two tory big—hitters launch their campaign to become leader of the party — one focussed on policies, the other on principles. so what do badenoch and cleverly believe in? as the uk suspends some arms exports to israel, hundreds of thousands of israelis take part in a general strike

to call for a hostage deal. how much of a threat are both of those to benjamin netanyahu's grasp on power? welcome to newsnight, where each weeknight we bring you interviews and insight. tonight — an interview with a supporter of kemi badenoch's campaign to be tory leader, chris philp, and a relative of one of the hostages the idf say was "brutally murdered" by hamas in recent days. your panel this evening — former shadow culture secretary and shadow leader of the commons, thangham debbonaire. and kwasi kwarteng, former business secretary and former chancellor. and nick is here.

so, the two launches today for the would—be tory leaders, tell us more? of the contest finally coming alive and i have watched quite an of these contests for the leadership of the conservative party in recent decades and even when in opposition there is normally a reasonable amount of excitement but not so much for this one. parliament back today and we had these lodges and last week we said would these candidates be willing to deliver tough messages to the party? it turned out that both james cleverly and kemi badenoch were willing to do that. let's listen to what kemi badenoch had to say on whether we should be pulling out of the european convention on human rights... yes, some people think that we should leave the echr. but why is it that other countries that are in the echr are deporting 70%, 80% of the people who come into their countries and we're not able to? because clearly leaving the echr will not be enough. that's why i don't want to throw that promise out there. it's another thing that we would end

up doing that doesn't actually solve the problem. you've got to look at the whole system. sous, a firm no to the view put forward by robertjenrick and floated by another rival, tom tugendhat, that we should not pull out of the echr. james cleverly had a tough message, let's listen to what he have to say about what he was picking up on the doorstep during the general election... this infighting is killing you, i am not going to vote for you until you get your act together. until you start actually acting as if you care about me rather than care about yourselves, i'm not going to vote for you. so let's do what they told us to do, which is stop messing about, the great mystery is what will happen? _ the great mystery is what will happen? the key thing to remember is who is_ happen? the key thing to remember is who is the _ happen? the key thing to remember is who is the electorate at the end of the contest it is the conservative party— the contest it is the conservative

party members and it is now conservative mps who will decide on the final— conservative mps who will decide on the final two and one veteran of previous— the final two and one veteran of previous contests said to me, they have _ previous contests said to me, they have never— previous contests said to me, they have never known a leadership contest — have never known a leadership contest where no candidate has failed _ contest where no candidate has failed to — contest where no candidate has failed to pull ahead and they say it is all_ failed to pull ahead and they say it is all squelchy and there is a problem. _ is all squelchy and there is a problem, there is a lack of webbing operation _ problem, there is a lack of webbing operation by leadership candidates and operation by leadership candidates ahd they— operation by leadership candidates and they don't have one ahead and they said. — and they don't have one ahead and they said. a — and they don't have one ahead and they said, a proper webbing operation involves encouragement, coercioh_ operation involves encouragement, coercion and the destruction of your opponent! _ coercion and the destruction of your o- onent! .,, coercion and the destruction of your o- onent! ., ., opponent! kwasi kwarteng, in the end, opponent! kwasi kwarteng, in the end. members — opponent! kwasi kwarteng, in the end, members will— opponent! kwasi kwarteng, in the end, members will choose - opponent! kwasi kwarteng, in the end, members will choose your. opponent! kwasi kwarteng, in the i end, members will choose your next leader, is that concerning considering the last time it was liz truss? ., u, considering the last time it was liz truss? ., ., ~ ., , ,, truss? you can talk a bit liz truss on the members _ truss? you can talk a bit liz truss on the members but _ truss? you can talk a bit liz truss on the members but this - truss? you can talk a bit liz truss on the members but this is - on the members but this is considered and long process and the problem _ considered and long process and the problem in _ considered and long process and the problem in 2022 was everything happened very quickly, boris left office. _ happened very quickly, boris left office. he — happened very quickly, boris left office, he was out on the 7th of july but — office, he was out on the 7th of july but left in september and within— july but left in september and within two months we had a new leader — within two months we had a new leader. this process is much more drawn-out. — leader. this process is much more drawn—out, and no one has really

