the face and then appearing to stamp on his head whilst he was already down on the floor. i can tell you now, right.7 it sparked debate in this country about what kind of policing we need to have. some would say actually what we need is a police force. other people would say what we need are police services. what do you make to all of this .7 and sir make to all of this? and sir keir starmer, that's how our prime minister has been described. following his refusal to scrap the two child benefits cap. he also removed the whip from seven of his mps, who had the audacity of voting in favour of that cap being removed. is that harsh or fair? and

apparently we have three years to prepare for war. that is according to the new head of the british army. your thoughts and new rules will come into play to stop mps having second jobs as lobbyists. common sense. if you ask me. but do you think they should go a step further and ban all second jobs? and while we're at it, what about freebies that all of these mps get? should they be scrapped too? all of that to come and lots more. did you see those horrific scenes where we've had an army officer stabbed as well? what are the streets of britain coming to? we'll get stuck into it all. but before we do, let's get the 6:00 news headlines. >> michelle, thanks very much indeed. well, the top story from the gb newsroom today. a man has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving following a car accident which left six people dead,

including two children, in yorkshire . shane roller and his yorkshire. shane roller and his partner shannon morgan and their daughters, ruby and lily morgan roller, aged just nine and four, were all killed when their car collided with a motorbike. the crash happened on the a 61 near the village of mapplewell in barnsley on sunday afternoon. the married couple on the motorbike were named as christopher barton, who was 56, and 48 year old janine barton . and 48 year old janine barton. they were also both killed . they were also both killed. well, in other news today, police in kent say the stabbing of a british army officer near a barracks in gillingham is not being treated as terrorism related at this stage. but however they are being supported by counter—terror specialists . by counter—terror specialists. detectives are continuing their investigations after witnesses reported hearing loud screams. just before 6:00 yesterday evening in gillingham . locals evening in gillingham. locals rushed to help the officer, including his wife, just in time to see the attacker, who was wearing a mask, flee on a moped. a suspect was arrested on

suspicion of attempted murder about 20 minutes later. the victim, aged in his 40s, was taken to hospital. he has serious injuries. the home secretary, yvette cooper, says she's being kept up to date on the investigation. >> this is an appalling attack on a serving soldier. my thoughts go to him and to his family, wishing him a speedy recovery. this is an ongoing police investigation by kent police. it's really important that they have everyone's support in this investigation, but this was a just appalling attack on a serving soldier, and i know that the whole country will be thinking of him and his family and wishing him a speedy recovery . recovery. >> well, in the house of commons today, sir keir starmer accused the previous government of losing control of britain's borders as he took part in his first pmqs as prime minister. reform uk's peter lowe quizzed the prime minister on labour's migration plans, claiming that the failure to control the uk's

borders had damaged communities. the prime minister conceded that small boat crossings on the channel are a serious issue, but he laid the blame on the tories. >> i'm not sure i agree with his numbers, but look, i do think that it's serious that the previous government lost control of our borders a record numbers have crossed the channel since the leader of the opposition, when he was prime minister for 18 months, 50,000 people crossed the channel. it's a serious issue that requires a serious answer, and that is why we will set up our border security command to take down the gangs that are running this vile trade. but we won't do is waste further time on a gimmick that cost a fortune and remove just four volunteers. >> meanwhile, rishi sunak used today's prime minister's questions to call for tougher sanctions on russia. the leader of the opposition said the work of the opposition said the work of the opposition said the work of the previous government had

laid the groundwork for stronger action against moscow, which he says will help fund ukraines reconstruction and taking a slightly lighter tone, the former prime minister joked slightly lighter tone, the former prime ministerjoked as he sent best wishes to britain's olympians and i also join with the prime minister in his warm words about our olympic athletes. >> i have no doubt that after years of training, focus and dedication, they will bring back many gold medals. although to be honest, i'm probably not the first person they want to hear advice from on how to win. but i'm glad. i'm glad in our exchanges . exchanges. >> now, eluned morgan is set to become the first minister of wales, making her the first woman to take on the top job. 57 year old baroness morgan, who's the welsh health minister, was the welsh health minister, was the only contender to lead welsh labour after nominations closed. she's replacing vaughan gething, who announced his resignation last week after only four months in the job. although she's been formally announced today, she

won't immediately become first minister as that requires a confirmation vote in the senate . confirmation vote in the senate. let's bring you up to date on events in the united states now where the gunman who tried to kill donald trump searched onune kill donald trump searched online for details concerning the assassination of john f kennedy , fbi director kennedy, fbi director christopher wray told committees in washington today that the would be assassin search history was perhaps an early indication of his plan, but he also acknowledged that there are still open questions about the attack itself. mr wray's appearance comes a day after secret service director kimberly cheat resigned over her handling of the shooting, and president biden were expecting. we'll be making an address to the nation from the oval office in washington later on as a poll puts kamala harris ahead of donald trump for the very first time. joe biden's presumed successor has a two point lead. we're told, over the republican nominee. that's according to a new poll conducted by reuters ipsos. and that's a change from

