and united kingdom's resilience and preparedness for a pandemic emergency . will be debating what emergency. will be debating what the new labour government should do if we are to cut carbon emissions significantly by 2030 andindeed emissions significantly by 2030 and indeed whether that is even and indeed whether that is even a desirable aim in the first place. and i'll be discussing a truly momentous week in american politics as president donald trump survived an assassination attempt before naming his running mate for his presidential bid. all of that coming up and plenty of discussion with my panellists this week, andrew eborn. but first, an update on the latest news headlines . news headlines. >> good evening. the top stories from the gb newsroom . rachel from the gb newsroom. rachel reeves has suggested that pay rises could be on the way for

pubuc rises could be on the way for public sector workers. independent review bodies are reportedly set to recommend pay rises of 5.5% for teachers and nhs staff , rises of 5.5% for teachers and nhs staff, but rises of 5.5% for teachers and nhs staff , but schools rises of 5.5% for teachers and nhs staff, but schools and hospitals are unlikely to be able to meet the above inflation boost with their existing budgets. the chancellor says a final decision will be made soon, and insists the sum in her budget will add up to normal levels of service at gp. surgeries will take some time to come back after friday's global it outage , the british medical it outage, the british medical association warns. gps need time to catch up on lost work over the weekend after the tech glitch knocked a computer system used by doctors offline. the outage was caused by a faulty security update that was deployed to around 8.5 million windows devices . now a labour mp windows devices. now a labour mp has told gb news that she became pregnant at the age of 15 after being groomed and raped by an older man. natalie fleet says she has weekly nightmares about the ordeal 23 years ago, but now

wants to be a voice for all women. >> now we have labels like grooming that we didn't have then i didn't know we were having unprotected sex, you know , having unprotected sex, you know, this is i was i was a child and this is i was i was a child and this is i was i was a child and this is statutory rape. you know, at the time, this isn't something that we were. we're talking about. it's not how i saw myself. i saw myself, as you know, at 15, you definitely think you're old enough to do all these things. but another thing that i can do now i'm here is i really want to be a voice for all of those people, all of those women that have children in far from ideal circumstances. >> jeremy hunt has apologised for failures in the uk's pandemic preparations, highlighted by the covid inquiry in its first report. the inquiry found the former government had failed the public due to what it called significant flaws in preparing for a pandemic. the former chancellor and health secretary acknowledged that he'd been part of what he described

as groupthink, where there was over preparation for a flu pandemic, whilst other types weren't considered. police have named the victim of a daylight shooting in south london. 20 year old jessie lloyd smith was shot in the peckham area shortly before 5:00 on the 10th of july. police said mr lloyd smith's family are being supported by specially trained officers as the investigation continues . a the investigation continues. a hate crime investigation is underway after three pride flags were vandalised outside forest gate railway station in east london. the met police is appealing for information after the pavement paintings were covered with spray paint in the early hours of friday morning. it follows previous incidents in june which the force believes are linked. officers have trawled cctv, made house to house enquiries and conducted forensic investigations. but so far no arrests have been made. and in the us, president biden's regret at not running in the

2016 election is reportedly fuelling his determination to stay in the race. current and former aides to the president told the us news website axios that he'd planned to challenge hillary clinton for the nomination in 2016, but was advised against it by barack obama, which is said to be making him more determined to continue his campaign for vice president. kamala harris insists joe biden will be the nominee, despite some big donors now seeing her as a possible replacement . those are the replacement. those are the latest gb news headlines. for now, i'm tatiana sanchez. i'm back in an hour for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code , alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . slash alerts. >> we used to see the left hand doesn't know what the right hand

is doing. we don't have to say that anymore because left and right are hand in hand. whatever i say next about the left or the right, what i really mean is the old guard, the uniparty, the establishment. what? i've been watching this week is the further collapse of what still calls itself the left into deluded, anti—human madness. truly a wonder to behold. here in the uk , there's a newly in the uk, there's a newly minted government calling itself laboun minted government calling itself labour. many of us remember when the labour party of the united kingdom stood for the rights of working people, or at least it said it did. we could debate how sincere and authentic was that stance and that claim, but at least there was a time when representatives of the labour party , many of whom came from party, many of whom came from working backgrounds, coal miners, steel workers and the like at least appeared to challenge those demonstrably intent on taking advantage of working people or on treating