putted _ drawn—out, and no one has really pulled ahead. it drawn-out, and no one has really pulled ahead-— pulled ahead. it will take more time. pulled ahead. it will take more time- there — pulled ahead. it will take more time. there is _ pulled ahead. it will take more time. there is a _ pulled ahead. it will take more time. there is a better- pulled ahead. it will take more time. there is a better chance | pulled ahead. it will take more i time. there is a better chance for scrutiny? time. there is a better chance for scrutin ? , ., ., scrutiny? there is more time for scrutiny? there is more time for scrutiny and _ scrutiny? there is more time for scrutiny and less _ scrutiny? there is more time for scrutiny and less time _ scrutiny? there is more time for scrutiny and less time for - scrutiny? there is more time for i scrutiny and less time for impulsive judgments. at the end of the day, the leader— judgments. at the end of the day, the leader will not be the prime minister. — the leader will not be the prime minister, the leader will be the leader— minister, the leader will be the leader of— minister, the leader will be the leader of the opposition and we will have to _ leader of the opposition and we will have to have a whole parliament making — have to have a whole parliament making his or her case. it is a much more _ making his or her case. it is a much more considered process this time. than _ more considered process this time. than was _ more considered process this time. than was the case certainly in 2022 and 2019 _ than was the case certainly in 2022 and 2019. ., ., than was the case certainly in 2022 and 2019. . . , , ., ., i. and 2019. thangam debbonaire, do you think they need — and 2019. thangam debbonaire, do you think they need someone _ and 2019. thangam debbonaire, do you think they need someone who - and 2019. thangam debbonaire, do you think they need someone who is - and 2019. thangam debbonaire, do you think they need someone who is very i think they need someone who is very different to keir starmer? iii the different to keir starmer? if the conservative — different to keir starmer? if the conservative party _ different to keir starmer? if the conservative party want - different to keir starmer? if the conservative party want to - different to keir starmer? if the conservative party want to do i conservative party want to do anything _ conservative party want to do anything at _ conservative party want to do anything at all. _ conservative party want to do anything at all, it _ conservative party want to do anything at all, it should - conservative party want to do| anything at all, it should want conservative party want to do i anything at all, it should want to rebuild _ anything at all, it should want to rebuild but— anything at all, it should want to rebuild but it — anything at all, it should want to rebuild but it should _ anything at all, it should want to rebuild but it should start - anything at all, it should want to rebuild but it should start by- rebuild but it should start by examining _ rebuild but it should start by examining why— rebuild but it should start by examining why did _ rebuild but it should start by examining why did they- rebuild but it should start byl examining why did they lose. rebuild but it should start by- examining why did they lose. no party— examining why did they lose. no party gets— examining why did they lose. no party gets back into _ examining why did they lose. no party gets back into power- examining why did they lose. no party gets back into power by. examining why did they lose. no- party gets back into power by saying the voters _ party gets back into power by saying the voters were _ party gets back into power by saying the voters were wrong _ party gets back into power by saying the voters were wrong and - party gets back into power by saying the voters were wrong and we - party gets back into power by saying the voters were wrong and we will. the voters were wrong and we will tell you _ the voters were wrong and we will tell you so — the voters were wrong and we will tell you so until— the voters were wrong and we will tell you so until you _ the voters were wrong and we will tell you so until you agree - the voters were wrong and we will tell you so until you agree with i the voters were wrong and we will| tell you so until you agree with us. that gives — tell you so until you agree with us. that gives us — tell you so until you agree with us. that gives us a _ tell you so until you agree with us. that gives us a good _ tell you so until you agree with us. that gives us a good starting - tell you so until you agree with us. | that gives us a good starting point. i am surprised atjust how they that gives us a good starting point. i am surprised at just how they have disowned. _

