based on eu law. this ruling could have impacts on the wider continent as well . well goodness continent as well. well goodness me, let's digest this now with the usual host of this program. the former business and energy secretary, sir jacob the former business and energy secretary, sirjacob rees—mogg, secretary, sir jacob rees—mogg, jacob, thank you for joining secretary, sir jacob rees—mogg, jacob, thank you forjoining me . jacob, thank you for joining me. and welcome back to your usual time slot. this is a pretty profound ruling today . profound ruling today. >> it's a very unfortunate ruling. it seems to me to be a very political ruling. it's interesting that the lower courts , as the high court and courts, as the high court and the and the court of appeal didn't take this route. they didn't take this route. they didn't think you should take this into account . and i'm this into account. and i'm deeply concerned that the supreme court is trying to make energy policy rather than simply interpret what planning law is meant to say, and therefore has deviated from what everyone thought the law was before. and this could potentially constrain our ability to use our own

resources. it won't reduce global emissions. it will simply mean other countries make the money, not the united kingdom . money, not the united kingdom. >> and yet these lawyers have found this ruling and argued this ruling within the words of uk statute within the climate change act, is it right to be blaming the lawyers and the courts and the judges , or courts and the judges, or rather, should the fault if it is a fault? or perhaps some people will argue this is a very good thing, isn't it, to do with the legislation that mps have passed? >> well, i think if you look at how this judgement has come about, it's a32 ruling in the supreme court. so it's a very narrow margin in the supreme court when the appeal court in the high court found in the other direction, i am concerned that you see the courts and we saw this over the small boats becoming increasingly political. so this is the baroness hale ization of the supreme court. and it fascinates me that since

she's resumed her seat in the house of lords, she constantly, when she bothered to turn up to vote, voted against the government that there is a left winger . i government that there is a left winger. i fear that is abroad amongst the judiciary and this is moving now into the climate area and can potentially make people cold and poor, which seems to me highly undesirable . seems to me highly undesirable. >> well, it does seem that there are no doubts. activist lawyers andindeed are no doubts. activist lawyers and indeed activists who brought this case to drag it through the legal system but haven't politicians like yourself given them fertile ground with which to play? indeed, the climate change act is what this is based upon, and the government, change act is what this is based upon, and the government , the uk upon, and the government, the uk government and parliament nodded through the net zero commitments in the dying days of theresa may's administration when, well, the climate change act was passed when, the labour party was in office and i had been elected to parliament at that at that point, i think gordon brown

was prime minister at that point, and i was an mp. >> so i can't take the blame for the climate change act. but i think it's really important that we revisit the commitments we've made on the climate change act. other countries aren't doing this. we're 1% of global emissions, and we are making this nation poorer, trying to achieve something that without other countries doing, it simply won't happen. and this judgement is in its way fatuous because it won't change emissions. it will merely change the ease of us using our own resources. merely change the ease of us using our own resources . other using our own resources. other countries will still, exploit their resources, whilst we will find it harder to use ours and i think that's deeply unfortunate. and i think it is a pity that the supreme court decided to move away from the earlier and lower courts. >> now, when you were business and energy secretary, did you see many of these issues cross your desk? how involved are the politicians who run these departments in keeping abreast

of all of this action? because it seems whenever anyone tries to, for example, open a new coking coal mine or, or a new oil well or whatever it is, there is just legal action after legal action after legal action. >> that's a very fair point. and i was very keen to ensure that more licenses were given in the nonh more licenses were given in the north sea and we worked very carefully to make sure that was donein carefully to make sure that was done in a way that wasn't subject to legal challenge. there was an incinerator plant that i would have liked to have given approval for, but i wasn't allowed to because of the risk of judicial review. mainly dependent upon the common seal. and the thing about the common sealis and the thing about the common seal is it's common. and it wasn't going to be at very great risk, but nonetheless, yes, we have got ourselves in a situation where ministerial discretion is consistent , situation where ministerial discretion is consistent, is being undermined. and i think ultimately you want democratic , ultimately you want democratic, accountable control. now, you're right to say a lot of the