working people or on treating working people or on treating working people with out and out contempt that british labour party was also patriotic, proud of the heritage and history of people descended from ancestors who'd built britain, often with their bare hands. people who'd fought and often died for britain. there was a strong antiwar element to driven by those who understood that war is just another way to get rid of inconvenient people, while making billions at the same time. i could go on and on, but my point is that the labour party in this country indeed the so—called left in this country, used to at least pose and quite convincingly to be fair, as a bulwark between the people and the autocrats and authoritarians who wanted only to milk the people for whatever could be had from them. by now, however, the labour party, whatever it once was, whatever its founder keir hardie, had in mind in the beginning, is now a flayed skin flayed from the backs of the

workers and worn as a cynical disguise, so that the labor party is no more and no less than sheep's clothing worn by the wolf itself . anything the wolf itself. anything authentic and heartfelt by that labour party , once by what the labour party, once by what the labour party, once by what the labour party, once by what the labour party once represented, is utterly gone, never to return for good or ill. it's interesting always to remember that the original logo of the fabian society, founded in 1884 and dedicated to achieving socialism, not by revolution but by stealth, was that self—same wolf in sheep's clothing. the fabians , still alive and fabians, still alive and sneaking, are named after a roman general, fabius, remembered for his tactic of patiently wearing down his enemies over time. now the empty, heartless marionette that is labour has cast aside the wants of workers safe borders, stable communities, energy that's affordable and reliable , that's affordable and reliable, employment based on merit and not to meet inclusivity and diversity targets. labour now,

just like the conservatives before and as i said at the top, the other side of the uniparty coin is every bit as empty, disingenuous, existing only to serve the needs of the globalist agenda , its representatives agenda, its representatives being no more than factotums puppeteers moved by strings pulled from above. the party that once claimed to stand for workers, in my view, stands now for smothering arable land beneath solar panels , chasing beneath solar panels, chasing farmers out of the food business in a time of worldwide food uncertainty for impoverishing what remains of the middle class for committing billions as yet unearned by the taxpayers who will foot the bill to a hundred years of war in ukraine, a war not for democracy but only to secure the return on investment made by transnational corporations like blackrock to secure access to ukrainian oil for the enrichment of the same corporate entities that profit still from the iraqi oil made

available by the illegal iraq war. the war that killed a million civilians. the usual suspects like exxonmobil, chevron and halliburton. ukraine's volodymyr zelenskyy was the guest of the labour cabinet this week. colours firmly nailed to the mast there. today's uk labour government, as far as a reasonable person might conclude, might as well be in the business of financing the spilling of torrents of blood in pursuit of pumping oil. not here at home for domestic profit, but thousands of miles away for foreign corporations knowingly standing by while innocent people of a land far away are slaughtered, so that the rich of other foreign countries grow ficher other foreign countries grow richer still. in my view, the labour party of this country is an abject and shameful travesty of anything. the word left ever meant. ironically, left now means only what it always meant, even to people with no interest in politics. which is to say, left is the opposite of

everything. that's right. right. with a small r, right as in true. nowadays, that which calls itself the left has descended into a decadent, spectacular self—destruct mode, not just here, but all over the world. it's likely that the self—destruction is deliberate, since politics are no longer required in a uni party. in a one world government, world in which right and left are meaningless anachronisms. which right and left are meaningless anachronisms . every meaningless anachronisms. every day the left that other side of the uniparty coin is more exposed, as only the manifestation of greed, envy, and hate. across the pond in the usa, the madness of the left seems to be at fever pitch as well, frothing at the mouth , bug well, frothing at the mouth, bug eyed, bonkers in fact. i keep thinking things can get no crazier there in the home of the brave. but over and over i find i must only wait a bit for things to get crazier yet. so we'll see. the left in american

politics manifests in the main as the democratic party, of course. that's what we're ianed course. that's what we're invited to believe, at least since left is as meaningless there as here. it's hard to see those so—called democrats once the party of jack and bobby kennedy, as anything but irrelevant now rendered that way by their having given in it would appear to undisguised, full blown hatred of anyone and everyone that stands in opposition to the naked application of power in my opinion, the democrats are now the monsters their predecessors once claimed to exist to fight a nofion once claimed to exist to fight a notion like a person's character being more important than their skin colour is just one of many platitudes cast aside as yet more flayed skins empty and dead as the sheep's skin, cloaking the reality of uk labour. all this inversion of what had gone before, of the turning inside out and upside down, of morality, of sanity itself. surely reached some kind of peak in the immediate aftermath of