i am surprised at just how they have disowned, and how speedily they have disowned _ disowned, and how speedily they have disowned the previous government. it disowned the previous government. [it is a disowned the previous government. is a tiny bit disowned the previous government. it is a tiny bit shameless. kemi - is a tiny bit shameless. kemi badenoch — is a tiny bit shameless. kemi badenoch was _ is a tiny bit shameless. kemi badenoch was there - is a tiny bit shameless. kemi badenoch was there until - is a tiny bit shameless. kemi j badenoch was there until the is a tiny bit shameless. kemi - badenoch was there until the end, is a tiny bit shameless.“ badenoch was there until the end, as was tom _ badenoch was there until the end, as was tom tugendhat and they say whatever — was tom tugendhat and they say whatever we did was completely wrong — whatever we did was completely wrong it— whatever we did was completely wronu. , , ., whatever we did was completely wron , , , ., fl wrong. it is bizarre. kemi badenoch was a semidetached _ wrong. it is bizarre. kemi badenoch was a semidetached member- wrong. it is bizarre. kemi badenoch was a semidetached member the i was a semidetached member the cabinet. . ., , was a semidetached member the cabinet. ,, ., , , cabinet. she was in the cabinet. that is why _ cabinet. she was in the cabinet. that is why robert _ cabinet. she was in the cabinet. that is why robert jenrick - cabinet. she was in the cabinet. that is why robert jenrick is - cabinet. she was in the cabinet. i that is why robert jenrick is doing well because he was the only one of those _ well because he was the only one of those people who was in the government, who left it. at the end of last— government, who left it. at the end of last year — government, who left it. at the end of last year. he left.— government, who left it. at the end of last year. he left. when you have had a drubbing _ of last year. he left. when you have had a drubbing at _ of last year. he left. when you have had a drubbing at the _ of last year. he left. when you have had a drubbing at the conservatives| had a drubbing at the conservatives have had, it is not difficult to reject the last... have had, it is not difficult to reject the last. . ._ have had, it is not difficult to reject the last... they were all feedin: reject the last... they were all feeding at _ reject the last... they were all feeding at the _ reject the last... they were all feeding at the trough. - reject the last... they were all feeding at the trough. robert | feeding at the trough. robert jenrick, — feeding at the trough. robert jenrick, the fact he is doing as well— jenrick, the fact he is doing as well as— jenrick, the fact he is doing as well as he _ jenrick, the fact he is doing as well as he is in the polls and among members. — well as he is in the polls and among members, the mp5, suggests he has some _ members, the mp5, suggests he has some kudos for having left. the first thing to — some kudos for having left. the first thing to remember is yes, you might— first thing to remember is yes, you might want—

first thing to remember is yes, you might want the _ first thing to remember is yes, you might want the tory— first thing to remember is yes, you might want the tory party- first thing to remember is yes, you might want the tory party to - first thing to remember is yes, you might want the tory party to be - might want the tory party to be rebuilt — might want the tory party to be rebuilt and _ might want the tory party to be rebuilt and win _ might want the tory party to be rebuilt and win the _ might want the tory party to be rebuilt and win the next - might want the tory party to be i rebuilt and win the next election but at _ rebuilt and win the next election but at the — rebuilt and win the next election but at the moment _ rebuilt and win the next election but at the moment there - rebuilt and win the next election but at the moment there is - rebuilt and win the next election but at the moment there is a - rebuilt and win the next election i but at the moment there is a really important — but at the moment there is a really important constitutional _ but at the moment there is a really important constitutional function i but at the moment there is a reallyj important constitutional function at stake _ important constitutional function at stake here — important constitutional function at stake here. this— important constitutional function at stake here. this is— important constitutional function at stake here. this is his— important constitutional function at stake here. this is his majesty's i stake here. this is his majesty's loyal— stake here. this is his majesty's loyal opposition _ stake here. this is his majesty's loyal opposition and _ stake here. this is his majesty's loyal opposition and the - stake here. this is his majesty'sl loyal opposition and the required stake here. this is his majesty's . loyal opposition and the required to scrutinise _ loyal opposition and the required to scrutinise the — loyal opposition and the required to scrutinise the government - scrutinise the government constructively, _ scrutinise the government constructively, every- scrutinise the government - constructively, every government of any party _ constructively, every government of any party benefits _ constructively, every government of any party benefits from _ constructively, every government of any party benefits from having - constructively, every government of any party benefits from having good any party benefits from having good a constructive — any party benefits from having good a constructive scrutiny _ any party benefits from having good a constructive scrutiny and - any party benefits from having good a constructive scrutiny and that - any party benefits from having good a constructive scrutiny and that is. a constructive scrutiny and that is a constructive scrutiny and that is a skill— a constructive scrutiny and that is a skill that— a constructive scrutiny and that is a skill that the — a constructive scrutiny and that is a skill that the new _ a constructive scrutiny and that is a skill that the new leader- a constructive scrutiny and that is a skill that the new leader will. a skill that the new leader will have _ a skill that the new leader will have to — a skill that the new leader will have to have. _ a skill that the new leader will have to have. for— a skill that the new leader will have to have. for the - a skill that the new leader will have to have. for the good . a skill that the new leader will have to have. for the good of| a skill that the new leader will. have to have. for the good of the country — have to have. for the good of the country i— have to have. for the good of the count . . ., have to have. for the good of the count . _, . ~ ., have to have. for the good of the count . ., i spoke to the shadow leader of the house of commons, chris philp, who has endorsed kemi badenoch as the next leader of the conservative party. i started by asking him why ms badenoch wasn't able to give specifics about her policy platform. well, she set out a new approach to politics. she is not going to dive in and give commitments without having done the detailed work. what she does have is a huge amount of energy, a huge amount of commitment, she is a courageous politician, she's always stood up for what she believes in, even when the establishment have been against that. and she has a plan for renewal,

