in nigel daubney, filling for in nigel farage. well, parliament is officially open for business. the king's speech was the most legislative heavy speech for nearly two decades. the government has pledged to be builders, not blockers, as it lays out its stringent plans to get britain building again by reinstating housing targets. but can the prime minister bash down the wall of mps already opposed to his plans? well, we'll talk to his plans? well, we'll talk to a nimby and a yimby. to his plans? well, we'll talk to a nimby and a yimby . labour to a nimby and a yimby. labour has pledged to halve serious violence over the next decade, with shoplifting at an all time high. will they succeed in bringing back more bobbies on the beat? and the prime minister has even resurrected rishi sunak's smoking ban bill, preventing those born after 2009 from smoking in their entire lifetime. however, the next generation's liberties simply gone up in smoke .

gone up in smoke. >> good evening. the top stories from the gb newsroom. the prime minister, sir keir starmer, has promised national renewal after 14 years of what he called tory chaos, as mps debated the king's speech in the house of commons today. it comes after king charles officially opened the new session of parliament, setting out the government's planned programme of new laws. in total, 40 pieces of legislation were announced, with promises to get britain building, deliver greater devolution and a plan to tackle organised immigration crime. the government also announced a new child poverty taskforce, but the prime minister is facing pressure over not scrapping the two child benefit cap. sir keir starmer says his government will solve problems, though not exploit them. >> the last king's speech was the day when the veil of his choices slipped, and we all saw a party. his party content to let our country's problems fester, content to push aside

the national interest as they focused almost entirely on trying to save their own skins. but i defy anyone on those benches or elsewhere to look at the ambition and purpose of our intent, and not to receive a return to the serious business of government. no more wedge issues, no more gimmicks, no more party political strategy masquerading as policy. >> the prime minister, well, the now leader of the opposition, rishi sunak, vowed to hold the government to account on all its promises . promises. >> it is right to begin by congratulating the prime minister on his decisive victory in the election. he deserves the goodwill of all of us in this house, as he takes on the most demanding of jobs in the increasingly uncertain world in which we now live. now the party opposite has successfully tapped into the public's desire for change, but they now must deliver change, and we on this

side of the house will hold them accountable for delivering on the commitments that they made to the british people in the national interest. we will not oppose for the sake of it. but when we disagree with a government, it is our responsibility as the opposition to say so . to say so. >> economic news and the latest figures show that inflation held at the bank of england's 2% target last month. all eyes will now be on whether it will cut interest rates this summer. the government says the data is welcome news, but prices are still high because of what they described as the economic chaos inherited from the conservatives. and just lastly , conservatives. and just lastly, prisoners of war were exchanged today following an agreement between ukraine and russia . 95 between ukraine and russia. 95 soldiers from each side were returned, the ukrainian men appearing emotional as they left the coach. if you're watching on television, you can see them shaking hands and embracing their countrymen as they land on home soil, some of them sobbing and wrapping flags around themselves. president volodymyr

zelenskyy said all of the freed prisoners were from the armed forces and he thanked the united arab emirates for its help in facilitating the deal. it's the third swap in seven weeks. those are the latest gb news headlines. for now, i'm polly middlehurst. i'm back in an houn middlehurst. i'm back in an hour. see you then. >> for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone. sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code , or go to gbnews.com the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . forward slash alerts. >> thank you very much, paulie. now good evening. this is farage and i'm martin daubney. well, today saw the pomp and ceremony of the king's speech as the king and queen headed to parliament. the westminster machine word into action. beginning with the ceremonial for search explosives. a centuries old tradition dating back to the days of the gunpowder plot at

the time, honoured traditions followed, with a designated mp held captive in buckingham palace throughout the ceremony and the commons door slammed in the face of black rod, a custom embodying the independence of the commons from the monarchy . the commons from the monarchy. of course, mps were then summoned to the lords from the house of commons, where they heard the king's speech, which included the announcement of great british energy, a new border security bill to tackle migrants crossing the channel, stronger measures against shoplifting and a nannying crackdown on smoking and energy drinks. but it's housing where i want to start this evening . want to start this evening. today, sir keir starmer set out plans to tear up planning red tape in a bid to get britain building, with 1.5 million homes promised in the next five years. in what has been billed as a war on nimbys. now, before we get to our guests, i want to get your thoughts in on this. would it be okay to plonk a new housing development next year? what

about a load of pylons or a load of wind turbines? you fancy that? are you a yimby or a nimby? drop me a line by emailing farage @gbnews .com, or go to twitter and hashtag farage on gb news. well, i'm joined in the studio by christopher hope, gb news political editor and russell quirk, property expert. why don't we start with you, chris? so let's go a few of the highlights from the speech. i felt it, it was a king's speech. it just felt like the conservatives basically agreed with the labour party . with the labour party. >> i think about a quarter of the bills, 40 draft bills and actual bills in there. >> i think 40 could have been shut your eyes. imagine the tory government doing them in a fifth term. no question. you heard there from rishi sunak saying that they wouldn't oppose for opposition's sake. well, you might argue that you're paid 50 grand a year. mr sunak , as the grand a year. mr sunak, as the leader of the opposition, please do oppose when you can because that's your that's the point of yourjob that's your that's the point of your job to challenge this. that's your that's the point of yourjob to challenge this. this your job to challenge this. this government with a huge majority. no, i think it was it was it was