problem with this is in the legislation, and i would be keen to see, a change in legislation so that we can exploit our own resources more. we need to ensure the united kingdom is competitive . that's the way competitive. that's the way we're going to improve the standard of living. the condition of the british people, that they can be more prosperous i >> -- >> well, sir jacob rees—mogg, thank you so much for returning to this, time slot. and it's really, really good to see you. pleasure. thank you very much. well, with me now in the studio is the campaigner for defend our juries, tim crosland . tim, juries, tim crosland. tim, you've, taken some of this action in the past, why is it that it so often activists are using legal avenues rather than political avenues ? political avenues? >> well, because we have the rule of law in this country. >> well, because we have the rule of law in this country . and rule of law in this country. and one of the laws that we have is before a major project is undertaken, we make sure we understand what the impact is going to be. we make sure we

understand what the impact is going to be on those surrey residents whose homes have been flooded this year. on the surrey farmers who've crops have been destroyed this year by flooding. thatis destroyed this year by flooding. that is the law . and when you're that is the law. and when you're digging up oil, it makes sense to understand the impacts of burning that oil . that is the burning that oil. that is the only thing the supreme court has judged today that to pretend when you're drilling for oil, the burning of that oil is irrelevant would be a fantasy. it would to be undermine democracy. it would be to deliberately blind ourselves and bury our heads in the sand. >> this is what was argued in front of the supreme court justices. it was a split decision. it was three two. so sometimes things. so some of those justices said that actually the burning of this oil, does that have a direct impact on the residents of surrey? does it really i mean, the amount of oil that would have ever came out of this? well, it's immaterial to the amount of climate change that's going on. >> well, if it was immaterial, why didn't they assess it? they didn't assess it because the

industry standard was to assess the impact of the project. >> the construction of the project, rather than any end state down the chain effect of burning oil or doing whatever it is with making plastic, with the oil, whatever it is . why that oil, whatever it is. why that that had never been thought to be assessed. and it does seem to some people that what happens here is that, activists decide they don't want this to happen . they don't want this to happen. and then line by line, go through to find any in the armour of, of these, impact assessments that are hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages long. i mean, it does look like it's lawfare. >> i think that's a very cynical perspective. i think there's a much more democratic perspective on this, which is before major corporations with vast resources behind them. and vast propaganda teams and pr firms before they undertake a project that we think is likely to have impacts on the resources we all depend on the resources we all depend on our land, our air, our water,

our crops . we understand what our crops. we understand what the impact is going to be and those lobbyists and those lawyers, i mean, just imagine who's got the bigger teams of lawyers here. is it the exxons and the bp's , or is it the tiny and the bp's, or is it the tiny little activist groups? those lawyers have? >> works are fairly well funded these days. >> not not compared to big oil, believe me, not compared to big oil. and so it's those lawyers who have worked to get us into a very counterintuitive position where we don't assess the impacts of burning the oil, which is the whole point of drilling for the oil. >> now, of course, you've worked for the government in the past. you have been there at cop26 and been part of that drive to get more clean energy delivered. are you not worried that exactly the same tactics that are being used now against oil and gas are also being used by some green campaigners against solar farms, against wind farms and against nuclear power? three things that are vital in the energy transition. there are currently

green campaigners who are using environmental impact assessments in much the same way that they were used in this case to stop new offshore wind farms, because they might damage fish and they might damage birds. they might damage fish and they might damage birds . are you not might damage birds. are you not worried you've opened a pandora's box here? >> i think understanding the implications of what we do has got to be a good thing for democracy at the cost of clean, green energy . whether apply this green energy. whether apply this same principle to green energy, it's understanding the impacts of the wind farm, understanding the impacts of the nuclear energy, and assuming that we can live with those impacts, the project proceeds applying that principle to those other cases, these projects now come with thousands of pages of regulations , often of red tape, regulations, often of red tape, of green impact assessments . of green impact assessments. >> spain has, in the last couple of years decided to do away with the same intense level of environmental impact assessments for green projects. why does it make sense to have this level for green projects that they must meet the same sort of

environmental impact assessment requirements ? this is lawfare. requirements? this is lawfare. this is red tape and it's tying up our own domestic energy production. >> well, this only kicks in where a project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. if it doesn't, and the judgement is it isn't going to have that impact, then it shouldn't face this kind of procedure . but that's what the procedure. but that's what the supreme court has said today. the only thing we're discussing here is the supreme court saying, let's stop pretending that the point of this drilling of oil isn't to burn the oil. and if the point is to burn the oil, let's look at what the consequences of that's going to be for the residents of surrey , be for the residents of surrey, who only this year have had flown their homes, flooded their farms, flooded surrey county council just earlier this year put out a call to residents of surrey saying we have £5,000 they might want. >> they might, they might want. >> they might , they might well >> they might, they might well want some of the 75% windfall tax revenue on oil and gas to perhaps build some flood defences. but tim crosland really do appreciate your time. we've got to get to a break. but