the bloodying of donald trump at the bloodying of donald trump at the rally in pennsylvania. so filled with seething hatred are the democrats and the craven paid for mainstream media that dances to their hellish tune hatred not just of donald trump, but of any fellow citizen that prefers him to the human wreck thatis prefers him to the human wreck that is president joe biden. so surrendered to hatred are those posing as democrats and their ilk. their instinctive responses to the blood and bullets were either to pretend nothing much had happened, or to say president trump had brought it all upon himself . president trump had brought it all upon himself. i president trump had brought it all upon himself . i was all upon himself. i was especially struck by the reflexive tendency towards making light of the firing of live rounds when a man, a husband and father was killed in the same moment as the whinging of trump by a bullet to the brain. that tragedy for a family, but also given the circumstances, for any nation claiming to be civilised or at

least claiming to value the wellbeing of its people appeared not to matter . what mattered was not to matter. what mattered was to dismiss the apparent attempt on the life of the former president, who in the end seemed to be saved, not by any action by what were invited to believe is the best equipped, best financed secret service on the planet, but rather moving his head at the last moment and then his having had the presence of mind to drop behind the armoured cladding on the front of the stage. whatever happened that day, whoever is behind it, and why an innocent man is dead, other innocents are injured. i say again, the left has lost it. the left has dropped the mask, throwing it away entirely. the left has given in to the base nature of the worst of people, given into hatred. i watched the developing story of the shooting, how the politicians and the legacy media took a breath, saw the writing on the wall and started rolling out the rhetoric about america being no place for violence of any kind.

in ways i can't fathom myself, the american left seemed to run out of words so that some of the morning mainstream media shows morning mainstream media shows morning joe on msnbc for example, decided not to comment, opting only for rolling news. it seems to me that when they no longer felt self—righteous and safe doing the only thing they'd been doing, which is loudly hating trump and finding forms of words that previously had sought to make him a target of one sort or another . they were one sort or another. they were left with nothing to say, no policies , no point. when hating policies, no point. when hating trump was off the table, even for them. they had nothing at all. a person might think that if the democrats really believe trump is like hitler or stalin, as they've been howling for months calling him a fascist and a would be dictator, if that comparison to dictators of the past came from somewhere authentic, something honestly heartfelt, they would truly want rid of him once and for all. but when whatever happened happened, when whatever happened happened, when donald trump dropped on

that stage and then appeared blood stained and defiant moments later, the so—called left had nothing but hollow calls for unity and an end to hateful rhetoric. when hateful rhetoric has been their only stock in trade. when push came to shove, even their hatred was hollow. as it turned out , empty hollow. as it turned out, empty in the end, exposed to the bright light of day, the american left are not even convincing baddies. all of it makes a person a thinking person. wonder what? just what on earth were being invited to watch now? there's an emptiness about all of it. beneath the bellowing voices, the theatrically bared teeth. reality is hard to find . reality is hard to find. sincerity seems absent. all of it has an unmistakeable end of empire feel about it as well. and the scramble, or perhaps the coordinated effort a last desperate effort to distract us from the fakery of it all. behind the stages, the podiums, the looming shadow is global war. last week, george robertson

exhumed from the graveyard of the house of lords, was sounding off in his role as leader of the uk strategic defence review. robertson is now warning everyone who will listen that we, as in the west, we must get militarily serious about what he describes as the serious threat posed by china and others in the east. he is only echoing admiral bauen east. he is only echoing admiral bauer, nato's senior military officer who has been telling nato allies of the need to prepare what he called a whole of society approach to war. to me, that sounds a lot like working towards conscription. bauer has talked of the need for more bodies, which seems like an unfortunate choice of words in the context of the meatgrinder in ukraine that has minced countless thousands of bodies and counting. here's the thing i talked about the apparent madness of the so—called left a madness of the so—called left a madness little different, if at all, from the madness of the so—called right. what worries me is that it's not madness. nothing out of control, nothing

as it seems. what worries me most of all is that behind all the fireworks is nothing more than the cold blooded determination to keep the rich, rich and the powerful. powerful. they want only to keep the money and power. and to achieve that, they would march our children to war. if that day comes, i know who i'll be going to war. with. i'm joined today by broadcaster and lawyer and friend andrew eborn. hello, andrew. how are you ? you? >> i'm very well, neil. and it's nice to connect to you over so many miles with this terrible, disaster that we've had with this. it meltdown does does warn you about dependency on technology , doesn't it? technology, doesn't it? >> it does. i'm glad you brought that up. i mean, what, a few days a week or so it's been, you know, with, with the, with the