and that's what i am excited about. we are lucky to have six really good candidates in this contest, but for me, kemi is the one with the conviction, passion, the energy to renew the party and ultimately renew the country. and i think that came through today in her launch event. a few of the other candidates might say they, too, have energy and commitment and passion and courage. what she did say today was its time to tell the truth. does that suggest she was lying when she was in government? i don't think it does. but i think there were clearly commitments that previous administrations made that ultimately didn't get delivered in the way the public expected, and that's why we got such a bad result onjuly the 4th. it wasn't so much that labour won as we essentially lost. our share of the vote pretty much halved in that election. so to give two examples — we had repeatedly pledged to get emigration down, both legal and illegal, but failed to deliver that and the public were understandably unhappy about that. and on taxes, conservatives believe in lower taxes, people should keep more of their own money, it stimulates investment.

but because we didn't successfully reduce the size of the state as much as we could or should have done, we weren't able to deliver those tax cuts. although of course we also did have to deal with covid on the way through. so are they the lies or is she saying she's not going to make promises like that any more because you can't deliver them? i wouldn't say those were lies but there was a failure to deliver and she is going to be a lot more thoughtful and will explain how she will deliver her commitments. what she won't do is make pledges unless you've got a clear and credible plan for delivering them, and we're going to hear, i think, more about her plans in the coming weeks. but they're going to be clear and credible plans. i want to play this clip from her campaign launch video. just have a look... until we wake up and kemi badenoch doesn't exist any more — i don't wish ill of her, ijust wish her to shut up. no, i will not shut up. when you have that type of cultural establishment trying _ to keep conservatives down, - we need someone like me, who is not afraid of doctor who or whoever, |

and who is going to take the fight to them and not let them try and keep us down. . one of her rivals, robertjenrick, told young conservatives last month that the party must not go down a rabbit hole of culture wars. is he right, and is that what your woman is doing? i don't think she is. she was right to push back against, it was david tennant�*s extremely rude and offensive remarks just then. what does she mean by pushing back against the cultural establishment who want to push you down? well, david tennant was literally saying that this leading politician, elected politician, should, in his words, shut up. it is rude, it is offensive. but you believe in free speech, so does kemi badenoch? david tennant was trying to work against free speech. he was saying this elected representative should, in his offensive words, "shut up", and that's completely wrong. so kemi badenoch has obviously worked on issues around gender, for example, standing up for women's rights when the establishment a few years ago, the cultural establishment, didn't want to recognise those. that is courageous.

but of course, there is more to her campaign than just that. her record goes way beyond that as business and trade secretary and her offer to the public goes beyond that as well. you wrote in your telegraph op—ed piece yesterday praising her ability to fight "the guardian—reading elites". it sounds like you're doing it as well. what does that even mean? well, look, it's a part of what she's done. and what i was referring to specifically was the whole sort of gender debate that happened, particularly a couple of years ago, but that is only a part of her track record, and it's only a part of her programme going forward as well. she also said today she was far more worried about the five new mps elected on the back of what she called sectarian islamist policy policies, alien ideas, she said, that have no place here. she means those mps who voters chose because they opposed the israeli government's continuing actions in gaza, didn't she? yes. so why does she call it sectarian islamist policies? well, because i think because those mps sort of drew their support

and sought their support from a particular part of the community that was not exclusively, but in large part based on religious identity. and i don't think politics... based in large part on on opposing what the israeli government was doing in gaza to the people of gaza. but it was an appeal, not exclusively, but in a significant part to a particular community. and i don't think doing politics based on identity is a very healthy thing for our democracy. what do you mean by a particular community? well, i think those mps were particularly — like george galloway in that by—election — were particularly appealing to the muslim community because they obviously feel very strongly, understandably... what's wrong with that? ..about the situation in gaza. because i think we should try and do our politics based on our policy, not based on identity. the policy was to oppose what the israeli government was doing in gaza. and i understand that. that's a debate you can have.