coming up next, rachel reeves has vowed to end the gender pay gap once and for all. but if you're wondering what ann widdecombe has to say about that, all you might want to stick around

welcome back to state of the nafion welcome back to state of the nation at 821. my name is tom harwood. now in an interview with the guardian today, shadow chancellor rachel reeves has disclosed she would close the gender pay gap once for and all, claiming she would use the treasury to empower the position of women in society. she said she would shatter the last glass ceiling in politics, but is the gender pay gap what rachel reeves would have you believe it is ? it's true to say that is? it's true to say that endemically women are being paid less than men for the same job. is that really true? well to take a look at the uk pay gap data , this is it. broken down by

data, this is it. broken down by age. you'll see virtually non—existent up until the age of 40, at which point women are paid substantially differently to men. virtually no pay gap at all up to the age of 39. and then a pretty profound one. is this due to a sudden onset of misogyny hitting when a woman reaches the age of 40? or could there perhaps be another explanation ? what this graph explanation? what this graph does not, of course, take into account is the time that women and men may have taken out of work earlier in their careers. yes, it tends to be the case that women choose to take a considerable amount of time out of their jobs in their 30s, returning in their 40s, perhaps we should stop referring to this as a gender pay gap, and instead start talking about the motherhood pay gap . well, motherhood pay gap. well, joining me now to try and answer some of these questions is the former conservative minister now reform party immigration and justice spokesman ann widdecombe. and thank you for

joining me, oh, it looks like you're a little bit blurry. let's see if we can sort that image out. but firstly, your thoughts on what rachel reeves is trying to say in this interview with the guardian. >> well, it's a very good question. i mean, first of all, it is already unlawful to discriminate against somebody in pay discriminate against somebody in pay purely on the grounds of their sex. if you've got two people literally doing the same job, i mean, you know, desk side by side in an office, literally doing the same job, you cannot pay doing the same job, you cannot pay on a differential basis, but you have hit the nail on the head because when you look at it, more generically and you look at the statistics across all age groups in the nation, then it is quite obvious that women do suffer , slightly. and women do suffer, slightly. and the reason for that is , because the reason for that is, because they haven't always worked as long as men and therefore they haven't qualified for the higher pay- haven't qualified for the higher pay. i mean, it is normally the woman not always . sometimes it's

woman not always. sometimes it's the man, but it's normally the woman who takes the time out to raise children, and if a household has decided that they're going to do it, if you like the traditional way, and the woman is going to take time out, then she will be behind when she rejoins, the labour market. so it is just a nonsense. and i'm not exactly sure what, what rachel reeves has in mind. and she should be pressed on it because i can't answer for what's in her head. >> could it not be the case that some employers are misogynistic, some employers are misogynistic, some employers are misogynistic, some employers might hide behind the idea of, older women taken having taken more time away from work? we don't have the particular data to hand, but it could be the case that using these group associations, there is some discrimination going on in the workplace today. >> as i say, it is already unlawful. i mean completely unlawful. i mean completely unlawful. if you've got , two unlawful. if you've got, two genuinely the same jobs to pay

differential rates, doesn't matter what person sex is, what their age is, or anything else is, you cannot pay, at different rates that is already unlawful and it doesn't need any further action. what you then have, of course, is this thing called comparability , so you have to comparability, so you have to somehow compare the person at the till, the cashier in the supermarket with the person leaving the boxes in the warehouse , and of course, that's warehouse, and of course, that's completely unmeasurable. and people cry foul when the one gets a higher rate than the other and they say, oh, well, it's mainly men in the warehouse and mainly women on the tills. and you know, therefore there's a gender pay gap, but that's rubbish. it's to do with the job itself. >> and yet that is the legislation that was brought in by barbara castle. all those years ago. just finally, of course, it is birmingham city council that has bankrupted itself off the back of mismanagement over differentiation, differentiated pay differentiation, differentiated pay between jobs that are mainly