last week, when donald trump was two points ahead of the president. and it comes as mr trump files a complaint with the us election commission in an attempt to stop joe biden's election funds being transferred to his vice president's campaign . to his vice president's campaign. one last story for you a diver has discovered a bronze cannon on the shipwreck of a warship that was destroyed by gunpowder in 1665. it was a massive explosion, apparently, and it happened to the 17th century ship called the london, forming part of a convoy sent in 1660 to collect charles the second from the netherlands and restore him to the throne. the prized cannon was discovered buried in silt and clay on the seabed, where the protected shipwreck lies. in two parts. guess where as well? just off southend pier in essex . just off southend pier in essex. those are the latest gb news headunes those are the latest gb news headlines for now i'm polly 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 forward slash alerts . slash alerts. >> thank you very much for that, polly. i mean, i've got to start my program by just reflecting on that awful situation you've just been here, described in those headunes been here, described in those headlines there, the situation where that serving army officer has been hacked in that way. i mean, obviously, just to echo what she's been saying, their thoughts are, of course, with that victim and i hope he really does make a speedy recovery. but what on earth are our streets coming to in this country? please give me your thoughts on it all alongside me tonight until 7:00. i've got my panel, the columnist at the mail on sunday, peter hitchens, and the co—founder of novara media, aaron bastani. good evening, gentlemen, to both of you, if anyone's sitting at home

thinking , anyone's sitting at home thinking, what's anyone's sitting at home thinking , what's michelle thinking, what's michelle playing out? why ain't she getting stuck into a full debate about that situation, with the stabbing? believe you me, i have some very strong opinions. but of course, i would never want to jeopardise any legal outcome, so i'll save my opinions on that for another day. but there are lots of other things i want to talk to you about in this country. keir starmer , he's been country. keir starmer, he's been called sir keir starmer. i want to look at his response to this. two child benefits cap. also, i want to ask if we've got, imminently ahead of us potential world war iii. is that just fear mongering or what? but lots more. i want to talk about first. and you know the drill. you can get in touch with me all the usual ways. you can email gb views @gbnews. com you can go to the website, which is gbnews.com/yoursay and i just want to be clear, because lots of people email me and say, michelle, our email address doesn't work . gbnews.com/yoursay doesn't work. gbnews.com/yoursay that's a website. that's where you can chat to me and to each

other. and of course you can tweet or text me @gbnews. you're very welcome wherever you're watching or listening tonight, now, you might have seen a video that's gone absolutely viral on the internet. i'll try and show you a short clip of that, but i'll just describe what it is. it's an incident that seems to have unfolded in manchester airport, and the bit that's been filmed is always the way with these kind of things. you seem to miss out the, the build up to some of this, and then it seems to start filming when, you know, terrible things seem to be unfolding in the video that's gone viral. it basically shows the police officer, he seems to he appears to be kicking, and then stamping, perhaps on a man's head, who has been somewhat restrained onto the floor. is created, huge conversations tonight. it's received a response from greater manchester police, which i'll just read to you. they're saying that officers have been called to an altercation between members of the public at the

airport. basically, they're saying while i was trying to arrest one of the suspects of the earlier altercation , three the earlier altercation, three officers were subject to a violent assault where they were punched to the ground. a female officer apparently suffered a broken nose, and all three were taken to the hospital for treatment. the attending officers were firearms officers and there was a clear risk dunng and there was a clear risk during this assault of their firearms being taken away from them. four men were arrested at them. four men were arrested at the scene for affray and assault on emergency service workers. they say they acknowledge the concerns of the conduct within the video and our professional standards. are assessing this now . again, the key words there now. again, the key words there people have been arrested again. so hands are somewhat tied when it comes to debating that issue. so i shall park that specific, one to the side. but i want to have a broader conversation, if you will indulge me, because policing and the way our police, conduct themselves on the streets of britain has been a subject of debate for a very long time. i am a very, strong believer in law and order. i have repeatedly said on my program, i want to see more

police force, you know, more police force, you know, more police force, you know, more police force and less of police service. i want to see less dancing, kneeling clown cars and all the rest of it. and i want people to understand you don't mess around with the police officers. i'm obviously not saying that i condone stamping on heads or anything like that, but i do feel like we've lost the basics of policing in this country a bit. what do you think, peter? >> well, we have, but not perhaps in the way that you mean the great problem which you have is that the police have over many, many years now, become so absent from our streets and our lives and have so little contact with law abiding people that they really have little influence over what goes on. i think their principal characteristic is absence. they're just not to be seen in the way that when i was growing up in this country, they were to be seen everywhere, patrolling on foot in towns and cities and very visible in the countryside where there were police houses in most villages there were police to be seen. they had a strong relationship, as i say, with the law abiding, and they were respected by the law

abiding and as a result they were they were respected by everybody else too. they knew what was going on and they were very effective , a very effective very effective, a very effective force . your chosen word of force. your chosen word of citizens in uniform who were in alliance with the rest of the citizenry against crime and disorder that ceased. i wrote a book about this some years ago called the abolition of liberty, in which the whole process is described. it ceased long ago, actually in the 1960s, in piece by piece. it was dismantled and it's now almost entirely vanished. and we have a police force which, instead of preventing crime and disorder by presents, rushes uselessly to the scenes of crime after it's happened, which is totally ineffective and will never, ever answer the question . the best answer the question. the best symbol of this is the 999 police service, a ludicrous pretence. now the police simply cannot keep up with the calls that come in, so they just don't really answer them. and the idea that you, if everybody thinks that when they're in trouble, they call the police. the police will