shooting of trump, you know, with, with the, with the recent advent of, of a of a new government in 10 downing street in london, you know, with the, with the, with the trouble unfolding in, in leeds, on friday, you know, there and then this, then this, whatever it was, this, this technological falling over, it if, if it wasn't a heat wave coming, it would feel inevitable sense that things are hotting up . things are hotting up. >> oh, no. absolutely. but again, it sort of highlights that point when you get broadcasters and airlines and banking systems all collapsing. and it wasn't even as a result of third party action, from what we can understand, it was an update which supposed to be, basically go seamlessly. it didn't go seamlessly, and the whole thing grinds to a halt. whilst i'm an advocate of technologies, you know , i speak technologies, you know, i speak around the world as a futurist, encouraging people to embrace technology. i'd always make sure that there's a plan b , because that there's a plan b, because if you're heavily reliant on it

and the thing collapses, then we're basically left adrift . we're basically left adrift. >> and when it comes to we've, you know, we've got to contemplate what happened to president trump. what did you make not i know it's impossible to be to be clear about exactly what happened and the rest of it, but what did you make of the immediate aftermath? you know, the way in which the various media you fell over themselves in all manner of ways of reporting what had happened ? reporting what had happened? >> yeah, there was all the backtracking. you're right. the words that people have been using, which is basically encouraging violence, if you like, and biden himself was sort of turn around and say, well, he meant let's have him in the in the crossfire, he didn't mean that at all. he meant he got to focus on trump, so they're all back—pedalling on that sort of stuff. cnn have been a much more gentle, apparently, on trump's family when they're interviewing them and so on and so forth. but

there are so many questions about that particular incident . about that particular incident. i mean, if the security service, some of the best in the world weren't able to spot somebody who's just 100 yards or so away from the main stage, it's extraordinary. i also saw a number of the witnesses there talking about how they spotted this particular person, with his, sniper with and so on and so forth, and they alerted various people, but it wasn't until later, that they did anything about it. so there are many, many questions to be answered, not least about how that particular person got onto the roof just a hundred yards away from the president or the past president. >> what was your reaction to the way in which, the labour government hit the street, running, towards its various targets ? targets? >> yeah, i it is interesting. i mean, there are only a couple of weeks into it, as we say, and we had the king's speech where they outlined all of these plans, some of which were a surprise, some of which were a surprise, some some weren't properly mentioned, like i. and so on and

so forth. and voting for under 16, everybody expected that to happen. it wasn't in the speech. time will tell. they they promised a timeline of 100 days, for example, with this new employment bill and obviously not 100 days from when it might be enacted. could it has to go through the process. but there's all sorts of changes there. and mega rights, if you like, for, employees now and giving them rights from the very first day when they start the end of zero hour contracts and all of those sort of things, and it's got to basically the devil will be in the detail. but it is early days yet. let's see what happens. but i predict that people will be disappointed because politics follows that pattern, doesn't it? we have a sort of stage where everybody is so desperate that they want to have something new. and that was the whole labour campaign was about change. and i suspect that a lot of people will be very disappointed that that change may not be as quick as people predict. but also if you look at the voter turnout , actually the the voter turnout, actually the biggest winner in the election was apathy. it had the lowest turnout for a long time, below 60% labour, whilst they got a

large percentage of that, basically the votes were fragmented to a lot of these new parties. so reform, for example, got 14% of the vote, but only five seats, whereas the liberal democrats got 12% less than reform's total vote, and they ended up with 72. so people were thinking about a democratic system are going to be a bit frustrated and disappointed, i think. and we're going to i think. and we're going to i think that's going to pan out over the next few weeks. >> thanks, andrew. well, we're upon the first break already, since i as you've probably spotted, i'm broadcasting from home. on account of the, the technological problems that we're talking about, some severely tempted to go and make myself a cup of tea in the break. but afterwards, we will be discussing the first report published by the united kingdom. covid 19 inquiry, which has been investigating how well we were prepared for the outbreak of a pandemic

welcome back to the neil oliver show . our first topic tonight welcome back to the neil oliver show. our first topic tonight is the first report released by the covid inquiry, which has been, well, extremely critical of the plans which were in place to deal with a potential pandemic outbreak. the report stated that flaws in the preparations meant the pandemic caused more deaths and economic damage than were necessary, and that the uk government and devolved nations failed their citizens . first failed their citizens. first minister john swinney said the scottish government would consider in great detail the findings and learn lessons from them. i believe scotland is better for prepared any future scenario, but we must be constantly learning the lessons, he said. the first minister addedi he said. the first minister added i believe scotland is better prepared for any future scenario, but we must be constantly learning the lessons