done by men and mainly done by women, of course it was a labour council at the time that it made all of those mistakes. should rachel reeves perhaps be turning her ire towards that council? >> oh well, i mean, you only have to look at labour administrations everywhere. i mean, birmingham is a very good example, but if you look at the mess that labour's made in wales, you know, i mean, i would not trust labour to administer, you know, a child's pocket money. i really wouldn't . so the money. i really wouldn't. so the idea that rachel reeves is going to suddenly, have all women are totally equal to men, regardless of these problems of definitions of these problems of definitions of comparability, regardless of the fact that women have taken time out, and haven't therefore moved as fast up the career ladder as the men who stayed in have. regardless of all of that , have. regardless of all of that, rachel reeves is going to bring the gender pay gap to an end. oh dean the gender pay gap to an end. oh dear. spare me . dear. spare me. >> well, it will be a miserable thing to see if she does or not. and thank you very much, ann widdecombe. really appreciate your time. now the tories have

decided to paint labour as the party rolling out the red carpet for illegal migrants. let's have a look at their latest advert . now, some might say this of the cons party. after all channel crossings began on that party's watch and they're yet to stop the boats or indeed get a single plane off the ground to rwanda. but perhaps the tories do have a point. with the numbers become even bigger under labour. or maybe the weather has a bigger impact than any politician. well, joining me now is my panel journalist and conservative peer lord goodman, and gb news senior political commentator nigel nelson . nigel, we're going to

nelson. nigel, we're going to start with you, it's very brave of the conservatives to put out an advert in the year or the two years since rishi sunak's pledge, 40,000 people across the channelin pledge, 40,000 people across the channel in small boat crossings. >> yes and yes, they've got a real nerve to put this one out. yeah and there's 882 came across on tuesday . that was the highest on tuesday. that was the highest so far this year. so the tories have hardly got a great record on dealing with this, i mean the we're not going to stop the boats . i we're not going to stop the boats. i think we have to we're not going to stop the boats . i think we have to start boats. i think we have to start from that point, whether it's labour or the conservatives the boats are going to carry on. what we've got to do is come up with the right sort of policy to deal with it. rwanda was the wrong one, far too much money. it was never going to be for value money, even if it deterred a few people. labour's plan at the moment looks to me like the better bet, because they're talking about beefing up border security , what they should be security, what they should be able to do is tackle the smuggling gangs using terrorist terrorist tactics. and yet , terrorist tactics. and yet, doesn't this sort of get to the very sort of a visceral feeling

in politics because people sort of have an idea of britain as britannia, as being the country that once ruled the waves, and now we can't even rule the channel. no. and brexit was meant to actually cure all this. and of course, of course it didn't. i mean, i think that we still have to get back to the fundamental problem. if you if you can only claim asylum on british soil, that will be a draw for people to come across from calais. once you actually once you find a system whereby you could claim asylum offshore elsewhere, that would would stop the draw , i suppose. the draw, i suppose. >> lord goodman, is that not one of the fundamental problems , the of the fundamental problems, the treaties that we're signed up to encourage this sort of stuff ? encourage this sort of stuff? >> well, it's a fundamental problem, i suppose, with the advert is that very few people at the moment seem, sadly, to be wanting to listen to what my party is saying in the election. but if you step back a bit, you kind of think about the issues as a whole, i think it's a very, very serious situation because in so far as i understand labour's policy, it's kind of like the old saying that the

original bits are not good and the good bits are not original. quite a lot of what they're proposing the government's doing already. so what's actually going to stop the flow? if anything, i think you're on to something when you see that the international agreements that we've signed that everyone else honours the refugee convention, all the rest of it, they were all the rest of it, they were all formed in a world 50 or 70 years ago. they're just out of date . and i'm puzzled by why date. and i'm puzzled by why a british politician of either party hasn't said that they're going to try and lead some sort of diplomatic international effort to make them more realistic and more attuned to the times we live in. >> yeah, it's strange because nigel, once upon a time there was a prime minister called tony blair who once said he wanted to reform the 1951 convention on refugees , but never got refugees, but never got anywhere, though. >> no, it didn't, and we're stuck with it with the issue of international law. so at the moment, the big battle is over, whether we leave the european court of human rights, or just court of human rights, orjust simply ignore it, i think the more likely thing if rishi sunak was re—elected is we'd ignore