come. just wait till it happens. they can't, they won't. they're not capable of it. the whole purpose of the police has been changed. and the new form of policing does not work. and we should go back to the original form, which continues to work and would work very well if we reintroduced it. aaron >> well, it doesn't look like reasonable force. the, the video that we saw, and i also take any press release from the police, any police force, but particularly the metropolitan police service. i know that's not this particular force. when there is a flare up and it could be subject to real media scrutiny, you know, an amazing statistic. the london metropolitan police service have 92 press officers . we've got the 92 press officers. we've got the evening standard, the paper of record really for london. it's about to go weekly. it's moving away from a daily edition to a weekly edition. i find it remarkable that the met have 92 press officers, yet we're not even going to have a daily newspaper that can do original newspaper that can do original news gathering and journalism for london. so the press releases park that will know the

facts. i'm sure in a in a week or two. but on the details and the particulars of this particular instance, it doesn't seem like reasonable force. now i'm going to, in a second, i'm going to show you a very it will be blurred out because i know there'll be kids watching. >> so just in case you're not familiar with that, but one of the things that changed the game and i don't envy police officers because i think the second that something kicks off, whatever it is, it's uploaded literally within seconds to social media. everybody becomes these kind of armchair experts in policing myself included, by the way. i hold my hands up. i've probably doneit hold my hands up. i've probably done it myself multiple times, and when you talk about this need for press officers and so on and so forth, they must have to spend so much of their time policing optics. and do you think that's do you think that's just part of the job? do you think that it's, you know, are we going in the right direction with that or not? >> well, i certainly don't think the london metropolitan police service requires 92 press officers. i mean, the average

regional police force has about 20 press officers, which i think is just absurd, frankly, but on this thing about armchair commentators, i totally buy that point. and that's why i'm saying it appears from what we've seen in that clip, to be unreasonable force. now, we don't know the full story. well, i think that's the point, isn't it? >> we can't. >> we can't. >> it's hence my caveat. >> it's hence my caveat. >> it's hence my caveat. >> it's very dangerous for us to discuss. that's my caveat. the incident at all. and i think we shouldn't i think we do need to discuss the kind of police force we have as opposed to the kind we have as opposed to the kind we used to have, and whether we should take steps to get back to having the sort that we used to have, in which incidents of this kind were how should i put this? very mildly, a lot rarer. the whole the whole point of the police, as robert peel set out when he set them up in, in the form which this country chose, was, as i say , citizens in was, as i say, citizens in uniform who were not a threat to liberty. they were deliberately non—military. they were given non—military. they were given non—military uniforms. they the only weapon they they carried

was a wooden truncheon, which was a wooden truncheon, which was concealed. they were entirely unlike the continental police forces, which parliament refused to copy. the reason why we had a very sensible, civilised police force in this country from the early 19th century on was because parliament said, we're not going down the route of france and the other major countries in europe. we're not having a police force, which is effectively an army of the state, oppressive and a basically a special body of armed men to keep the populace under control. we're a free country. we're going to have a police force designed for a free country. it's going to be it's not going to be national. they're not going to look like soldiers. they're not going to act like soldiers. they're not going to walk like soldiers. they're not going to be armed like soldiers. they're going to be different. and we had it. and for 140 years, it worked a treat. and then suddenly in the middle 1960s, liberal reformers headed by the then labour home secretary roy jenkins, decided they knew better. and the first, one the of the first things they did was they got rid of the regular preventive foot patrols,

which were the great characteristic of the police, which made them a reassuring presence on every street of every town all the time. they got rid of that and they turned the police into a fire brigade, which reacted ineffectually to crime and disorder after it happened. and the other thing they did was they broke that contact between the daily hourly contact between the daily hourly contact between the daily hourly contact between individual police officers and the law abiding public. most of the members of the public, the police, meet now are not law abiding. so they develop. they refer now to the public as civilians. yes. this is a disgraceful, disgraceful event. as if the police were again a special body of armed men in the same way they have in the continent, who have nothing to do with the public and don't serve them. they don't serve the pubuc serve them. they don't serve the public now they serve the state. and it's a completely wrong and different thing. and this is what people need to examine. i've been going into this, arguing about it now for years, and years and years and say, i wrote this book. i pressed it into the hands of serving home secretaries, the commissioners of the metropolitan police. no one will pay the slightest attention. nonetheless, i persist. it's time we did.