but i don't think basing your electoral appeal in a way that is at all sectarian, i think that's the word she used, is very healthy for democracy. now we see that in some parts of the world, and i would like to see our politics done based on debates about a range of policy issues. i also think, by the way, just picking a single issue, important though it is, and the gaza—israel conflict is an extremely important issue. people's lives are at stake. it's a really important issue, but it's not the only issue. people can vote for whoever they want. they can. and you've just singled out the muslim community as though as though politicians can't particularly appeal to the muslim community. well, i think politicians, any politicians of any party, and indeed independents as well, should seek to appeal and pitch their offer broadly to the whole community. because we are one country. we're all equal citizens, and i think any politician should seek to unite and should seek to have a broad appeal to everybody regardless of their background. are you claiming tonight that kemi badenoch is a politician

that seeks to unite? i think she is, yes, i do. really? yes, i am saying that because she is a politician who is seeking to reach out across the whole country. she is seeking to stand up for people whose voices often aren't heard. well, she's just insulted those people who voted for those five new mps and this is what they have said tonight. "kemi badenoch's outrageous slur is an attack on democracy. "by describing these demands as sectarian islamist politics, "badenoch maligns thousands of voters and peace campaigners. "her smears should be called out for what it is — islamophobia." well, i don't think it is. obviously, she respects, the conservative party respect voters from all backgrounds, including muslim voters, of course, as well. apart from these who voted for those mps, it would appear. we also respect the concerns they have, the legitimate concerns they have about the war currently happening in gaza. but, you know, i think it'sjust healthier for democracy when people running for elected office are seeking to appeal broadly and campaigning on a range of issues.

which they say they were. they say in their statement tonight, not only, as they put it, the ongoing massacre of palestinians, but the two child benefits cap, the rights of refugees and so on. yeah. well, ithink, you know, their campaign, obviously, was successful in those four or five cases. but i think, you know, i think it's better for democracy when campaigns are very broadly based and targeted at the whole community. so, is she going to win? well, i hope so, but it is very hard to predict. i think she's had a really good launch event today, a very strong launch event. lots of mps, i think, will support her on wednesday. i think she's well placed. i think she's energetic, she'll renew the party, and i very much hope she does win. thank you very much for talking to us. thank you. he is regarded by many of the conservative party is a pretty accomplished communicator but he may find himself under some political pressure from those remarks he made about those five new independent

mps. you picked up on and that's quite what kemi badenoch said, she talked about how they were elected on the back of sectarian islamist politics, the key word is islamist, and she no doubt would have had in mind the definition of the last government from march of islamist, and it talks about how that is an ideology that is extremist, if not illegal, and it does not meet the security threshold of terrorism but it talks about how islamism is operating lawfully but seeking to replace our democracy within islamist society and it wants to erode our fundamental democratic rights and the aim is to subvert our democracy. islamist is the word that kemi badenoch used and it was not the word that chris philp use, use the word that chris philp use, use the word that chris philp use, use the word muslim and muslim communities which is a significant distinction and i think you may face pressure on that point. —— he may.

what do you think? pressure on that point. -- he may. what do you think?— what do you think? there's a lot auoin on what do you think? there's a lot going on in _ what do you think? there's a lot going on in the _ what do you think? there's a lot going on in the interview, - what do you think? there's a lot going on in the interview, apartl going on in the interview, apart from the fact there's a difference between the candidate he is back in, and what his language actually is, but there is a wider danger here, we have a group of smaller parties that have a group of smaller parties that have used in my opinion very similar playbooks in the last general election, they have run campaigns based on fear and division, and calling this one islamist is really problematic at best. it is conjuring up problematic at best. it is conjuring up an image of people voting without good intent and i think as you were challenging chris philp on the interview, there were people voting and they exercised their democratic right, and i may not agree with them, and i don't, but it was done in a democracy, but in that general election there was an atmosphere of the and intimidation for many voters across the country including some who won and some who did not, voting for candidates who won and some who didn't and that we need to unpack that because in a very good