as limited. i think the king king's speech, lack of ambition that we saw in the manifesto of the party, you heard from sir keir starmer saying that the snake oil charmer populism may sound seductive, but it drives us into the dead of end of further division. so clearly they think let's be boring, straightforward measures in there are dramatic. i think in some ways, notably on the issues of employment, immediate rights for those who arrive at a company to get sick, pay and maybe parental leave if they fall pregnant or their partner does. and also on planning, we'll come to that shortly about getting these high quality homes built, but i think otherwise on rail nationalisation maybe, but otherwise many areas there. the tories will be happy with. you mentioned nimbys and the nimbys. i mentioned. i mentioned to you bananas. you know what a banana is? build anywhere i'd gone. absolutely nothing . anywhere absolutely nothing. anywhere near anyone. banana. are you a banana, russell? >> that's the liberal democrats. i think you're referring to. >> okay. and there was also a video going around after the king's speech of them all

chumming up , king's speech of them all chumming up, kissing each other on the cheek, shaking hands, being best pals. look, not quite kissing on your screen. >> i better say who's there for the viewers? so you've got there rishi sunak with his opposite number, the prime minister. speaking. then oliver dowden stepped in. sir oliver dowden sorry, got knighted at the dissolution honours. don't forget on night they went down like a cup of cold with angela rayner and behind him over mr sunak's shoulder. you'll see jeremy hunt, the former chancellor, with the current chancellor, with the current chancellor, rachel reeves. this kind of thing divides the nation . kind of thing divides the nation. i think it does annoy people because it looks like they all agree. aren't they all happy and jolly? i mean tory mps, i know many of them who lost their seats are appalled by this sort of stuff. it's called ptsd, post traumatic sunak disorder. they annoys them. they feel that it's all right for these people. they're still in government. or he's offered to maybe leaving leaving parliament. if he doesn't, he says he won't, but he might do. and he winds them up. but other people maybe on your panel later may disagree with us. >> well, very early on on my show when we first showed this, we got, i've got to say,

hundreds of comments. people really not happy. the uniparty, they said two cheeks of the same. you can guess the rest . same. you can guess the rest. why don't we move on on that bombshell to property? so get britain building again. bombshell to property? so get britain building again . sounds britain building again. sounds great on paper. russell quirk 1.5 million new homes slashing through red tape. where are they going to build them? how much these houses are going to are they going to cost? and how about clamping down on net migration of almost 700,001st? >> well, there's a lot to unpack. there isn't there? and look, headlines are very cheap and we've heard similar headunes and we've heard similar headlines from not just the last government but the one before that, the one before that, and the one before that. we haven't built enough homes in this country since the 1960s. so 1.5 million homes over the next parliament is, of course, 300,000 homes per annum . over 300,000 homes per annum. over the last 20, 30, 40 years, we have built only 200,000 homes. this is not just like waving a magic wand , martin. and i think, magic wand, martin. and i think, look, the labour party, i think are about to discover that when you're in opposition and you don't have to cash the checks,

it's pretty easy to make such announcements. actually coming into government now and making this stuff happen. and then actually five years later, having to look back and hopefully justify what you have or haven't done, that's a whole different thing altogether. and of course, the issue here is that what angela rayner has suggested and rachel reeves and keir starmer is that, yes, they're going to build 1.5 billion homes. the question is yes, of course, where albeit the reality is only about 8% of britain is built on, so there is actually space. but the problem we've got is planning authorities that are populated by local councils on planning committees that to love say no. and the reason they say no is because they get lots of objection from, you know, mable, john and eric up the road that don't want to see any houses at the end of their cul de sac or in the bit of space behind them. that's going to be a significant problem, particularly for labour mps, that right now, as a consequence of getting into government, can say we're going to build these homes. but just like theresa villiers and all of the conservative backbenchers that rebelled against the conservative plans a year ago, which were very, very similar, let's see what happens when those particular developments are planned in their own

constituencies. >> well, i think wes streeting has already been out and has a bit of a nimby himself in the past. >> you mentioned 8% there. that's a uk figure. england is 12, of course. so you know that, don't you? it's always quite a lot though. but yeah, thompson is you know, he's not a% know that that includes lots of parts of scotland aren't lived in the nppf the national planning policy framework that's being rewritten this month, a planning rule book that guides planners on development with probably a new requirement for sustainable development, as george new requirement for sustainable development , as george osborne development, as george osborne tried to do in 2012. will that work? will they, if they bring in this need for the economy to grow it, will that force planners to approve more houses? well, i was going to say the biggest problem here, of course, is you can do what you like with the planning process. >> let's assume they do reform the planning process so that everything becomes much easier. planning applications take much less time because currently they can take 2 or 3 years. the problem is going to be the builders building because it's not angela rayner with a trowel in her hand or rachel reeves with a hod on her back. frankly this is the top ten house builders of britain. the likes of persimmon, bovis, taylor