something has to be done or it will get worse. >> aaron, final word to you. >> aaron, final word to you. >> well, i agree with much of what peter just said there, >> well, i agree with much of what peterjust said there, but what peter just said there, but what peter just said there, but what i would say is, look, in the instance that we just saw a moment ago, that man was on the floor. he was already restrained. he doesn't need to be kicked. and stamped on if he wasn't already restrained. that's the conversation. that's a live situation. but to me, that speaks of an absence of professionalism. we need to have a conversation about the kinds of people we're recruiting into the police. are they good enough? are they fit enough? are they intelligent enough? that's a big conversation, because, frankly, the calibre of police officers that i meet in general isn't as high as i'd like it, given the power that we're giving them. >> but didn't they make it a degree ? didn't you need to have degree? didn't you need to have a degree? >> a degree to be intelligent? but i take your point. >> i think that didn't they make policing a degree profession so that you need to have now a degree. someone at home will know the answer to that. and you can correct me if i'm wrong. and i also, i'm sure it was a british transport police. they scrapped their compulsory fitness tests. bleep tests. yeah. so you can have all the people meandering around in the

land. but if they're going to get outrun by a five year old, it's a different it's a different. >> when i was researching this back at the in the early years of the century, i remember coming across an interview with a, with a police woman in one of the national newspapers and she said policing nowadays is a sedentary occupation , so i need sedentary occupation, so i need to get fit some other way. and that tells you everything you need to know. policing a sedentary occupation that's what they do. they sit at desks looking at computers or they sit in cars. they don't go out on foot into the streets. therefore, they do not build the sort of relationship with the pubuc sort of relationship with the public which enables them to defuse and control unpleasant incidents in the way that they seem to manage to take to the streets on things like pride parade when they're doing the dances, or they seem to take to the streets on their knees. well, as you know, i'm not, i'm not, i'm as against that as you are. but that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about having a perpetually preventive foot patrolling present police force of the kind which we used to have and which used to work, which i remember and it worked.

and everybody who lived with it, i won't say under it, because it wasn't oppressive. everybody who lived with it will tell you the same thing. it worked. the police were not the army of the rich, as some idiots say they were the army of the respectable and the and the well—behaved and the wonderment of yester years. >> what do you think? what is the future of you don't have to go to the moon to find out how to make things better. >> you can just look at your own country 40 years ago or something. >> now, i started something, haven't i, look. and did he mention he's written a book about this? everyone. there you go. sorry. homework, look, after the break, i want to talk to you would read it. kids. they're going to read it. >> they go. i wish they would, because there'll be members of a very small minority. >> i'm going to bring the town police in in a minute and sort him out, after the break, sir keir starmer up by my brushes. yeah i've got a twang. his braces. in a minute. sir keir starmer, he, has got rid. well, he's removed the whip from seven people, had the audacity to vote against removing the two child, benefits . cap. your thoughts on benefits. cap. your thoughts on this? is he really, the meanie

that he's been made out to be? your

hello there. i'm michelle dewberry with you. tall seven. the columnist at the mail on sunday, peter hitchens and cofounder of novara media. aaron bastani. rosalia i like that name. you say? can i just say i really like the two gentlemen on your panel tonight? they are very interesting men and just very interesting men and just very nice to listen to. that's nice, isn't it, very nice to listen to. that's nice, isn't it , lots of people nice, isn't it, lots of people asking what is the context for that video that you've just been playing? it's as i described in that police, statement that they just made, but as i always say with these things, it's always fascinating, isn't it, how the videos only seem to start at certain points. i'll let you guys be the judge of all that. but look, sir keir starmer, he's become under the spotlight again today because you'll be familiar by now with the vote on the snp

amendment which took place last night. the labour party had been whipped not to vote in support of that, seven mps didn't follow that advice. they voted essentially to remove the two child benefit cap . as a result, child benefit cap. as a result, sir keir starmer has removed the whip from those people for six months. also interestingly, 40 odd labour mps didn't actually vote and there'll be a variety of reasons for that. but some of them, some of those people wouldn't have voted because they didn't have the chops to be able to come down on one side or another, which i don't think should be allowed. but anyway, the criticism towards starmer, is it fair or not? >> well, it's very fair. i mean, some people are saying that this was a master stroke. he's managed to achieve so much. but, you know, this morning there wasn't a single government minister on the airwaves going on to the tv studios to defend what he's done. >> so what? why does he have to explain himself? >> you know, the government, i mean, that's the big shift,

isn't it? they're now the government. there's the king's speech. you've just suspended seven mps who were elected by their constituents not even a month ago. they no longer represent those constituents as labour mps. you have a duty or responsibility to explain to those constituents and the rest of the public why you've done that, but you know why? >> i think because they were told to vote with the government. those ones chose not to. what do you need to explain? >> it's unprecedented. >> it's unprecedented. >> so what? he's a new era doing things that say that. >> but they didn't put any ministers up, which suggests to me they're not particularly proud of what they've done and they're not willing to explain it. i think that's evasive. i don't think people like that. really? >> yes. so let me ask you this at home, do you care that a minister wasn't put up to explain this decision today? does that bother you? well, hold on. >> when the tories did it, labour definitely cared. so if nothing else, it's deeply hypocritical. >> do you think he should have taken the action that he's taken? >> look, if you try and look objectively at this, i can understand both sides of the argument. i personally agree with these seven mps. i think we should scrap that cap on on