any of their decisions and then see what happened after that. but i still think that as a country, we don't want to go down the route of belarus and russia. we want to stay within the international community. >> but of course, it's not just the echr that is the issue there is. it's the united nations. but paul, is. it's the united nations. but paul , there is, of course, we've paul, there is, of course, we've been talking about the conservative policy, the labour party policy. there is a maverick extra party that has sort of begun to rear its head in the last couple of weeks , and in the last couple of weeks, and that's the reform party that's saying that they'd simply turn back the boats. >> this doesn't sound very realistic to me. i don't think reforms policy platform is designed to do anything other than garner public sympathy, because everyone knows they're not going to win the election , not going to win the election, so they're not going to have to implement any of these difficult ideas. implement any of these difficult ideas . now, i implement any of these difficult ideas. now, i think the future is in renegotiating the agreements and actually , funnily agreements and actually, funnily enough, i suspect kind of five, ten years other european countries will be doing offshore or rwanda type schemes. rishi

sunak problem is he's just got there too early. >> interesting stuff . well, >> interesting stuff. well, we're much more, much more to discuss, of course. thank you. for now to my panel. the labour party has pledged to give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality. will it actually reduce inequality or simply lead to unelected bureaucrats stunting growth and overruling our politicians? or both? find out after the

break. welcome back to state of the nafion welcome back to state of the nation at 8.35. now, sir keir starmer has presented himself as a quiet, middle of the road centrist. yet in recent days, attention has been drawn to just how radical some of labour's constitutional changes may be. parliamentary reform , the parliamentary reform, the rolling back of trade union, democratic accountability and even the highest tax burden ever are all right there in the

labour manifesto, as is a further proposal to give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality, not to make people better off, but to reduce the gap between rich and poor. let's have a look at what margaret thatcher once had to say about such ideas back in 1990. >> but what's the honourable member is saying is that he will rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich. that way you will never create the wealth for better social services. as we have. and what a policy! yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were legit . provided the rich were legit. >> margaret thatcher there at her last outing at the despatch box as prime minister, speaking to a rather younger simon hughes . but joining me now is the senior online editor of the new statesman magazine, george eaton, as well as my panel, lord goodman and nigel nelson, george, this is an interesting

element of labour's manifesto. not many people have picked it up , but it does perhaps suggest up, but it does perhaps suggest that keir starmer is not exactly tony blair. yes, i've called him a quiet radical. >> and because, labour's campaign strategy has b been to appear impeccably moderate. but by any measure, the manifesto is to the left not just of new labour but of the manifesto. ed miliband put forward in in 2015. and you mentioned some of the policies there. you could add pubuc policies there. you could add public ownership of rail, setting up publicly owned energy company gb energy. and as you highlighted, enacting the socio economic duty in the equality act, which gives public bodies a duty to address inequalities arising from class occupation , arising from class occupation, place of residence, i think the reason they've been seen as courses is because they've been so conservative and tax and spend, and that's because they know labour has often lost elections because it hasn't been trusted on the economy. but behind that , there are radical behind that, there are radical proposals on, on, on britain's

economic institutions, actually, precisely because they're being so cautious on tax and spend. if you want to change the economy, if you want to boost growth and reduce inequality, you're going to have to make changes elsewhere. >> of course, it's interesting. perhaps it's easy to be quote unquote conservative on tax and spend when tax and spend are at historic highs under the government that you're trying to, defeat in an election . but to, defeat in an election. but but i but i wonder this particular inequality duty it's going to be, it's going to make hay for lawyers. right. whenever a local authority tries to do something, they'll be able to be a judicial review. does this reduce inequality? well, i think that we'll see what happens in practice. >> it's already been enacted in in scotland . but you're right in scotland. but you're right that i think i think labour is in favour of, of, of, of more legislation because that is one way that you deliver change. i think we've become used in recent years to governments which haven't been introducing lots of new legislation, partly because the conservatives have been so immersed in, in factional warfare. but things such as the new deal for working

people, that's a really ambitious , radical proposal on, ambitious, radical proposal on, on, on workers rights that's going to lead to a lot of institutional change. >> we've got to broaden this discussion out now because lord goodman, in some ways is this the inverse of the conservative party, the labour party is speaking from the centre and perhaps governing from the left, whereas the conservative party has been speaking from the right and governing from the centre. >> one of the difficulties the conservative parties had in this election is that it's gone from clearly representing some people a few years ago to then representing a lot of people at the time of boris johnson and the time of boris johnson and the referendum to being, i think, rather confused in this election about who its core vote and the voters it's appealing to are . and i think george was are. and i think george was quite right, and i've been following his stuff and i've read labour's manifesto myself about how radical this proposal is and my beef with it isn't the equality element. as such , it's equality element. as such, it's putting all this power into the