democracy and a healthy thriving democracy and a healthy thriving democracy people should always be free to vote for whoever they want, and the accusations that she was making were problematic. i and the accusations that she was making were problematic. i agree broadly with _ making were problematic. i agree broadly with what _ making were problematic. i agree broadly with what you _ making were problematic. i agree broadly with what you say - making were problematic. i agree broadly with what you say but - making were problematic. i agree i broadly with what you say but when we look _ broadly with what you say but when we look at — broadly with what you say but when we look at the results of the election. _ we look at the results of the election, it was a very fractured election. — election, it was a very fractured election, people on the reform uk side who— election, people on the reform uk side who were countering up identity. _ side who were countering up identity, some of them were playing into that, _ identity, some of them were playing into that, not all of them, and people — into that, not all of them, and people in— into that, not all of them, and people in the new independent party, and i'm _ people in the new independent party, and i'm not— people in the new independent party, and i'm not saying that all their voters — and i'm not saying that all their voters were islamist, clearly not, but just _ voters were islamist, clearly not, butjust as — voters were islamist, clearly not, butjust as all the voters were islamist, clearly not, but just as all the voters in reform uk are _ but just as all the voters in reform uk are not— but just as all the voters in reform uk are not racist, but there are elements— uk are not racist, but there are elements of those parties i would say which — elements of those parties i would say which flirt with extremism, and there _ say which flirt with extremism, and there would have been some islamist undoubtedly who voted for the guards independence party. chris philp is only saying that we do not want to id only saying that we do not want to go down _ only saying that we do not want to go down the road in this country where _ go down the road in this country where people was my primary motivation is their own identity. —— people's— motivation is their own identity. —— people's primary motivation. chris phil said

people's primary motivation. chris philp said the _ people's primary motivation. chris philp said the muslim _ people's primary motivation. (ct 3 philp said the muslim community. people's primary motivation. chris l philp said the muslim community. it is far too big to be characterised in that— is far too big to be characterised in that way. there are elements of that vote _ in that way. there are elements of that vote that would be islamist and they would be proudly saying that they would be proudly saying that they were. they would be proudly saying that the were. , .., , , they were. there is complexities in what is called _ they were. there is complexities in what is called a _ they were. there is complexities in what is called a singular— they were. there is complexities in what is called a singular muslim i what is called a singular muslim community which does not exist. i community which does not exist. i agree. community which does not exist. i agree- there's _ community which does not exist. i agree. there's a _ community which does not exist. i agree. there's a difference - community which does not exist. i i agree. there's a difference between --eole agree. there's a difference between people having _ agree. there's a difference between people having the — agree. there's a difference between people having the same _ agree. there's a difference between people having the same religion - agree. there's a difference between people having the same religion atl people having the same religion at the same political views, and in the constituency i used to represent in bristol i had some people who are muslims but were from sudan and their principal anger is, why is nobody paying attention to the war in sudan? they were also concerned about the war in gaza but they wanted attention paid to the conflict in yemen and sudan and we also need to look at reform uk, because kemi badenoch did compare them to reform uk and said she was less bothered about reform uk rather than the indies and that is troubling because there were some of the campaigns who were racist and

thatis the campaigns who were racist and that is different... i the campaigns who were racist and that is different. . .— that is different... i am being balanced. _ that is different... i am being balanced, there _ that is different... i am being balanced, there were - that is different... i am being| balanced, there were islamist that is different... i am being - balanced, there were islamist voting for the _ balanced, there were islamist voting for the pro—independent pro gaza people _ for the pro—independent pro gaza people but also probably some voters who were _ people but also probably some voters who were racist and who voted for reform _ who were racist and who voted for reform uk~ — who were racist and who voted for reform uk. campaigning. the issue for reform — reform uk. campaigning. the issue for reform uk used to route those people _ for reform uk used to route those people out, and that would be the owner _ people out, and that would be the owner is _ people out, and that would be the owner is incumbent on the independent gaza people as well. one ofthe independent gaza people as well. one of the areas independent gaza people as well. que: of the areas where independent gaza people as well. iez of the areas where i independent gaza people as well. i9: of the areas where i hope independent gaza people as well. ©“i9 of the areas where i hope we independent gaza people as well. “i9 of the areas where i hope we might agree is that it is important to make a difference between the issue of racism which is problematic in many parts of our politics. in different parties. and - many parts of our politics. in l different parties. and concerns many parts of our politics. in - different parties. and concerns in wantinu different parties. and concerns in wanting to _ different parties. and concerns in wanting to have _ different parties. and concerns in wanting to have a _ different parties. and concerns in wanting to have a discussion - different parties. and concerns in l wanting to have a discussion about immigration. wanting to have a discussion about immigration-— immigration. that is absolutely ri . ht. immigration. that is absolutely right. sometimes _ immigration. that is absolutely right. sometimes they - immigration. that is absolutely right. sometimes they can - immigration. that is absolutely right. sometimes they can be l right. sometimes they can be conflated. — right. sometimes they can be conflated, which _ right. sometimes they can be conflated, which they - right. sometimes they can be conflated, which they were i right. sometimes they can be conflated, which they were atj right. sometimes they can be - conflated, which they were at times in the campaign. conflated, which they were at times in the campaign-— conflated, which they were at times in the campaign. reform candidates and also elements _ in the campaign. reform candidates and also elements of— in the campaign. reform candidates and also elements of the _ in the campaign. reform candidates and also elements of the political. and also elements of the political left have — and also elements of the political left have shut down conversations and also elements of the political left have shutdown conversations on immigration on the grounds that they were racist— immigration on the grounds that they were racist and they have failed to deal with— were racist and they have failed to deal with the underlying issues. we have deal with the underlying issues. we. have all deal with the underlying issues. have all got deal with the underlying issues. 9 have all got to learn how to