child benefits with regards to two children. that's my view. but i can understand both sides of the argument. but what i would say is six months just seems incredibly draconian. and as i've said without precedent, blair never did anything like this. johnson didn't do anything like this in terms of a king's speech when he did do something like this, it was about getting brexit over the line. a massive national constitutional issue. more than 20 mps when it came to the liberal press. when it came to labour mps, i didn't hear the end of it. apparently this was the beginning of fascism, but now that keir starmer has done it, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody seems to care. >> double standards in the press, perhaps, farron says keir starmer has progressed to downing street. >> it's been almost entirely based upon him saying i'm not jeremy corbyn and look at all the people who he's just suspended. they're all corbynites. so he's just, he's keeping up what i believe is called triangulation . you try called triangulation. you try and persuade this group over there a that that you're their friends because this group over there b appear to be your enemies and this group over there a don't like them, so you

hope they'll like you. that's all it is. it's a bill clinton made an art form out of it. but you try and define what you are and what you stand for by attacking other people. and it works a treat. people are taken in by it all the time. it won't make any difference to anything any more than the revolt will. >> are people taken in violation? >> yes, of course they are. he's got people. are taken in. look at the last election. if you don't believe people are taken in by his slogans, then i'm looking at the last election sake. >> he only won 9.7 million votes. you know you can't 20% of the eligible electorate. yeah. i mean, you know, he won the election. well, no, i appreciate that, peter. >> on the preset terms. i mean, that's how he had to win it. and he did it. and they are and it was done on the basis of almost completely i won't say fraudulent because that would be it would be paying like you'd be like on the basis of never, ever saying what he was going to do. >> they got 9.7 million. >> they got 9.7 million. >> he knows who they are or what they are. and yet they and yet they are. and yet they and yet they got elected. how can this be done with, with people being fooled by technique? >> they got 9.7 million votes. it's the lowest number of votes

ever for a majority of one, let alone 172, 173 or now 165. >> but so what they nonetheless they are they they now have all they are they they now have all the all the immense powers of a lawful government. well, we losing the prerogative powers which were discussed rare example of us discussing enormous powers. they've got them, they've got them according to the rules. they go on. >> let me just say this. >> let me just say this. >> electoral skills. >> electoral skills. >> look, this is meant to be the honeymoon period. this is meant to be good vibes. everybody likes you. you're meant to be likes you. you're meant to be like hugh grant in love actually, right? the prime minister, you know who's who's really still care about that? no, it's about your honeymoon. it's about good vibes. >> i think immediately the rishi sunak was sucking up. >> no, i think immediately creating negativity. >> that's a honeymoon. he certainly having immediately certainly having immediately certainly having immediately certainly having one. i think immediately creating negativity around your premiership within three weeks when you only got 9.7 million votes. >> not a massive mandate. i think it's very risky. i don't you're saying this is about triangulation. if it was about triangulation, they would have put ministers on the media this morning. they didn't. >> they didn't need to because here, here, here we have sir keir starmer, the alleged right

winger, appearing to be right winger, appearing to be right wing by attacking the corbynites, who are allegedly the left wing. i mean, i know and you know that keir starmer is well to the left of jeremy corbyn. so this is all bilge, but that's how it works and people are taking it. and the main people you take in by it are, hesitate for a moment. well, i take a breath. they are political journalists who are the most politically ignorant people in the country. and plainly selected for that purpose. >> so the two child benefits cap, do you think that that should remain or be removed? >> peter i would certainly like to see the government do more to encourage people to have children, because at the moment, the level of the level of child, the level of the level of child, the numbers of children in families is disastrous for this country, and we're well below replacement level. and a lot of continental countries do it better where the child benefits. the best way of doing it is another matter. but if you if you're going to say that and i do, i have things that i would say that this country should stop spending money on. so it could afford it. but but the starmer government has nothing

of that kind to say. it's still for instance, believes in maintaining our absurd superpower, nuclear weapons, which were designed for a much ficher which were designed for a much richer and more powerful country in the circumstances which no longer exist and which we can't afford. and as long as you do that, there'll be very little for money anything of this kind, just for instance. nor do they have any serious plans to get the huge number of people who are being paid to do nothing into productive work. there just aren't any. nor do they have any plans for turning our schools from nurseries of ignorance into actual schools. none of these things which would be necessary to pay for and make possible a serious encouragement of having more children, are being contemplated, so it's useless saying yes. i'd love to have more child benefit because you've got no idea where it's going to come from. well, politics, it has to be about having realistic arguments. well, things you can. ukraine can realistically do. >> we found 3 billion for ukraine and this is this is one of the points i was going to make because he so he says keir starmer says the reason that he won't commit to, lifting this cap right now is it's going to

cost £3.4 billion a year. >> and he can't say where that cash is going to come from. then on the other hand, he will clearly say, as you will, just as you've just pointed out, that we will give ukraine and i won't say they will give ukraine because they don't have any money. it's our money that we will give ukraine £3 billion a year for as long as it takes. and i think as long as what takes is how are we finding this magic money tree to involve ourselves in every single foreign conflict in the land, while simultaneously being okay with children, being in poverty in our own country? i think it's people don't object to it. >> if i've i've written and spoken at ill attended public meetings in large circulation newspapers, on the television, on podcasts , saying that britain on podcasts, saying that britain has absolutely no reason to be involved in a russo—american war over the territory of ukraine. over and over and over again. all that happens is people shout at me, putin, parrot putin apologist, kremlin agent and