hands of judges , because it's hands of judges, because it's the judges who will decide if you take a case to court, say, about pay under one of these categories, the judges will make the decision about the rights and wrongs of it. but who stands up for here the rights of the taxpayer? and i think that the competing rights of the taxpayer and the right of the person who's claiming should be fought out between democratically elected representatives in parliament rather than become a matter for judgement parliament rather than become a matter forjudgement . matter for judgement. >> of course, nigel isn't isn't the case here that we have a leader of the labour party who's barely been an mp for much time . barely been an mp for much time. he's spent much more time as a senior lawyer. >> yeah, and, and i take, i take paups >> yeah, and, and i take, i take paul's point, but i don't think this is the intention of it. the whole idea of this is not about spending a lot of taxpayers money. it's about how you serve , money. it's about how you serve, if you're a local authority, how you serve your residents. so it could be something on the lines of a local authority wants to wants to close a couple of bus routes. what you would do is have a the socio economic duty

is to check who's going to be impacted by that. so if, for instance, you're going to close the one where there's a load of elderly people without cars, that would be one worth saving. all it means is they're thinking about people, about people's needs , rather than just doing needs, rather than just doing the whole thing arbitrarily . the whole thing arbitrarily. >> on the other hand, more duties, more obligations. isn't democracy supposed to arguably sort that out? george, i'm fascinated in how keir starmer stood to be leader of the labour party. recently i've been watching some of his original campaign videos where he's talking about all of the legal action he did for free on behalf of the miners. he he fought legal action for those that refused to pay their poll tax. he took mcdonald's to court over environmental reasons . all of environmental reasons. all of this stuff, and then he's suddenly appearing very, very centrist. now, where's the truth? which is the real starmer ? >> 7- >> soi 7_ >> so i think ? >> so i think the truth lies somewhere in between. he has a strong attachment to social justice, strong attachment to human rights. he was a human rights lawyer, but he's not suddenly going to re—embrace the ten pledges that he stood for on

the leadership on. he's not going to support free movement. i don't think he's going to, push for public ownership of royal mail and water. the well water. he may be forced to, but that's. but i don't think he's going to push for a radical increase in tax. but i think taxes will rise. and there are some on the labour who's side who say yes, the tax take is at a record high for the uk, but it's still four points below germany. it's 11 points below france. that gets us into the really big debate . what's really big debate. what's ultimately what economic social model do we want? and i think sometimes partly because the debate was dragged so far to the left during the corbyn era, people sometimes forget that in between, say the conservatives at one end, liz truss at one end, and sort of corbyn, corbyn, socialism at the other . there's socialism at the other. there's quite a lot of space there. it's a social democracy , really, and a social democracy, really, and there's a big debate to be had about are we going to see sort of tweaks to the anglo—saxon economic model or are we going to over the next decade, if labour have a decade in power, which they might become a country closer to that european

social democratic norm? it's a big debate. no, it's an absolutely fascinating point. >> just because you're to the right of starmer, of corbyn, of course, doesn't mean that you're to the right or indeed in the centre ground at all. there's a huge, huge space in between. george eaton, really appreciate your time. thank you for coming in. and of course, thank you to my panel as well. now after the break, we'll be speaking to a political betting expert in light of some of these gambling commission into conservative

welcome back to state of the nation. it'sjust welcome back to state of the nation. it's just gone 8:45. my name is tom harwood. now the conservative party have faced controversy in recent days after the gambling commission revealed they're investigating the possibility of two conservative candidates placing bets on the date of the general election. one of the prime minister's protection officers is also under scrutiny. the offence of using inside information to gain an unfair advantage for

financial gain has been called reprehensible by the secretary of state, michael gove, but i'm joined now by william kedjanyi, the political betting analyst for star sports bets, and my panel journalist and conservative peer lord goodman and gb news senior political commentator, nigel nelson. william, we're going to start with you in the round. political betting seems to be something that has grown in prominence in recent years. >> it really has, yes, and we've had a lot of opportunities for that sort of thing. we've had the brexit referendum, we've had political turmoil . we've also political turmoil. we've also had a number of opportunities for sort of special markets , we for sort of special markets, we were doing votes on, you know, the brexit legislation and people are betting on that. so we've had tons of opportunities and it really has grown over the last ten years. >> and of course, you've brought in your famous whiteboard, which includes some, some odds that people can get at home. let's go through them. what's the what's the labour party ? okay. the labour party? okay. >> so we will start with the labour party now they are heavily odds on to win this election. it's a landslide . it's