wimpey and so on. they are the ones that build about 80% of britain's homes, so you can do what you like with the planning process. all of the big builders are going to do is buy land, get planning permission easier and continue to land. how do you stop land banking? well, the only way in my there's two schools of thought. chris, if you're on the left, you will say penalise the builders. if they don't build the land bank, i'm on the right. so i would say you need to incentivise those builders, but particularly we need to see the return of sme builders, small and medium enterprise builders, the guys that toil and build on an annual basis, maybe ten, 15, 20 homes each. we must make sure that they now start to have much more influence and power within the development sector. >> russell, why would the building companies want to provide a massive glut of 1.5 million homes? but they won't. they'll put prices down because, look, let's be really clear here. >> and i say this with no malice and no, no kind of moral judgement at all. the top ten house builders of this country are under no obligation whatsoever to society. so even though society requires 300,000 homes per annum, the builders have no obligation to meet that

need. they have an obligation solely and only to their shareholders. if they were to increase output. and bearing in mind this is an output increase of 50% in literally immediately. if they decide that they don't want to do that, because, of course, increasing the supply of homes therefore starts to reduce potentially the value of properties . they're simply not properties. they're simply not going to do it. so it doesn't matter what rachel reeves angela rayner and keir starmer say about getting britain building. why don't you use it or lose? it won't build. >> you use the planning commission or you lose. after five years. that's money. >> well, let's just incentivise it, chris, with tax relief. so if you have something that let's say is about to become three years old as a piece of land, bank land that could have 40, 100, 500 houses built on it, give tax relief to those developers, particularly smes . developers, particularly smes. and you will see britain building. >> and russell, that brings on to the topic of social housing, something angela rayner knows a thing or two about. and the point you want to go there. >> yeah, the fact of the matter is the labour party for, for years and years have banged on

about maggie thatcher, the right to buy the social housing stock being hoovered up. >> many people who voted conservative saw that as a tremendous policy. their ability to get on the bricks and mortar ladderis to get on the bricks and mortar ladder is the answer. social housing. but then angela rayner has said social housing will be put to the asylum seeker stock. asylum seekers will be entitled and she's already said that every constituency would have to take its fair share of asylum seekers if the government builds millions of homes, that would be rolling out the red carpet to the dinghies. >> well, look, but politically, from my perspective, it should be britain's first. those that have paid into the system should get first dibs on that housing stock, particularly the our waiting list now in in britain is about a million long, as in those that are waiting for housing. but but what's very uncharacteristic i think from labouris uncharacteristic i think from labour is that they haven't talked about the return of council housing. you would imagine that a left leaning government would be talking about building council houses via local authorities, but actually very unusually, what rachel reeves said in her speech

last monday was that they're going to leave that to the private sector. why? well, because i guess, look, is it too problematic? is it too costly? i guess actually, it's the latter. if you decide to start building 20, 30, 40, 50,000 council houses again per annum like macmillan did back in the 60s, where does the money come from? i think even this government realised that somehow, actually you've actually got to find the money to meet the promises and the pledges that you make. >> shock, horror and chris out politically, the idea that these developments probably won't be in a lot of labour constituencies, they might be in liberal democrat constituencies. they won't roll over and accept this. the shire tory seats, they won't take it either. this could become a huge political battle. >> well, i expect it fully to be a big issue for people fighting big, big developments on on the edges of towns. so they often build on cartilages. i mean, the idea of this, we haven't talked about just the grey belt yet, have we, russell. but the grey belt is the area. car parks, waste ground within the green belt, which is can't be built on because within the green belt area. so that might work for

them, but there's not enough land for that. i mean, that is sensible, chris. >> that's a sensible policy. you know, most of the green belt, i mean, the green belt hasn't been recategorised since the 1950s. so to take the bits that aren't green, the scrapyards, the industrial estates, literally grey. yes. literally grey. and to build on those is a good idea.the to build on those is a good idea. the other problem of course, labour have is that 13 of the 24 members of the front bench have all opposed, very recently opposed, developments in their own backyards, particularly, strangely enough, matthew pennycook, who of course, is the housing minister. he opposed not one but two housing developments. so i'm not quite sure how labour square that circle. when you've got a load of nimbys on your front bench and you're also saying out the same mouth, well, actually we're going to build loads more houses than have ever been built before. >> it's almost like dogma meets reality. not in my backyard. if you're a labour mp. russell quirk, property expert chris obe. absolutely fantastic start to the show. thank you very much. now we're joined by quintin bradley, who's a senior lecturer in housing and planning at leeds beckett university. quintin, welcome to the show. you no doubt overheard a lot of that conversation there. the big question is, if it's not in my

backyard, whose backyard are these developments going to be in? >> thanks, martin. the problem isn't about backyards at all. the problem isn't even about planning. in fact, the problem is actually the house builders themselves building the wrong houses at the wrong price, in the right, in the wrong places. so local residents have got no power whatsoever to stop developments. that's just ridiculous. local planning authorities and his majesty's planning inspectorate are the people who decide planning applications and planning in this country is a very centralised thing. it's got very little local democracy left in it. planning authorities are under targets from local government, and if they don't meet those targets for house building, then they lose all democratic control over land use. but planning isn't the problem. so planning authorities are approving 89% of all