nobody wants to think about it. and in parliament today, we had the equivalent. we had rishi sunak, who was supposed to be the leader of the opposition, which is a fairly clearly defined position. you you would think when you looked at it that it meant you led the opposition to the government sucking up openly to keir starmer on his ukraine policy. well, we haven't got an opposition. >> well, we're going to talk in two minutes about the potential of world war iii. i'll come on to that. but back to child benefit. a lot of my viewers, and by the way, it's not child benefit because you get child benefit. for however many children, this is about how many benefits you can get when things like universal credit and stuff beyond your first two children, many people are getting in touch because you just said that you want this cap removed. people are essentially, i'm going to paraphrase because there's so many people saying similar things. why should the taxpayer be responsible for funding your children ? yeah. what's your children? yeah. what's your answer? >> nobody's having children . the >> nobody's having children. the birth rate in scotland, fertility rate in scotland is 1.2. in london it's 1.3. fertility rate in scotland is 1.2. in london it's1.3. these children, these children are already here, but it's a disincentive. it's a massive disincentive. it's a massive disincentive. we've got expensive childcare , we've got

expensive childcare, we've got expensive childcare, we've got expensive housing. we have very little help from the government in terms of looking after children early on, and people say, well, the woman should stay at home. well work. unfortunately is not sufficient for just one person in the household to work. and you can do that anymore and you have a choice. i know that you've got these children that are already here, but it's a massive issue. >> it's a massive disincentive to having children because, for instance, if i have three children with my wife and i die, i know for a fact the state will discriminate against us for having had that third child, and she will be living in a poorer situation as a result. >> so what do i say to people watching this is you want lower migration? well, if we have a birth rate of one, which is where we're heading, tough, you're going to have to have higher migration. so we need to rethink the welfare state around having more children looking after children, raising them to be productive members of society. not always the case, of course, but we can try and maximise the possibility that happens. >> well, that is that's part of the point of this. we have we have very poor arrangements for,

for actually bringing people up as active members of society and productive members of society. our schools in particular, and many of our universities are a national disgrace. so there's no point having the children if you then don't bring them up as, as as valued and active members of society, which is another part of the problem. but we are going to come to the point where it's going to be 1 to 1 people on pensions and people, people working in which case societies will will collapse, collapses, society will collapse. >> i don't think people realise. >> i don't think people realise. >> warning society. >> warning society. >> i don't think people realise it will collapse. the system will no longer work. >> there are so many reasons why that's going to happen. >> well, we'll come on to one of the reasons, because count the ways. by the way, my mom and dad did their bit for society. i'm one of six, ladies and gentlemen. one of six. there's more of me. look, you talk about society collapsing the new boss of the army says that we perhaps might not even get to that point, because before we know it, we might even end up in world war iii. apparently, we've only got three years prepare for that. thoughts?

hi there. michelle dewberry seven peter hitchens. aaron bastani remain alongside me now. the new boss of the army has warned that britain has to be prepared to fight a war in three years time. i mean, let'sjust years time. i mean, let's just cut to the chase about this. apparently, he's warning warned world war iii could perhaps be imminent. aaron bastani, where are you on this, >> it strikes me as quite ridiculous. britain. after seven months of attacks, hasn't been able to get rid of the houthis. they tried. they failed. so the idea that we're going to go toe to toe with russia, china and iran together strikes me as quite wild. i think britain needs to take a step back. our political class needs to take a step back and be honest with the pubuc step back and be honest with the public and say, we don't have the industrial capacity, we don't have the manufacturing base, we don't have the skills actually , anymore to have the actually, anymore to have the kind of war economy that these

people are talking about. we haven't had that kind of economy. you might say, for 20 years. you might want to go further back. we probably could have done it about 20 years ago, but we don't have the steel manufacturer, we don't have the semiconductors, we don't have the engineers. so it's a flight of fantasy. frankly for bigger budgets, to, to buy more arms and military products, which is fine . that's what people in, in fine. that's what people in, in the military do. they have to make their case, i get it. but using this sort of, this, this concern over world war iii, if there was world war iii. look, we are incredibly poorly prepared, and that won't change in three, five, ten years. >> peter, who do we think we are? >> peter, who do we think we are? >> i'm completely baffled. we carry on behaving as if we were a major world power rich and militarily powerful , politically militarily powerful, politically powerful and diplomatically powerful. most countries in the world don't spend more than ten minutes a week thinking about britain, and that's if we're lucky. we're not considered to be important any more. you go to

the united states, read american newspapers, watch american news channels. you won't hear this country even mention. most of the time, it doesn't matter. we matter to ourselves immensely, and our own national defence is hugely important. and that basically needs to be conventional . though of course, conventional. though of course, since we have a nuclear weapon, it will be foolish to get rid of some sort of nuclear final nuclear deterrent as an absolute last resort. but our conventional defences are a national disgrace. the navy is a is a melancholy remnant. the army is pitifully small and we're losing all the time. the vital experienced non—commissioned officers and officers who are the core of any armed force. because we can't retain them, because the smaller our armed forces get, the more pressure people have. so we're making a complete mistake at the same time, we're posturing what somebody explained to me, what is the british interest in a war between america and russia? on ukrainian soil? where does it touch our our national interest, except insofar as we toady all the time to the united states?

