countries to money on various countries to stop people wanting to leave there in the first place. it's an idea. but you tell me is it a good one or not.7 and rishi sunak speaking out. he says he wants to cap the number of people that can do so—called mickey mouse degrees . i would say why is degrees. i would say why is there such a thing as a so—called mickey mouse degree in there such a thing as a so—firsted mickey mouse degree in there such a thing as a so—first place?ay mouse degree in there such a thing as a so—first place? educationdegree in there such a thing as a so—first place? education needs in the first place? education needs reform in this country. if you ask me. and how many children have you got? have you been affected by the two child benefit cap? if so , do you agree benefit cap? if so, do you agree with it or not? that is the million dollar question on my mind tonight. and are you a gambler? do not mind a little bit of a flutter here and there . do you think gambling companies, though, should be allowed advertise their wares allowed to advertise their wares when it comes to things like football matches or not? and also, if i've got time, i want to squeeze another extra in that i tonight. a counsellor. i saw tonight. a counsellor. he's man . he tweeted he's a religious man. he tweeted out that basically pride , you out that basically pride, you know, the gay celebration. it's a sin and not a virtue. he's

lost his whip. he's been cancelled in various places. our religious views incompatible with public life or not, we want it all to come with alex dean and peter hitchens. but before we do that, let's get ourselves up to speed, shall we? with tonight's latest headlines as. thank you very much, michelle. >> i'm rory smith in the gb newsroom. the prime minister wants to put an end to universal has taken advantage of people with courses . the with low quality courses. the government plans to impose limits on courses that have high drop out rates or a low proportion of graduates getting a professional job. rob rishi sunak says the key message is you don't have to go to university to succeed in life. well, speaking at a school in london earlier, mr sunak said the new measures will benefit taxpayers. many people university is the right answer and it does brilliantly. >> but actually there are a range of people who are being let down by the current system. they're being taken advantage of

with quality courses that with low quality courses that don't to a job that makes don't lead to a job that makes it it leaves them it worth it leaves them financially worse off. that's what we're clamping down on today. at the time , today. but at the same time, making young people making sure that young people have of fantastic have a range of fantastic alternative opportunities , alternative opportunities, whether be apprentices or whether that be apprentices or higher higher technical qualifications , for example. so qualifications, for example. so the key message is, look, you don't have to go to university to succeed in life. there are a range of fantastic options and that's what we're delivering. >> the government is defending its use of barges to house migrants , insisting it's migrants, insisting it's a cheaper option to hotels. that's as accommodation barge is set to house 500 asylum seekers. it left falmouth in cornwall this morning and it's now on its way to portland in dorset. the government is currently locked in a tussle with the house of lords over its illegal immigration bill, opening today's commons debate, immigration minister robert jenrick said the bill must be allowed to become law without it being weakened . being weakened. >> we believe that inaction is

not an option, though . we must not an option, though. we must stop the boats and that this bill is a key part of our plan to do just that. the message in the means must be absolutely clear and unambiguous. if you come to the uk illegally , you come to the uk illegally, you won't be able to stay here. instead you'll be detained and returned to your home country or removed to a safe third country. there is simply no point in passing legislation that does not deliver a credible deterrent and provides the means to back it up . it up. >> a new drug has been hailed as a turning point for alzheimer's. donanemab has been found to slow clinical decline by up to 35, meaning that people with the disease could still go about performing day to day tasks . performing day to day tasks. acas. alzheimer's research uk says we're entering a new era where the disease could become treatable while the drug is being assessed to see if it can being assessed to see if it can be used in the nhs as hostile . be used in the nhs as hostile. states are infiltrating the uk

to engage in illegal activities via organised crime gangs. the head of the national crime agency warns of emerging links between serious and organised crime and hostile states, such as russia and north korea. speaking in westminster, the nca's director general said that foreign powers are starting to use crime gangs as proxies to carry out tasks on british territory . a watchdog has territory. a watchdog has welcomed new immigration rules for eu cities opens, but says it remains concerned about how they will work in. has praised the home office's decision to ensure eu citizens will not lose the right to live in the uk. more than 2.5 million eu citizens will have their pre—settled status automatically extended for two years. if they do not make further application for settled status. but the watchdog argues the home office did not pubush argues the home office did not publish enough detail on how the plans will be implemented . sir plans will be implemented. sir elton john has given evidence

that kevin spacey's sex offences trial he was called as a defence witness along with his husband david furnish, both attended via video link from monaco . four men video link from monaco. four men have accused mr spacey of sexual assault and indecent assault. he denies all charges. the foreign office has issued an extreme heat warning as southern europe braces for record breaking temperatures. british holidaymakers have been cancelling or changing their trips abroad ahead of the school holidays next week. meanwhile, china has recorded its hottest ever temperature at 52.2 degrees in sanbao . that's a remote town in sanbao. that's a remote town in sanbao. that's a remote town in the country's north—west, causing fear of drought. in the country's north—west, causing fear of drought . well, causing fear of drought. well, weather experts say the warming climate is making extreme weather conditions. the new normal . and the first swan normal. and the first swan census of the king's reign is underway with the swan marker and his team taken to the thames. the swan upping its an annual survey of the birds