planning applications, 89% of planning applications, 89% of planning applications, 89% of planning applications get approved , but they are also approved, but they are also giving planning permission for all the houses that the government says we need. so 300,000 new homes built a year has been the target for the previous government and it's the target for the current labour government. and over the last six years, local planning authorities have approved every year over 300,000 homes to be built. but they haven't been built, >> well, why not? >> well, why not? >> so the problem is that we're relying on a profit seeking private development industry to provide for housing need in this country , and that's not their country, and that's not their job. and they're not going to do that. they're very good at what they do, which is building a smaller amount of homes at a

slow rate in to order keep house pnces slow rate in to order keep house prices high and that's what they're doing. what we don't needin they're doing. what we don't need in this country is more and more expensive. homes at nine times income, or 30 times income built, you know , on greenfield built, you know, on greenfield sites everywhere . we have an sites everywhere. we have an absolute crisis of housing affordability in this country. there are over 4 million households who are either homeless or living in substandard or inadequate housing. they need affordable housing, and we have to be building that. that's the priority. we have to be building 150,000 really affordable homes every year just to get started on meeting the backlog of need in this country. and that's not going to be done by the top ten volume house builders, because that's not their job. that's not what they want to do. that can

only be done by public investment . investment. >> okay. we have to leave it there. and that's not even addressing the issue to even stand still in terms of immigration, we'd need to build a nottingham plus a newcastle every single year. quentin bradley, thanks for joining us on the show. pleasure now coming up, labour pledges to take back the streets by tackling low level thefts under £200. but how feasible is its plan under our battered judicial system that's coming

welcome back. now, before the break, we asked, would you be okay with a housing development where you live? you've been in touch. john says this. i'm fine with this anti nimby promise, but only if all mps lead by example. john, i suspect at that point that's where they changed their minds. karen says this dreadful idea. use or renovate existing vacant buildings first.

moving on. labour has pledged to take back britain's streets. the king's speech outlined the return of asbos tougher policing on thefts and 13,000 more bobbies on the beat in local areas . anti—social behaviour areas. anti—social behaviour will be punishable by a fine or even a prison sentence, and police will be expected to investigate low level thefts under £200. but with prisons at full capacity and our courts clogged with an unprecedented backlog, can the government really deliver on this? well, i'm joined in the studio to discuss this by giuditta d'silva, political commentator and gerry hayes, criminal barrister and former conservative mp. gerry, if i may start with you, they're getting tough on crime. tough on the cause of crime. haven't we heard this before? this time some of the detail. the £200 shoplifting limit. that's called the shoplifters charter 2014. that was brought in. gave permission to lots of low level thefts. seven out of ten shoplifting

incidents aren't even attended. also, a ban on ninja swords and the spiking of drinks. is there enoughin the spiking of drinks. is there enough in here? can the system cope with all this well meaning? >> 1860 act, which bans the spiking of drinks, administering a noxious substance, it's called. so that's law. there already , police can investigate, already, police can investigate, crimes of theft of under £200, but they don't choose to do so. >> but where's the money? the criminal justice system. martin, is broken. there are 69,000 backlogs of crown court cases, and there's 2000 of us left. there's not enough courts, there's not enough judges, and there's not enough judges, and there's not enough barristers. and judy, to the money. >> judy, isn't that the issue? the labour party are coming in. we've got lots of big ideas, but the pot is empty. we've got lots of big ideas, but the pot is empty . the biscuit the pot is empty. the biscuit tin is completely and utterly empty with £2.6 trillion in debt. where are the bobbies? on the beat coming from? where are the beat coming from? where are the judges coming from? worry about the probation system. the

prisons are full. if you start nicking people for taking 200 quid's worth of groceries, where are they going to go , are they going to go, >> indeed, there is just there's a funding and infrastructure deficiency for what they're trying to achieve. but with one breath, when you complain about where society is going, when you see the increase in the number of shoplifters or groups of young people breaking into stores and running rampant, they're doing so because they know there is no consequence. what you're trying to establish is a society that holds consequences and accountability in the forefront of social existence. and if you don't do something decisive like this, it will get worse. you think it can't. now but it will. and what you're saying to the people who do this is that you're now incentivising police. that the things you think are not important enough to waste your time. you're sending a message almost like a bat signal to society, that now we're going to be paying attention to this deeds that have gone unchecked thus far. indeed how do you get it done? that is something that you it done? that is something that you pay it done? that is something that you pay for it. >> that's the problem, isn't it?

>> that's the problem, isn't it? >> they're going to have to address that because this first of all, they're showing that we've been listening to society, that there is a problem. we're putting in legislature that says that we're going to address the problem. now, they have to fund it, but you have to begin somewhere to get to kick the tires on the machine, to know how robust it is, and then address the faults. >> but this was actually a tory policy, wasn't it, which never got off the ground. do you remember we said we were going to do all these things, but it never happened. i mean, about a fourth of this king's speech is tory stuff that the rishi couldn't get through. >> a lot of this does feel like reheated, rishi, but on a serious point, can the labour party be be trusted on law and order? >> it's always been a very right wing thing. one of the policies that didn't make the grade today that didn't make the grade today that caught my eye, gerry, was it was floated that the labour party were planning to deport foreign criminals. that's very true, that right wing. we do that idea. >> we do that already, do we? >> we do that already, do we? >> yeah, of course we do. 10,500 foreigners in british nics. >> yeah, yeah. >> yeah, yeah. >> but they should be sent away. >> but they should be sent away. >> well i agree, and the labour party seemed to agree, but it wasn't in the king's speech is