separate them. in israel today, for the first time since the october 7 attacks, a national strike took place across israel as hundreds of thousands of people put pressure on their prime minster, benjamin netanyahu, to do more to bring israel's remaining hostages home. that after the bodies of six of them were recovered from gaza — previously thought to have been alive. israel says they were "brutally murdered" by hamas, proscribed as a terror group by the uk and other governments. a total of 97 captives remain unaccounted for. tonight, thousands of people have been protesting outside mr netanyahu's home. let's speak now to gil dickmann, a cousin of carmel gat, who is one of the six hostages whose killings was announced yesterday. there is a photograph of her. gil is a leading voice among the hostage families fighting for an agreement to get them out. thanks forjoining us. we appreciate

your time on a very, very painful day for you. i wonder how you were remembering her at herfuneral remembering her at her funeral today? remembering her at herfuneral today? i remembering her at her funeral toda ? , remembering her at her funeral toda? , :, today? i 'ust came back from the funeral, today? i just came back from the funeral. and _ today? i just came back from the funeral, and we _ today? i just came back from the funeral, and we had _ today? i just came back from the funeral, and we had a _ today? i just came back from the funeral, and we had a private - today? i just came back from the i funeral, and we had a private event, herfriends spoke about funeral, and we had a private event, her friends spoke about her and told stories about how they remembered her as a peace—loving person, just a rainbow of colours, knowing and sharing with so many people and speaking so many languages from so many different faiths, just seeing the human in them, which is something that is so typical of her, being a therapeutic person, something we talked about, but to hear it from her friends, after we know what she has been through in the last more than ten months, it is

painful, and we know that she was with two youngsters in captivity and she was acting as an occupational therapist for them, and she was doing meditation sessions and yoga sessions in captivity to keep them healthy and safe. one of them, it was announced that she was brutally murdered in captivity in gaza, and one of them said, it is thanks to her that he is alive here now. and for us to hear that it is just, it is amazing because it is so carmel but so devastating because we were so, so close to getting her back in a hostage deal that we cried for for so long but now we know it is too late for her top she was already murdered by hamas, executed,

actually, sacrificed by our own government as i see it, that decided that the lives of hostages, lives of people, israeli citizens, it is not more important than a piece of land. as you say that, you say sacrificed by your prime minister, and you will know he has begged for the forgiveness of families like yours and others, tonight, can you forgive him? he and others, tonight, can you forgive him? :, ,, .«i and others, tonight, can you forgive him? :, , , ., ~ :, and others, tonight, can you forgive him? :, ,, ., ~ :, , and others, tonight, can you forgive him? :, ,, .«i :, , ., him? he tried to speak to us and he soke to him? he tried to speak to us and he spoke to other _ him? he tried to speak to us and he spoke to other families _ him? he tried to speak to us and he spoke to other families and - him? he tried to speak to us and he spoke to other families and he - him? he tried to speak to us and he spoke to other families and he tried j spoke to other families and he tried to speak to us and we did not want to speak to us and we did not want to talk to him. we said we understood that he was going to use this for his own political circus, to try to convey the message that he wants to keep the war going, to have more hostages being murdered in captivity, for him to keep the war going, so he cries out i'm sorry but he does not mean that and he does