of the experience we had during her pandemic preparedness to see if it's as effective as it can be, to deal with any threat that's faced by the public. i'm joined now to discuss all of this by bella hastie, co—author of the accountability deficit and director of us for them, good evening, bella . good evening, bella. >> hi, neal. >> hi, neal. >> thanks. thanks forjoining us in these slightly unusual circumstances, you know , you've circumstances, you know, you've you've heard me talk about this subject ad nauseam, in various contexts , and is this a contexts, and is this a whitewash ? is this an attempt whitewash? is this an attempt just to absolve the key players of any real responsibility ? of any real responsibility? >> i think it's slightly more complex than that, and it's hard to necessarily tell us whether it's a whitewash or not yet, because it is only the first

report of probably 9 or 10 more, and it may well end up being that way. it's been very clearly put forward in the media that the story is that people die, do due to government incompetence, and they prepared for the wrong pandemic . when you look at the pandemic. when you look at the detail of baroness hallett hallett's work, there are lots of things that you and i could have said early on. we could have said early on. we could have said early on. we could have said that actually, it's an incredibly complex process that the uk had, and it focused on committees rather than outcomes, and there was no transparency or ownership, we would have said that, you know , it did appear to that, you know, it did appear to lack any flexibility. and more importantly, it didn't actually look at what they had proposed in the past and that what they proposed on the basis of the original pandemic. so there's some really important information in there which which says basically they were they decided that they had the wrong pandemic and therefore they were just making it up on the hoof, and they were working it through . and they were working it through. and this meant that they didn't look at any of the interconnected risks or the

balance of harms or any of the knock ons, and, and this is something that that people like us have been saying for the last four years, and we were saying it at the time, weren't we, that they weren't looking at the balance of harms, they weren't looking at any of the implications. and it's reassuring that baroness hallett has actually said that. however, this document doesn't point fingers at individuals per se. it points fingers at the system. there'll be more, i think, individuals within the next modules as we go through . modules as we go through. >> do you do you get the sense i'll be i'll be frank. i get the sense that what's being set up here is , a situation in which if here is, a situation in which if and when something similar is, happens again is launched upon us again, that they will feel justified , they will feel justified, they will feel justified, they will feel justified in the same people taking control without ever having had to pause to take account of the damage that was done.the

account of the damage that was done. the last time, >> yeah , i think that's a huge >> yeah, i think that's a huge worry. i think that's a huge worry. i think that's a huge worry. neil. i think there are some elements within the module report which actually could give us a little bit of hope, but you could also interpret it in another way. so for example, a baroness hallett talks about how legal coercion was not a policy, but she doesn't necessarily make it clear that it shouldn't be a policy and shouldn't be something that had been looked at, nor any point have they appeared to look at the laws that they chose to lock us down. that may come in module two, but in the hearings, no one asked about it. the other really big thing is that she talks and says lockdown was something that no one had ever considered before. therefore there was no plan and no one understood the impact. and lockdown should only be used as a last resort. and lockdown should only be used as a last resort . you could as a last resort. you could interpret that as a positive that she's at least assuming that she's at least assuming that lockdown is a last resort. or you could take it as well. they're preparing for us for the

fact that lockdown is an option. we just have to understand the impact and understand why that happens. it it's hard to tell at the moment . the moment. >> andrew eborn what's your reaction? admittedly, this is the first of what are expected to be several, you know, statements coming out. but what do you make of the of the tenor of what we've had so far ? of what we've had so far? >> well, the language is incredibly strong, isn't it ? incredibly strong, isn't it? >> sorry, sorry, i was just meaning we're trying . meaning we're trying. >> might be a bit over. yeah too many. andrew's a slightly different one. >> i know it's the joy of working remotely. and the language i think is very interesting, isn't it. because it's very strong. they. she talks about serious errors of state and fatal strategic flaws. and i always say history repeats itself because we don't learn the lessons from history. and in the lessons from history. and in the report they talk about actually they were ill prepared and what they did was, was wrong. they basically were doing it as though it might be a flu

epidemic or something along those sort of bases. but it is the first report, and what i find shocking, actually, is that we've just had the election and not once, not once, did covid come up in the questions on either party. any of the parties as to how they behaved and the responses that they did, there will be many more questions which still have to be answered. and i think things about the inoculations. and so on and so forth, that's going to be coming further down the line. so serious questions to be answered. but so far the report is fairly condemning it. >> bella. it was shocking to me, really, that, that serene vallance, chief scientific officer during the so—called pandemic , has now been made pandemic, has now been made minister of science or similar by the incoming labour government, which, if that isn't rubbing people's noses in the intention to carry on much as though nothing had happened, you know, could they have done