that kind of a policy would be very popular? maybe not with labour voters. it'd be very popular conservative voters. yeah. >> it wouldn't, it wouldn't solve the prison crisis. it would be on the way. why should we pay for other people's, misdeeds? but would other countries they should go back to? wherever? >> would the human rights lawyer's duty to would the same people that actually been stopping the rwanda flights were the same people that have been a thorn in the side of the conservative party for many years? well, would those same human rights lawyers, the echr, would they even allow this sort of nonsense , of nonsense, >> there's something they'd have to address. i doubt they would. but then when you think about it, think about the margins of doing something like that. if someone commits a crime here, you expect them to serve a sentence here, because this is where the transgression occurred. but kicking it down the lane and say, go back to where you came from and deal with the consequences there, there may be no consequences, and therefore there is no incentive for them to do better in the future. >> but we do do it. we do do it. when you think about it, the, the, the value of the ethos behind it doesn't really hold

much water because if you committed a crime abroad and they sent you back to the uk, where is the crime? >> where is the consequence? but if you've done something there, you should you should pay the penalty there because that's where the crime occurred. but once that has been served , you once that has been served, you are then deported, never to return. >> but if you're an albanian and albanians make up the vast majority of foreign nationals in british jails, balkans, people from the balkans. yeah >> if you're if you're if you're one of those people, then then a lot of people would say yes, they should be sent back to their country. but would it ever happen under the labour? >> oh, well, it started happening under the tories didn't it. >> or not. not enough. we had. >> or not. not enough. we had. >> we did a deal with the albanian government and forget all this sort of stuff. we did it. but also you talk about labour being tough on crime. you think of some of the toughest home secretaries we've had. i don't mean mad people like suella and priti patel, but i mean, you know, intelligent people who are tough blunkett, john reid, they were really, really, really jack straw. they were really tough people. >> well, do you reckon, do you think there's any chance the labour party can be as tough as

them? >> i guess i doubt it, i doubt it. >> are they going to get away with some of this stuff? because we've all been talking about. look, this is a pretty tory. tory. tory light. there's nothing for the left wing. >> it's a good look to take on things that the tories fail to deliver and deliver to yourself. it shows that you're a better, you're better at doing the things that appeal to across both eyes. >> i'm with you on that. but there are a lot of people who are still corbynite who will think this is wrong. they're going to say, we've got here after all these years, where's the meat? where's the socialism? and where is the budget going to go? >> see the big one, isn't it? it is jerry hayes, judy da silva. fantastic. thank you very much. now up next, labour is pledging to clean the asylum backlog. but where on earth will they put them? plus, smoking is outlawed for a generation and energy are banned for teenagers. is this the ofa of a supercharged nanny state? that's all

welcome back. now, labour has

finally outlined its counter—terrorism style powers that they will use to investigate and smash the people smuggling gangs. if you believe what they say, at any rate. and the money to fund this command will come from the scrapped rwanda scheme, which was due to send 90,000 illegal migrants to rwanda. labour vowed to clear the backlog of over 100,000 asylum seekers, but without hotels and no deportation scheme, where on earth will they go? well, let's try and dissect that. we're joined now by alexander downer, the former adviser to government on immigration and australian foreign minister. welcome to the show , alexander. pleasure to show, alexander. pleasure to have you accompany. so the border security command, it's called sounds tough, doesn't it ? called sounds tough, doesn't it? what an actual fact will it be. and can it achieve the impossible of smashing? the gangs are giving up on stopping the boats. is smashing the gangs the boats. is smashing the gangs the answer ? the answer? >> well, all they're doing is changing the name of an organisation which already

exists. you might recall that bofis exists. you might recall that boris johnson. appointed an admiral to head up this sort of work . and there have been work. and there have been various attempts over the years. obviously, m15 , mi6, the police obviously, m15, m16, the police and border force and so on have all been used to try to track down these gangs . all been used to try to track down these gangs. this isn't something the previous government did nothing about, so i expect they'll get the same results, trying to track down the gangs, as they put it, is wrestling with smoke. it's incredibly difficult to do, and i think people will just continue to come across until, the government establishes a system of offshore processing because we know from the australian experience that works, that destroys the business model of the people smugglers, the organised crime gangs. unless you do that, they'll just continue to come

and alexander, that looks very unlikely. >> yvette cooper the new home secretary, said today we're having a difficult summer. 1185 people already arrived via small boats since sir keir starmer was elected the prime minister. they haven't stopped the boats, they haven't stopped the boats, they haven't smashed the gangs, the figures have gone up. >> yeah. i mean, they've hardly beenin >> yeah. i mean, they've hardly been in power. so i think a bit unreasonable to judge them yet, after a couple of weeks . but, my after a couple of weeks. but, my prediction is that over time, these numbers will just continue to grow. and the labour party in government will have to start reconsidering its position. and i think that inevitably will happenin i think that inevitably will happen in australia after the two thousand and seven election, there was a labour government. they abandoned offshore processing . 50,000 people came, processing. 50,000 people came, and so the labour party then had to start reversing its position, i think the same will happen