not take any responsibility for what is going on in israel, because what is going on in israel, because what is going on is very simple, as the families of hostages, and the israeli people, and many of the soldiers in the idea, actually, we are fighting to get the hostages back, and netanyahu is fighting against our interests, to keep the war going on not to have the hostages back.— war going on not to have the hostages back. war going on not to have the hostaaes back. :, , hostages back. so, forgive me, but as ou hostages back. so, forgive me, but as you were — hostages back. so, forgive me, but as you were at _ hostages back. so, forgive me, but as you were at ten _ hostages back. so, forgive me, but as you were at ten -- _ hostages back. so, forgive me, but as you were at ten -- at _ hostages back. so, forgive me, but as you were at ten -- at carmel's l as you were at ten —— at carmel's funeral, with all of those messages, is that going to make a difference to netanyahu? i is that going to make a difference to netanyahu?— to netanyahu? i tried to speak to his heart but _ to netanyahu? i tried to speak to his heart but i _ to netanyahu? i tried to speak to his heart but i know _ to netanyahu? i tried to speak to his heart but i know now- to netanyahu? i tried to speak to his heart but i know now that - to netanyahu? i tried to speak to his heart but i know now that he | his heart but i know now that he does not have a heart and he not able to listen to the crying of families, of hostages that he, he was in charge of keeping them safe and it was his fault that they are in gaza, and he's not able to listen

to us are able to hear, he just goes and make his own show. i am not sure what he speaks the language of humanity, that actually would like to defend innocent people from getting killed in the tunnels of hamas by this horrible terror organisation. he hamas by this horrible terror organisation.— hamas by this horrible terror oruanisation. ,:, , , ._ organisation. he did so yesterday, that hamas _ organisation. he did so yesterday, that hamas brutally _ organisation. he did so yesterday, that hamas brutally murdered - organisation. he did so yesterday, i that hamas brutally murdered carmel and five others in recent days so they clearly did not want a hostage deal, do you accept that? ida. they clearly did not want a hostage deal, do you accept that?- deal, do you accept that? no, i don't. hamas _ deal, do you accept that? no, i don't. hamas is _ deal, do you accept that? no, i don't. hamas is a _ deal, do you accept that? no, i don't. hamas is a terror - don't. hamas is a terror organisation and they murdered my aunt and they murdered carmel and i do not trust them and i do not need them to want a hostage deal, who is in charge of getting a hostage deal? it is my prime minister, and they promised that they were going to get a hostage deal a long time ago. they declared it is one of the goals of

the war and right now, when they have to choose between the line and the hostage deal, they choose the line, and it is his choice, netanyahu, and hejust came out line, and it is his choice, netanyahu, and he just came out to the public in a public statement, trying to defend the choice, that he chooses the line over the lives of the hostages. that means it does not even matter what the horrible terror group hamas one, because netanyahu refused the deal and he had a chance to save my cousin and he decided cold blood to leak that he will have her murdered because he knew that that was a risk —— cold heartedly. just like i knew, we were shouting in the streets for months that that was on the table, we were saying that he puts the lives of the hostages at risk and he did not even blink when he decided to choose the line over the lives of more than hundred hostages. and for carmel it

is too late and he already decided he did not care for her life and she is now dead, with five other hostages and more that he decided he was going to sacrifice. it is not too late for the 101 hostages still held in gaza. 97 of them were kidnapped on the 7th of october and four of them, netanyahu has left them there ten years, and it is not too late for the israeli public to rise and go out in the streets and for the people all over the world to tout these two psychopaths running the war, you cannot have your war at the war, you cannot have your war at the expense of innocent people on both sides of the border, israelis and palestinians have suffered enough, sign a deal and bring them home, and that is it.—

enough, sign a deal and bring them home, and that is it. thank you very much for talking _ home, and that is it. thank you very much for talking to _ home, and that is it. thank you very much for talking to the _ home, and that is it. thank you very much for talking to the british - much for talking to the british audience here and for telling us about carmel. a partial suspension of 30 arms export licences has been announced to israel. why? the export licences has been announced to lsrael- why?— to israel. why? the foreign secretary — to israel. why? the foreign secretary said _ to israel. why? the foreign secretary said these - to israel. why? the foreign secretary said these could l to israel. why? the foreign - secretary said these could be used in the current conflict in gaza and he said they are components that go to fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targets and, and when the new government came into office, the foreign secretary said he wanted an update on arms export licences and he wanted to review this and the law states very clearly that you cannot issue export licences if there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law and the foreign secretary said that the assessment he has received leaves him unable to

conclude anything other than that, for certain