i've said this before. i'll say it again. if i were the united states of america, i would not want an ally as feeble, as slobbering as pathetically hanger on ish as we are. you don't want an ally who is such . don't want an ally who is such. who is who is such a complete lickspittle. you want an ally who might conceivably stand up to you, who doesn't always say yes, and how? hi. whenever you say do this or jump. and the relations we have with the united states are absurd and they will become more absurd. it seems to me when the new president, whoever he or she is, takes office, where will we stand with this? with this country that we constantly suck up to? i don't think they're going to be able to stand this special relationship well, especially if it's to our own defences. but don't go on and on about world wars with people we aren't actually even, in in conflict with over any serious. >> it'll be fascinating to see if trump does get elected because of course, david lammy has described him as essentially some kind of racist and neo—nazi sympathiser. >> his his current vice

presidential running mate once called him america's hitler. so people find themselves oddly coming around to donald trump when they have to deal with him. >> lee, on the website, you make a very good point, you're saying, please, can you point out that we can't even protect our own borders? michelle. so we would have absolutely no chance whatsoever in another world war. i mean, did you see the state of harehills the other day? we couldn't even sort that out. never mind, a foreign conflict. i would suggest. but paul says, michelle, please, can you tell aaron on the previous topic, when you're talking about getting married, having multiple children and then who's going to support your family? tell him that there's a thing called life insurance policy. if it's that if he's so concerned, he could take that in. people work so hard week in, week out, he says, if you want our big families, paups if you want our big families, paul's point, provide for them yourself and plan for the inevitable. they go, paul, i told him, what do you say about told him, what do you say about to paul quickly? >> well, i would say the taxpayers paying for your kids to go to schools and to use the nhs and to pay for the roads

that you take those kids to schools and the hospitals with. i mean, we pay for all kinds of things. and the reality is birth rates are so low. we need to incentivise families. and by the way, we could do a ton of stuff. it's barely going to touch the sides, but we need to stop that decline. it is genuinely the biggest challenge to our social system that we know, and nobody's talking about it. >> we're talking about it. did that answer your question, paul, or not? after the break, let's return to politics, this whole situation about second jobs and so on and so forth. apparently there's a clampdown coming soon, but i would say it doesn't go far enough. and what about all these freebies, hospitalities, etc. that mps get? should the whole thing be shaken up? your

hi there. michelle dewberry. i'm bastani . peter hitchens remained bastani. peter hitchens remained alongside as the viewer there. paul alongside as the viewer there. paul, you've created a whole conversation there about the cost of life insurance in the break. that's what we've just

been debating. it can be incredibly eye—watering, depending on your personal circumstances. but there you go. look, let's talk about, cutting your cloth accordingly. we've just been talking about poverty and the amount of cash that people have got in their back pockets. mps, they don't do badly. you know, and there's this whole conversation about whether or not they should be able to have second jobs, what kind of second jobs, and so on. and so forth. now, new plans, saying that actually things like lobbying jobs could be quite severely restricted, as could be consulting if it was around policy areas and so on and so forth. common sense, if you ask me and i don't think it goes far enough, but what do you think, aaron bastani i think that's right. >> it doesn't go far enough. but then i suppose you know you'll get the argument. well, surely an mp should be able to write a book or a memoir, you know, like, tony benn. and of course, you'd sell the rights to those books. so. >> truss. >> truss. >> yeah, liz truss . >> yeah, liz truss. >> yeah, liz truss. >> truss. >> truss. >> not well, i haven't read it, but it's not been recommended to me. but i think by and large, look, you're earning good money

as an mp. i know they to love whinge. they get some of the best pensions out there. you're only on the parliamentary estate 150 days a year. you get three weeks off at easter, right? how many jobs that pay that much with that pension get three weeks off at easter? it's a great job. you get great money. you don't need to be tarting yourself off to, i don't know, law firms. >> and what about being a doctor? >> well, this is this is the point. so some of it is i still think you should be committed to your constituents. so i would i would have a hard and fast guillotine. no, no. >> so you can't be a doctor. no. what in your local hospital. no. >> because your time should be. your time should be committed to your constituents. >> that's what you're being is helping your constituents, isn't it? i appreciate that, save their life. no, i appreciate that. >> it's very worthy and noble thing to be doing. and maybe dunng thing to be doing. and maybe during covid, you might make an exception for instance. but by and large, i think you should not be earning any additional income while you're on so you can qualify as a doctor. >> and i'm sure that there'll be things that you have to do year on year to maintain your, your cards or whatever it is. i don't