here. a huge investment has been made with rwanda, a lot of money and a couple of hundred million pounds have been spent setting up facilities there. and, it's a pity up facilities there. and, it's a pity to waste it all. they should reconsider the rwanda scheme . scheme. >> well, if they do, that wouldn't be the first u—turn, wouldn't be the first u—turn, would it? that sir keir starmer has made alexander downer, thank you very much for joining us has made alexander downer, thank you very much forjoining us on you very much for joining us on the show. an absolute pleasure. now the government is set to restrict the sale of high caffeine drinks and also raise the legal smoking and vaping age every year so that nobody born after 2009 can even buy them. it's estimated that smoking costs the nhs approximately £6 billion a year. but will this relieve pressure on the national health service, or is this yet more big government nanny state madness gone crazy? well, joining me now in the studio is sarah connor, director of communications at japan tobacco international, as well as my panel who are still here, judith

da silva and political, and the criminal barrister gerry hayes. welcome to you all. let's start with you, sarah connor. i think yourjob with you, sarah connor. i think your job title with you, sarah connor. i think yourjob title gives with you, sarah connor. i think your job title gives away your position on this, but many people are saying, for starters, today it was astonishing to see that during the king's speech that during the king's speech that the labour party said, yes, we agree with you, rishi sunak. we're going to carry on your work. you literally can't put a cigarette paper between the two parties. and that for sure seems like this will become reality in britain. >> yes, this was a carbon copy of the original tobacco and vape ban that was brought forward under rishi sunak's government. so the element that we're talking about is a kind of generational smoking ban. so it means that anyone born after the 1st of january 2009 will no longer be able to legally buy tobacco products. so effectively it's a year increase every year. >> okay, and what about the nofion

>> okay, and what about the notion that you can't stop drugs, you can't stop the boats, you can't seem to stop anything. so how do they think they can stop cigarettes? you can buy black market fags and any boozen >> yeah. i mean, there's never actually been a successful implementation of a generational ban anywhere worldwide. so november last year, the new zealand government repealed the legislation of a generational smoking ban. and then within the eu, denmark and the republic of ireland have also considered a generational ban , but actually generational ban, but actually both abandoned the policy. but then recently the republic of ireland has opted to, potentially implement an age of sale increase to 21 as an alternative. >> and in terms of revenue, i mean something like £10 billion a year, right? the exchequer takes from tobacco. where's that money going to come from? >> yes. well, i mean, at the moment we're already seeing an issue in terms of a tax gap for the government. so around 30% of the government. so around 30% of

the market in the uk is actually illegal trade. so ons figures show that around 5 billion of lost revenue is already being sucked into the illegal trade. and naturally prohibition is going to feed into that where there's a demand. >> sir, thank you very much for joining us in the studio. and that's sarah connor. ladies and gents, let's talk to you about this. let's talk with you, giuditta. i mean, do you think this is a good idea? i mean, a lot of people would agree that we should cut down on people smoking, but is this the right way? is it even enforceable? >> it's hard to enforce, but it's something you have to start and see how it evolves. like you said, it's constantly being revisited because the theory behind it is something that could be potentially very beneficial . because when you beneficial. because when you look at the broad scope of the kinds of changes and the kinds of moves of reform that labour is trying to bring in, it all goes hand in hand. when you talk about where the position of young people, when you go to the discussion on antisocial behaviour, what drives them to do it, what do they eat? how do they live? when you look at those social conditions, it's

drives them towards certain kinds of behaviours. so you have to fix that, provide them with things to do, invest in where they can live, where they can work, what are their, what hopes do they have for the future? and you're cohesively and holistically trying to build a new generation in britain , with new generation in britain, with better prospects and a better perspective of what their lives can be in the country. >> but jerry, if we can't win the war on drugs, how can we win the war on drugs, how can we win the war on saints? >> it was a barking mad idea. it really was. and i wouldn't have voted for it if i was a backbenchen voted for it if i was a backbencher. under rishi sunak. i rather like, because the number of people who are smoking you can confirm this are actually going down, and the way you can affect people's habits will be shown over the years. and i used to be a member of ash. i'm a terrible reformed smoker, what we used to do is say, right , what you do, you smoker, what we used to do is say, right, what you do, you put the price up and that makes the number already have. >> it's about £20 a pack. exactly. >> is it? i don't know about for years. really? yeah. god, i think last time i saw it was 2 in 6. i paid 24, i paid £24 for a packet of fags and lighter at paddington station the other week. >> i almost had a heart attack.