anything more to annoy the wounded public? >> i totally agree with you, and i think this is one of the problems with, these kind of sliding door rotating windows that we have of people moving through the scientific world and moving from pharmaceutical to government to nhs and all the way through, and we don't actually have any way of linking this through. one thing that baroness hallett does talk about is a lack of transparency through this, and i think we'd all agree on that. and she actually talks about the fact that there was a lack of parliamentary scrutiny. which, which throughout, throughout the pandemic, we'd absolutely agree on that . and when we were on that. and when we were looking at the accountability deficit, one of the things that really stood out to us was when we looked at the care home mandates, which was a shocking, shocking thing that happened in 18 months in to the pandemic. but at that point, there was not even an impact assessment. so legally, you couldn't pass that law without an impact

assessment. this was raised by the house of lords on a number of occasions, and it was raised by parliamentarians who actually described themselves as feeling like they were living in the screen, and yet it was still bulldozed through . bulldozed through. >> coming up, we'll be debating whether the uk should be adopting much stronger measures in order to try and achieve net zero, whatever that means , or zero, whatever that means, or whether it is a futile enterprise. don't go anywhere

welcome back to the neil oliver show, hosted, at least in part, from my house. a government watchdog , the committee on watchdog, the committee on climate change, says the new labour administration needs to hugely increase the generation of renewable energy . if the uk of renewable energy. if the uk is not to breach the paris

agreement. the previous government has committed to a reduction of 68% in annual carbon emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, is such a target remotely achievable and is even desirable for us to take measures which could potentially have a negative economic impact. i'm joined now by greg gormley from scout eco , which offers carbon scout eco, which offers carbon footprint solutions for businesses, hello? greg, are you there ? there? >> hello, i am indeed. how are you ? you? >> i'm fine. greg, i don't know how aware , you've been of the how aware, you've been of the stance that i've taken on all of this over the months and years, but if not, i. i am of the opinion, that, the climate crisis, so—called is a scam, and therefore, even before we get to, you know, the, you know, debating the pros and cons of

the efforts to get to net zero, persuade me if you if you can, that any of this is any more than maximising profit for the usual suspects. >> right, well, usual suspects. >> right, well , certainly, you >> right, well, certainly, you know, you have the ipcc, which is the intergovernmental panel of climate change. it's basically the top 195 scientists from around the globe. and with their sixth assessment, they have established and said that human beings are warming up the planet. and that is the main premise from where climate change starts. now, there is the argument about speed, there's the debate about the naysayers saying, oh, it's going to happen in the next decade. oh, it's not going to happen in hundreds of years. but ultimately, the bottom line, crux is human beings are warming up the planet, and that is the starting point where i'd go from. >> you accept that. would you say that that is, no longer a matter for debate? >> i would i would say it's no

matter along, no matter for debate anymore , because you can debate anymore, because you can look over the past 25, 50 years and you can actually see the temperatures going up on an increased basis. and i know there's lots of debate about the earth has been different temperatures over the years. but the reality is human beings weren't on the planet when woolly mammoths were there, etc. so we have to be careful about what we're doing with the planet. and if you look at what we're doing today, just in terms of a how we live, b how we have everything pre—packed and just have everything so ready for us that we are actually causing this damage to the planet that is actually doing this warming up. >> a friend of mine, nick hudson, has what he calls a heuristic, really, that he calls, hudson's razor, and he says that when anything is described as a global crisis and when it's insisted that there are only top down, one size fits all global solutions. and a

third part is very important when any dissent from that opinion, any dissent is being stamped upon with ever increasing ferocity , he says, increasing ferocity, he says, those are the that is the sign of a scam that you always have to prick up your ears when those three things come together and that move, that insistence on a collectivist approach that brooks no dissent is really at the heart of why i think we really have to think before we sign what i regard being agenda 2030 as a suicide note for half the population of the planet. yeah >>i yeah >> i mean, 11. i utterly agree with is that there is not one answer. you know, people are saying we have to do this. that is not the case. it is a combination of things. we have to do. and it's about balance. life is a massive balancing act, and the reality is , you know, if and the reality is, you know, if we just stop producing oil tomorrow, the world would stop. so that's not actually possible.