know how it works, but i'm assuming you've got to do something to keep qualified as a doctor. so you would allow all of these qualified doctors to enter, things like, parliament to just go to waste. >> well, how many, how many doctors do we have in parliament? i think we probably have about 5 or 6. >> well, i don't know. see, then you've just lost 5 or 6 doctors we've seen around. >> well, i just think if you're being paid that amount of money, there's only 650 of them. michel, you know, they should be wholly committed to their job as members of parliament and legislators. >> peter hitchens, being a member of parliament isn't a job, is it? then it's ridiculous that it should be treated as one. well, who is your employer, the employer is, is ultimately your your your constituents. but you're paid as what what keir starmer wants to see in his arrangement. you're paid by the government and therefore, you become a salaried government employee who ultimately owes his everything in his life to the government, which means that mps will be even more than they are now, the paid servants of the executive. and it's amazing how people go, ooh, we've got to get rid of hereditary peers . they're rid of hereditary peers. they're so bad. they were appointed by the great, great, great great grandfathers were appointed by charles the second. so why should we have these people? and

instead we have a parliament full of people who owe their positions in that parliament to having means selected by party machines , which have decided machines, which have decided that they are safe and not dangerous and not likely to do anything independent. and then if they make any trouble, then the whips will come down and unpleasant stories about their private lives will appear in the papers, and they'll be forced out of their seats and they are completely under the thumbs of the executive. and whichever party is they're in and why anybody should want more of this . anybody should want more of this. and, and mps have even less recourse to any kind of independence. i don't know. the parliament sits for far too long. it passes far too much legislation, too not not too little. how many times does parliament make things worse by sitting? it should not be a full time job. a lot of mps work is taken over by what borough and county councils used to do before the disastrous local government reorganisation of 74, and that's why mps spend so much time on drains and pavements and stuff of this kind instead of

on, instead of on questioning the government, on national affairs, the whole job of mps seats needs to cease to be a job and become what it is supposed to be. that is to say, a person representing his or her constituency and nothing else. and the idea that people shouldn't be able to have any other kind of interest or support in life is absurd, thomas on the website says michelle all mps should have a mandatory second job. >> illegal migrant deportation officer. he says there's a big need for those. also under conversation, perhaps should be whether or not mps they're paid handsomely. why on earth did they get so many freebies? i was looking into this keir starmer £76,000 he's had in hospitality and freebies since 2019, the most out of any mps. get this £16,200 were for free clothes from a labour peer from the same guy, £2,400 for spectacles. how, on the one hand, can you push back and say things like the state shouldn't be responsible for helping multiple children

while simultaneously being a high earning, powerful grown man? that needs someone else to pay man? that needs someone else to pay for your spectacles and your clothes. it is embarrassing. anyway, look, that is much more important issue for another day than the issue. >> whether they have second jobs in my view. >> well, there you go. we'll perhaps debate this next time you guys are on, but for now, look, that's all i've got time for aaron bastani. thank you very much, peter hitchens. thank you for your thank you too. and as always , thank you to each and as always, thank you to each and every single one of you that choose to spend the hour watching dewbs& co. i really appreciate it. and i'll see you tomorrow night . tomorrow night. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar, sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello again and welcome along to the latest forecast from the met office for gb news gloomy skies overnight and into the start of thursday. for many of us, outbreaks of rain. but it will turn brighter later on now. we started wednesday with a

ridge of high pressure. didn't last long. weather fronts are now moving in from the west and they are thickening up the cloud in many parts of the uk and bringing extensive low cloud to western parts and southern parts of the country. with hill fog , of the country. with hill fog, coastal mist and areas of rain and drizzle. nevertheless, with the largely cloudy skies overnight, it is going to remain mild in some places. rather muqqy mild in some places. rather muggy 15 or 16 celsius first thing, but if you're in the south and southwest, expect a gloomy start to thursday. a lot of low cloud covering the hills, bringing some mist and fog to coastal parts as well, and some more persistent and heavier bursts of rain into south cornwall and south devon through the morning . wales cloudy and the morning. wales cloudy and damp, the worst of the drizzle and low cloud over hills. likewise for northwest england, but for scotland and northern ireland something a little brighter. first thing, certainly for eastern scotland. some sunny spells coming through largely dry here, showers pushing into western scotland and through the morning we're going to see

things cheer up. across the northern two thirds of the uk, the cloud will lift. there will be some cloud breaks, although there will still be some showers arriving across western scotland , arriving across western scotland, northern ireland into northern england. mostly dry for wales by the afternoon, as well as the midlands, but for the south and south—east outbreaks of rain, heavy at times and as a result significantly cooler compared with wednesday. that rains out of the way by friday morning and then for most, it's a much brighter start to the day. sunny spells but further showers are likely in places especially, although not exclusively, across scotland, northern ireland, west wales and western england . wales and western england. saturday more widespread and heavier downpours for a time interspersed by sunny spells. sunshine on sunday looks like things are heating up . things are heating up. >> boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb

>> good evening. well, it was the first prime minister's questions today for keir starmer . questions today for keir starmer. but i've got to ask the question. is there any opposition ? because it appears opposition? because it appears to be the uniparty. yes. rishi sunak agreeing with virtually everything. do we need a proper opposition to have a healthy democracy? well biden's out of the way. it's kamala harris, is she going to provide real opposition to donald trump, or is she actually under scrutiny, going to really struggle up against a guy who was a really tough opponent? the royal family finances are really in very, very good shape, and the reason for that, of course, is the crown estate's own a lot of offshore seabed, where wind farms are going up and they're making vast profits. but do the royal family give us real value for money? plus, i'll reveal tonight exclusively here on gb