still bought them. mine anyway. well, can we ever win this war? no so why try? >> well, what are we going to try? but drugs is far more important. that's your lifestyle thing. that's what we've got to do. you've got a whole load of people who haven't got a job, which is amazing because there are lots of jobs available now, but they don't have the incentive to do. we should be helping those people back to work, and then they don't have to go into drugs. drugs lead to acquisitive crimes. it fills up the prisons and we don't put them into rehab. that's what we should do. we could get rid of a lot of prisoners if we gave them proper rehab. >> well, the key point they make is about tackling the advertising to young people, because when you think about the power of social media, a lot of the desires for lifestyle are dnven the desires for lifestyle are driven by what you see. influencers do, what you see, where they're going. so if you curtail how much access and how much audiovisual information young people are absorbing , and young people are absorbing, and they don't see that they will always drive towards what is immediately available and what is immediately, immediately familiar . if is immediately, immediately familiar. if you eliminate that, you're helping the process to say , divert your attention from say, divert your attention from one thing to another simply out

of time . of time. >> energy. >> energy. >> why high energy drinks? well, because you can go into a costas and get a double espresso. if you're 15, can't you? so what's the point? >> that point we've got to move. we've got to move on. leave it there. thank you. sarah connor. thank you also to my panel, judnh thank you also to my panel, judith and gerry hayes. we've got to move on now. still to come. has the king's speech ushered in a era of big government? is gb really the answer to cheap

welcome back to farage with me, martin dalton. now, the king's speech has confirmed the government plans to create a new state owned energy company. costing a whopping £8.3 billion in taxpayers money over the course of the parliament. whilst also introducing great british railways , a state run rail firm. railways, a state run rail firm. what could possibly go wrong with that? so all this cash splashed on nationalisation, is this the return of big

government? well, we're joined now by doctor paul dorfman, associate fellow at the university of sussex's science policy research unit at the university of sussex. doctor dorfman , thank you very much for dorfman, thank you very much for joining us. nationalising the power industry sounds like a great plan. i had the climate minister on today. i said, okay, 650,000 jobs. where are they? what do they pay? what will they be? still no answers. sounds great on paper. can it possibly work ? work? >> well, great. great. british energy is, will be a state owned, non nationalised non—monopoly , 8.3 billion non—monopoly, 8.3 billion capital will be raised by, tougher north sea oil and gas profits , it'll be basically profits, it'll be basically joint investment, with the pubuc joint investment, with the public sector and this model has worked quite well in germany . worked quite well in germany. so, so far it's looking quite good. >> well, there could be about

100,000 plus jobs lost in north sea. all of this might take a long time to implement to build new nuclear stations. this doesn't happen overnight. and the big question that people really care about will my bills get any cheaper? now they say £300 by the end of the parliament, but there's no proof that that's going to happen . that that's going to happen. >> the scale of the investment neededis >> the scale of the investment needed is massive, so basically gb energy should focus on, on, on what we know will work, which is value for money offshore wind, solar, onshore wind, geothermal, tidal , hydrogen geothermal, tidal, hydrogen insulation, energy efficiency. the problem is of course, i mean basically ad what is it about 86% of all new power worldwide additions last year was renewable with nuclear nowhere . renewable with nuclear nowhere. so there is something about the uk's obsession with nuclear. and in terms of money, we know that hinkley point c will be paying for hinkley point c way into the

future. it started off 18 billion. it's supposed to come onune billion. it's supposed to come online 2025. it's now down to 46 billion. perhaps coming on in 2030. so we need to start to get our priorities right. >> well, maybe doctor dorfman rather than ed miliband on day one. just stopping oil. we still need oil . 70% of our power in need oil. 70% of our power in the country , including industry, the country, including industry, runs off fossil fuels. perhaps we should be more self—sufficient in that. a bit like america seems to have worked rather well for them. we have to leave it there. thanks for joining us on the show. now forjoining us on the show. now still in the studio, i'm joined by judith and gerry. let's talk about the plans for nationalising power and the railways. big state movements, straight away. is it really the answer? >> it is, in theory, the answer, because when you think about it, whether with gb energy, they said it's going to be they haven't said the exact location, but it will be in scotland, scotland, when you look at the geographical attributes of

scotland, it has made bigger, broader strides when it comes to clean energy. that is where you would want it to be. they've never said gb energy will put provide power to homes. what they're saying is that pre—existing initiatives, it's going to help us inject some buoyancy into them by regulating them , managing them and helping them, managing them and helping them. that is what you want to do. so it's not going to reinvent the wheel, what already exists and as your guest said, shows to be has proven to be positive and also effective. bolster that so that it can provide more and go further. >> but we still need oil and gas and part of the part of the thing about stopping the new licences, sending out a very worrying message to national investors overseas coming into britain, they haven't stopped the new licences that was printed in the daily mail and the government said, no, we're not doing that at all. >> we're still going to get oil from north sea and they're going to keep those licences. so that's that's not stopping. it's i think , fracking over here. but i think, fracking over here. but never mind about all of this. what has ever worked when the

dead hand of the state tries to pick winners, they can never pick winners, they can never pick winners. they're not industrialists, they're not entrepreneurs, they're civil servants. and it always fails miserably. >> well , that's strong words. >> well, that's strong words. can can the railways work, the majority of people, 54% support the renationalisation of the railways. i'm old enough to remember when british rail sandwiches were akin to prison food. the trains never ran. the unions held the iron fist, and the trains were always at the mercy of strikes. is that the future? no but it is in the future. >> i think that everyone is kind of operating with a kind of political purist mentality that we've said it should be this way. whatever you say cannot work based on how things exist. now, you have an infrastructure where what people need is not being provided . it's too being provided. it's too expensive, it's unreliable. it has to change based on how it's functioning. now. privatise. it doesn't work. you have to change it to something else. and you're revisiting a former structure, but with a new incentive and a new way of operating , it could new way of operating, it could work. indeed, everything needs