election. it's a landslide. it's predicted we've had three mps. they all have them winning a huge amount of seats. and the punters have decided that it's going to be more like canada 93 than 97 and tony blair. so the 11 to 10 favourites in our seats market with labour is for them to win 450 to 499 seats, a huge majority. it's an astonishing number, and it's just unprecedented, frankly, in the election. better. we haven't seen anything like that. and now you can get pretty decent odds on less than 100 seats for the conservatives. you can again, this is also unprecedented, in fact, the actual favourite in our more specific seats market is for the tories to win between 50 and 99 seats, which is just incredible when you consider not only how dominant they were in 2019, but also the fact that, again, this isn't usually normal for the tories at a general election . this is much, much election. this is much, much worse than what john major was facing, and the lib dems, there are insurgent . they are. the lib are insurgent. they are. the lib dems have been arguably the most popular party with the punters. really? yeah, yeah, we've been

taking lots of money on lib dems to win various seats in that blue wall, in the constituency betting, which we've got the lib dems being backed to overturn tory big beasts. now everybody remembers the portillo moment. this will be an election of the portillo moments. punters are backing them to overturn any amount of tory seats and we can see them having a very successful night. >> now there's been a poll out today that says reform is level pegging today that says reform is level pegging with the tories, but there was that famous moment when yougov had them one point ahead of the tories. you can get odds on that. >> yes. and i believe redfield and wilton has also had a slight crossover, it's clear that the reform surge is real in the polling now, there's no denying it. you're getting a situation where they're either within the margin of error or they are just narrowly ahead . and this looks narrowly ahead. and this looks set to go down to the wire, when we had this market up, i had to believe, honestly, i had to say i didn't really believe they'd actually do it, but it's gotten closer and closer. nigel farage

stood the campaign's momentum in a lot of attention, and they're just 9 to 4 to win a bigger percentage of the vote. >> interesting stuff. well, nigel, of course this is all fun and games, but there's a very serious point at the heart of this. what's been going on with these two conservative candidates? of course, allegedly, allegedly . allegedly, allegedly. >> and i wish i wish they'd tell us. and that would seem to clear things up. we don't know. i mean, they are under under suspicion of the betting equivalent of insider trading, basically. now, we don't we don't know that they won't tell us what actually happened. we know that one of the candidates put on £100 bet on a july election. >> so we're not talking big money. >> well, we're not talking big money there. what we don't know is about the other people who've been involved, or indeed, if there are more people involved, it just seems to me this couldn't be worse for rishi sunak. he's that everything that could go wrong in this election has from being drenched when he announced it, from bunking off from d—day and now this which, whether true or not, leaves the

impression that tories break the rules when they feel like it but impose the rules and everybody else. >> lord goodman, this seems very, very odd. not just the fact that there is all of this question mark about what went on, but frankly, how this story came about. >> yes, there's a difference between, someone just putting a harmless political bet on. i must say, i'm not a political punter myself. so don't really understand quite why people think they can beat the bank. there are some people do. there's a difference between that and as you say, using insider information. just if you put yourself for a second in the position, if you're average, godforsaken or so, he would feel tory activists going around knocking on doors . you would knocking on doors. you would feel these people had let you down very badly indeed . and i down very badly indeed. and i cannot see why they should not be suspended and pending further inquiries. >> very, very interesting . >> very, very interesting. because, nigel, this is of course, is yet another perhaps, self—inflicted error in the

conservative campaign. it's been a litany of errors . a litany of errors. >> yes, that's absolutely right. i mean, i think that the rot starts with partygate for the same kind of reason because, number 10 decided not to obey rules that everybody else had to do. we're in the same, the same kind of ballpark with something like this gamble gate is all about. now, the fact that these people thought, oh, we can get away with this, no problem , if away with this, no problem, if it turns out that they are, they actually did do it. >> could it be a big millom? >> could it be a big millom? >> could it be a big coincidence? >> this does tend to come round in the political mix. and i remember cash for questions going on when labour were well into their term in government. the question is really what you do about it. and i think while someone's being investigated and there is no case not to suspend and rishi sunak is going to have and rishi sunak is going to have a very hard time answering questions this evening when he's asked what he shall do and he'll doubtless say, well, you know, the gambling commission is looking at it, but i think it'll be very hard pressed if he's then asked what will you do