what we have to do is try and plan, and actually we should try and utilise like renewables being the next industrial revolution to make cost of living cheaper for us, but actually fit it in to being more sustainable as well. on the 4th of june 2023, 88% of our power produced in the uk was from renewable source, which is amazing. so it shows it is possible to get to this 100% and actually grow with it. so from my point of view, i think it's about balance. you know, we can't just rush things. and i understand your sentiment saying that, you know, there are people out there that are looking to profiteer from it, i'm very much about saying, look, we need to look at this and work together. and it's important to have debate as well. >> andrew eborn , what say you, i >> andrew eborn, what say you, i am i am i think it's in my it's in the marrow of my bones that i'm suspicious about. collectivist global solutions that will entertain no debate and talk about consensus and the

science. what's your reaction ? science. what's your reaction? >> i think you're absolutely right. whenever you shut down debate, then. absolutely. our hackles should should rise because the reality we must question everything. we become so reliant on so—called experts. and time and time again, experts have been proved wrong. what i found fascinating in the recent election was actually reform's policy was saying, look , we can policy was saying, look, we can get rid of all our troubles about the nhs and underfunding here and so on and so forth. if we simply abandon the net zero pledge, which is an interesting take on it. and he was accused richard tice at that stage was accused of weaponizing the climate crisis. but we are we have to be able to question it and we have to make sure that we listen to all sides in the debate, because if we shut down debate, because if we shut down debate, then basically you're going to shut down getting the truth. >> greg, you talk about renewables, you know, and for most people, myself included , most people, myself included, we're talking there about wind turbines and solar panels now. yeah seriously? seriously, greg,

thatis yeah seriously? seriously, greg, that is those are not, sources of energy that can be relied upon round the clock. and most specifically, they cannot be relied upon. the sun doesn't shine when we need it, and the wind doesn't blow when we need it, you know, in in what sense is anyone even being realistic about. is anyone even being realistic about . so talking about about. so talking about alternatives . alternatives. >> absolutely agree, and this is where actually now there's been some planning law changes for battery storage , which is battery storage, which is something that we need to do. we lose approximately 10 to 20% every day of our renewable power. now, if we spent money on actually battery storage for that renewable power. so we actually had it as source for the national grid to draw on. that would actually help the national grid massively, and we could actually start building upon that. and now you can actually get planning permission on green belt for critical infrastructure for these battery solutions. and it's something that more and more people are going to start investing in. and

i think combined with the new labour government, i think it could be something that works really well. >> greg gormley, thank you very much for your, your brave contribution in the face of my cynicism. but i have to i have to say, i have to reiterate that as far as i'm concerned, the so—called climate crisis is the biggest hoax yet foist upon the human species on this planet. but thank you very much for your insights, greg. thank you . next insights, greg. thank you. next on the show, i'll be discussing a momentous week, truly momentous week in american politics as president donald trump survived an assassination attempt before giving us the name of his running mate for his presidential bid. i'll see you

soon. welcome back to the neil oliver show . to put it mildly. it's show. to put it mildly. it's been an eventful week in us politics with an assassination attempt on president trump and a new republican vice presidential candidate being named. and president biden apparently coming down with covid. here to discuss all of that and more. i'm joined now by jemmy dore, comedian and political commentator. hello, jemmy. >> hello. great to be with you again. >> oh, thanks, jemmy. always good to hear your voice, i listened to , our mutual friend listened to, our mutual friend tucker carlson , you know, tucker carlson, you know, cogitating, in the aftermath of what happened and he said that it seemed to him that something had changed that day, the shooting, transformed trump in some sort of way that he's that he is now visibly a leader and a brave man. but what was your what was your gut reaction ? what was your gut reaction? >> it was uncommonly, brave of i

couldn't think of a politician doing that. you think that once there's an active shooter and you've already been shot in a part of your head, that you would just stay down, and he didn't? and what was even? so that was really fascinating. and, you know, once you saw him, raised his fist and say, fight, fight, fight, yeah. you couldn't help but feel the emotion of the moment. and then his , his crowd. moment. and then his, his crowd. the thing that i think is even more remarkable than that was that normally when there's a shooting, people just scatter and they trip over each other and they trip over each other and they trip over each other and they trample each other. and they didn't do that. they they sat there calmly and they kind of followed trump's lead . and i of followed trump's lead. and i think that that was an incredible moment of leadership. right because, maybe if he didn't do that, maybe if he didn't do that, maybe if he didn't get up and, show his resilience and, and, and put his

fist in the air and say, fight, maybe they would have got scared and scrambled. but there was someone behind him, a couple of people behind him who got shot, and one of a fireman actually got shot. and died. so, and people did not, scramble around and trample over each other, which is what always happens in those situations. so, yeah, it was remarkable how it's changed him. i, i don't know , i did hear him. i, i don't know, i did hear that leaked phone call where he was on the phone with bobby kennedy. and i've never heard a politician sound more magnanimous and, he even even the joe biden, the guy who's been prosecuting him, using lawfare. weaponizing the justice system against his political opponent, donald trump. he was even magnanimous to him and said nice things about him on the call. so, it, you know , i'm not call. so, it, you know, i'm not close enough to him like tucker to know that it's changed him.