it has to be proven. it has to be product tested, but at least give it a chance. but i think going in saying that, because there have been errors in the past, this is never going to work is an ignorant way of pursuing change and pursuing improvement, but kind of pooh poohing anybody's attempt to do so in a new way. >> and it's a small matter. of course, it could cost £190 billion. >> they're not going to put they're not going to put extra money in. it's going to be all the subsidy that they were given to the private train companies in the past. that's all it's going to be, nothing more. and you'll just get loads of civil servants running it. wow, that's going to be good, isn't it? okay. they probably won't even come into the office, will they, jacob? okay, this this conversation reached the end of the line duties of the silver and jerry hayes. >> thank you very much. and on that point, let's hand over now all change to jacob rees—mogg. what's on your menu? the king's speech, i'm figuring, will feature highly. >> i'm glad for the signalling that you've been giving about what's coming down the tracks in the next programme, but very much so. the king's speech, two

things about it. one is it's hardly any change from what rishi sunak would have had in a king's speech, and most of the bills that will come through first, including the ridiculous smoking ban, the lunatic football regulator, one of our most successful sports, without any regulators now going to have one. all of that was tory party policy. and then the issue of how they actually do it , because how they actually do it, because they've promised a big reform of planning, going from a high level policy announcement to the detail of legislation is extremely difficult. and i've got one of the great experts on how you do this to explain quite how you do this to explain quite how difficult it will be. so it may be a lot of sound and fury or pomp and circumstance that signifies remarkably little. >> so you observe. and i was struck today by the great similarity between the conservative policy and the laboun conservative policy and the labour, king's speech. and also they look like very chummy in they look like very chummy in the house of commons. one step away from kissing each other on the cheeks. we have to leave it there. thank you very much, gerry and greta and of course,

jacob rees—mogg, who is up next. state of the nation with jacob rees—mogg. thanks for joining me. nigel farage will be back tomorrow. he'll be in america. and who knows who he might bump into first though. it's your weather with alex deakin . weather with alex deakin. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news >> time for your latest weather update from the met office here on gb news. good evening to you tomorrow. fine with sunny spells and a bit warmer than today across most of england and wales, but for scotland and northern ireland things will be a little different. there's high pressure sitting across england and wales, low pressure and weather fronts just eking in from the west, bringing cloud and patchy rain. at the moment across western scotland and northern ireland. but that rain is going to pep up overnight. it could turn heavy for a time across the west of northern ireland and along the west coast of scotland. a few showers for nonh of scotland. a few showers for north wales, maybe, but for most of england, wales , southern and of england, wales, southern and eastern scotland are drying out quite a warm night. temperatures

holding up in some towns and cities at 15 or 16 degrees onto thursday and a dull, damp start, certainly for northern ireland and western scotland. but in the south mostly fine. could be some morning fog patches around. they may take a couple of hours to clear away, but generally plenty of sunshine across the south a bit more cloud in west wales, northwest england. 1 or 2 showers here and a dull, damp morning for northern ireland and a good part of scotland seeing cloud and outbreaks of rain. maybe parts of the east coast escaping largely dry. but even here a few showers may drift up as we go through the morning. so it's a bit of a north south split with the weather certainly to start with, i'm hopeful that parts of southern and eastern scotland will actually turn a bit drier through the morning, and stay largely fine. some brighter skies likely to develop across the murray coast through the afternoon. northern ireland western scotland do stay pretty dull and damp. most of england and wales seeing plenty of hazy and wales seeing plenty of hazy and pretty warm sunshine. 28 in the capital. many places in the mid 20s across the south. by

friday that heat could build further. we may reach 30 celsius across the south—east in the sunshine again, quite a bit of cloud at times for scotland and northern ireland, but generally a dry day for northern ireland. it will be late in the day before this rain starts to creep in. 1 or 2 showers elsewhere, but most places set fair as i said, hotter still with maybe 30 celsius in the south—east. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news

>> well . >> well. >> well. >> hello. good evening. it's me, jacob rees—mogg, on state of the nation. tonight, the pomp and ceremony of the king's speech was broadcast across the nation today , with his majesty setting today, with his majesty setting out his newly returned labour government's legislative agenda. but is making the law as simple as it seems. rishi sunak declares he will not oppose the

government for the sake of it. more and more layers of government taking away the rights of adults to smoke and further controls on advertising. we're heading to a level of big state control that would make george orwell grimace, but is there really any difference between what the tories were proposing? half of the legislation is left over from the last government. so what is the last government. so what is the point of opposition? boris johnson flew out to see donald trump to increase the pressure on him to keep up support for ukraine. if he is victorious in november, will a second trump presidency seize zelenskyy left out in the cold environment is important, but more important is the wellbeing and security of our people. yet again and again. this seems to be forgotten with the science museum, the latest website to fall to green. orthodoxy state of the nation starts now . starts now. i'll also be joined by my panel historian and broadcaster tessa

dunlop, and the author and