then, if these people are found to be in breach of the law, some question marks as term in terms of how this story has come into the public domain , some people the public domain, some people looking into the gambling commission itself, if there's a leak, if there's a leaker there, but that's a story for another day, both to nigel nelson and to lord goodman. thank you very much for joining lord goodman. thank you very much forjoining me, as well as william kedjanyi and going through those odds. and please do, if you're interested in political betting or indeed betting of any kind, remember to gamble responsibly, thank you very much to my panel and indeed to william. that's all from me this evening . coming up next is this evening. coming up next is the one and only patrick christys patrick, what's on the bill this evening? >> well, i've got a heck of a lot on tom and ellie. a candidate has been caught on camera saying that women will burn in hell. we should keep them indoors and it's funny if they feel the back of a man's hand.so they feel the back of a man's hand. so we'll be talking about all of that. and whether or not they should be standing at this election is mass immigration to blame for the housing crisis? and our reporter is in tenerife. as the hunt for missing jay slater continues, has he been

kidnapped? we're hearing from david davis wes streeting and a lib dem as well. >> all go david davis wes streeting and a lib dem. that's the holy trinity of political conversation. well patrick, look forward to it. now it all remains for me to say this evening is thank you very much for watching. i'll be back on your screens at midday tomorrow, but of course, monday at eight as well. and of course it's the weather next and it's sunny in somerset . somerset. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> good evening. welcome to your latest weather update from the met office on gb news. most places will have a fine start tomorrow. plenty of sunshine , tomorrow. plenty of sunshine, but a change on the way in the west as things start to cloud over with outbreaks of rain courtesy of a couple of weather systems and a couple of areas of low pressure pushing away the high pressure that's brought most of us a fine day today.

still very pleasant out there this evening. the main exception to that being western scotland. as the rain is trickling in here, some of that rain could turn a bit heavy as we go through the night, but for most it's a dry night. clear skies will allow a little bit of mist and fog to form, and turn quite chilly over parts of eastern england, down to single figures for parts of east anglia and the south—east, certainly in the countryside. so a coolish start here, but any mist and fog will soon disappear , and then soon disappear, and then generally it's going to be another fine day across the midlands, east anglia and the south east. plenty of sunshine soon starting to lift the temperatures, but a cloudier day for wales and southwest england. quite a cloudy start for northern ireland with some outbreaks of rain here and a bit of a damp start in western scotland as well. much of northern england, much of eastern scotland , dry and fine, eastern scotland, dry and fine, but a lot of cloud and some outbreaks of rain and drizzle over the northern isles to its further west, though, where we've got this weather front moving in, bringing more in the way of persistent rain that will cloud things over across all of northern ireland by lunchtime , northern ireland by lunchtime, and patchy rain edging in here through the afternoon. further

rain to come at times across western scotland. a few showers developing across wales and southwest england to still some brightness possible here, but definitely the brightest, sunniest weather over central and eastern parts and the warmest weather as well. 2324 whereas in the west it will feel a bit cooler than today because of the cloud and the rain leaving some showers around dunng leaving some showers around during saturday over parts of eastern england . another weather eastern england. another weather front coming into the north—west, but between again , north—west, but between again, many places set fair on saturday. a brighter day for wales and as we go through the weekend into the early part of next week, in particular, it is going to get quite a bit warmer. >> looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers sponsors of up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> it's 9 pm. on patrick christys tonight in my

household. >> i'm the man. i'm the king. i call the shots and my missus. alhamdulillah. she's listens to me. >> disgusting. misogynist comments there from an independent candidate backed by the muslim vote. also . the muslim vote. also. >> here just stop oil attacking airport, but hilariously , they airport, but hilariously, they missed their target. >> and i think today we've just seen a tipping point in the other direction. >> no longer will any planning authority be allowed to wave through fossil fuel production. >> well, a bombshell court ruling. could it lead to the lights going off in britain just to appease the eco mob? >> plus, sunak were just an absolute living nightmare. it's like a dream. it's like it's not happening. it really is . happening. it really is. >> has the missing b'rit in tenerife been kidnapped? i speak to someone on the ground and is

the case that obviously any decision by anyone to