but, it it certainly was quite, you know, was it was a moment of leadership and it was , it was leadership and it was, it was stunning, actually. i didn't think i didn't think trump had that in him. >> yeah. you mentioned the clip that went out, of bobby kennedy jr, you know, receiving a phone call in the aftermath. and i was struck by the way, in which, donald trump, and it was mostly it was it was him talking, not not kennedy , he he absolutely not kennedy, he he absolutely does not sound on that call like the, you might say, the caricature trump. that's always pushed, by the legacy media. you know, it wasn't . and when he know, it wasn't. and when he spoke again, when he spoke at the convention, he didn't take the convention, he didn't take the opportunity to be divisive or to stoke anything at all. you know, he really does come across in those unguarded moments. and if there was a definition of an unguarded moment, it was that bullet, you know, whizzing past

his ear, he comes across as quite different than the way his opponents generally seek to portray him . portray him. >> well, yeah, they have to portray him as a madman. they have to portray him as this, racist madman, white supremacist. all these things because, donald trump . what? my because, donald trump. what? my theory is this that donald trump is a deal maker. he he really is a successful businessman. and they used to all praise him before he ran for president. they used to all want to be a, they were all golf buddies, right? that he was on every late night talk show in america, they gave him his own television show for over ten years. they gave him he's got a he's got his own star on the walk of fame on hollywood boulevard. i mean, the establishment loved that guy. so they the fact that he didn't come up through the traditional political machine. so he they didn't have control of him. and, you know, it's not that he was that wildly different or he was

going to govern that wildly different, but they didn't have complete control of him. so they had to try to demonise him. and then when the demonisation didn't work, they tried to russiagate him and they tried to say he was a traitor to our country. and there's lots of theories about this that he puts an ugly because he's he speaks in such a brash way that he puts an ugly face on the, on imperialism. and it's harder to invade, you know, smaller countries and steal their natural resources with a guy like donald trump than it is with a guy like barack obama or joe biden, and so he puts a bad face on imperialism, especially now that they've been painting him as a madman and a and a white supremacist for all these years. they can't have that. and he's also bad for their wars. that's the real. that's the i think the real big deal is that donald trump, because he comes from business. he's always looking for a deal. and that's he like prides himself on. his book was called the art of the deal book was called the art of the deal. so he's going to find a deal deal. so he's going to find a deal. in fact, he even said that in his speech last night. he

said, i could, i will end that . said, i could, i will end that. ukraine war would have never happened if i was president. ukraine war would have never happened if i was president . and happened if i was president. and i can end the war with one phone call. and so he prides himself on that, whereas it seems like everybody else in the political spectrum in america prides themselves on being a war monger. >> that's it then, for our tv, our, thanks to all my guests. thanks to andrew eborn for beanng thanks to andrew eborn for bearing with me, and, handling this slightly different version of the show . please, to all of of the show. please, to all of you, stay tuned for the brilliant free speech nation, but we have more content coming up online. as i say, jemmy dore is staying with me, moving on afterwards to discussing russia with george szamuely and the rise of the right with ralph schollhammer, another familiar friend of the show. don't miss any of it. and i'll see you next week. >> on mark dolan tonight, in my big opinion, as rachel reeves admits that she fears strike chaos , labour are already chaos, labour are already rolling over to the unions and

we'll all pay the price. in my take at ten, the tories are in total denial about their election. wipe—out. she's not everyone's cup of tea, but suella braverman is the only one telling the truth about her own party. plus, in a mark meet special, a legend of political journalism , the sun's trevor journalism, the sun's trevor kavanagh. we're live at

>> good evening. and we start with some news bulletin. with some breaking news for you. just in the last few minutes. we have just heard that president joe biden has just announced that he is standing down, that just breaking in the last few moments, he posted on x just a short while ago, saying it's been my greatest honour of my life to serve as your president so that breaking news this hour,

joe biden has withdrawn from the 2024 presidential race. it follows weeks of intense pressure, of course, from fellow democrats after a faltering debate performance against republican donald trump at the end of june. so just to go over that breaking news, joe biden has resigned. he will not run for the 2024 presidential race. more on that story. as we get it. in other news, rachel reeves has suggested that pay rises could be on the way for public sector workers. independent review bodies are reportedly set to recommend pay rises of 5.5% for teachers and nhs staff, but schools and hospitals are unlikely to be able to meet the above inflation boost with their existing budgets. the chancellor says a final decision will be made soon, and insists the sums in her budget will add up normal levels of service at gp surgeries will take some time to

come back after friday's global it outage.