population. that's when the king's feathered friends are counted have their health counted and have their health checked. the tradition checked. well, the tradition dates back to the 12th century. that's ownership of mute that's when ownership of mute swans claimed by crown swans was claimed by the crown to ensure ready supply for to ensure a ready supply for feasts . tv online to ensure a ready supply for feasts. tv online dab+ radio and on tune in. this is gb news. nato back to . nato back to. michelle >> thanks for that. rory and michelle dewberry with you till 7:00 tonight alongside with pr consultant alex dean and the columnist for the mail on sunday, peter hitchens. good evening. good evening to you. you know, the drill, don't you? it's not just about it it's not just about us here. it is very about you guys at is very much about you guys at home. get in touch. vaiews@gbnews.com. as usual is the email or you can tweet me at gb news. lots coming your way tonight , gb news. lots coming your way tonight, dave. not tonight, dave. you're not messing straight in there messing around straight in there with opinion tonight. we're with your opinion tonight. we're asking benefit, asking about child benefit, whether not should be

whether or not it should be limited two children. dave limited to two children. dave says michelle all child benefit should be scrapped. it's a lifestyle choice and it should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. he says he'd go even further and charge for the cost of child birth to the parents as well . oh goodness gracious me, well. oh goodness gracious me, dave, get yourself off that fence. i imagine your bottom is a little bit uncomfortable with your position there. what do you make to everyone at home? do you agree with dave or not? do you reckon? child benefit should even thing in this country even be a thing in this country or not? and so, should it be or not? and if so, should it be capped to children? capped though, to two children? we'll little bit we'll have that a little bit later in the programme. but later on in the programme. but first, we always talk, don't we, about the situation in the channel it to people channel when it comes to people getting on those dinghies? what though how do we though is the answer? how do we stop it? no one to know, stop it? no one seems to know, quite if they do quite frankly, or if they do know don't have chops to know the don't have the chops to implement i suggest. implement it, i would suggest. but a suggestion has now but anyway, a suggestion has now come from lord heseltine. he come out from lord heseltine. he says should says that britain should fund what a new marshall what he calls a new marshall plan its two parts. he has to plan in its two parts. he has to say part would be essential say one part would be essential

, i.e. building a wall around europe and the other parts of it would be more around the amount of foreign aid that we send to countries to try and stop people from wanting to leave there in the first place. alex, i'll start with this. your start with you on this. your thoughts ? thoughts? >> lord heseltine's always had an the and an eye for the headline and sometimes he's got an eye for the symbolic. he certainly did when he was in government notion that catches public attention. i've agreed with almost nothing, he said in recent times around brexit and so forth. but that's to he can't have a to not mean he can't have a point here for me, the point point here and for me, the point i extract from it that has real benefit is already being said by our he's put it our government. but he's put it more forcefully in in a different way that there's no point waiting people to point waiting for people to arrive in a dinghy before you deliver assistance when the much more effective and the much more productive way, if you are to going help people with legitimate and legitimate asylum claims and refugee claims, is to help them in their countries because in their home countries because as the organisations that as all of the organisations that look the most pro—migrant aukus nafions look the most pro—migrant aukus nations tell us that more than

half of those eligible half of those with eligible claims still in their claims are still in their countries of origin. we can countries of origin. if we can help there, it helps their help them there, it helps their country itself together country get itself back together . it helps the individual and ensures they don't come here in the first place. so actually, i think it's a win win win. >> do agree with that win >> do you agree with that win win peter? win win, peter? >> yes, i do. problem with >> yes, i do. the problem with it in the countries it is that in the countries involved, you often have very poor government it's poor government at and it's going very difficult if going to be very difficult if you do introduce such a marshall plan to ensure that the money is spent as it should be. and that is always the difficulty with any foreign aid . in any kind of foreign aid. in principle. we're all in principle. we all we're all in favour of it, of spending money to help poor countries, because after it is one the after all, it is one of the reasons for this migrant crisis which the western world now has. and it is beyond doubt . one of and it is beyond doubt. one of the biggest crises we ever faced is that people are totally unwilling to stay in the countries they live, which unwilling to stay in the cou badly they live, which unwilling to stay in the cou badly governed y live, which unwilling to stay in the cou badly governed and e, which unwilling to stay in the cou badly governed and poor|ich unwilling to stay in the cou badly governed and poor and are badly governed and poor and often needlessly poor and badly governed and heavily corrupt as well. can sort that well. if we can sort that out, great. i to say that it great. but i have to say that it would need awful lot of

would need an awful lot of intervention in those parts of the world. i'm not sure that governments would be prepared to take, especially given the modern habit of chinese modern habit of the chinese government of going around offering strings, money to offering no strings, money to such governments, which they can. can have without any can. they can have without any kind control at all. it's kind of control at all. it's a it's a wonderful broad idea. but as in so many other things, the implementation might prove a lot more difficult. >> said everyone in >> you said everyone in principle with principle agrees with the concept aid. i bet concept of foreign aid. i bet there's some people watching this home. there's some people watching thiswell,>me. there's some people watching thiswell, if e. there's some people watching thiswell, if they if they don't, >> well, if they if they don't, they should, because it's crazy to let problems. major problems of hunger or collapsing economy fester in countries far away because it will undoubtedly affect us in the end if we don't do it. it's simple. it's affect us in the end if we don't do it. it's simple . it's simple. do it. it's simple. it's simple. common sense that you prevent that from happening if you can. well, i go that told you, if you are one of those people that don't agree with foreign aid, you was about to come back in. >> just to say peter's point about corruption is well made. and that's why there's a long

standing cliche that our aid program taking broadly program is taking money, broadly speaking, taxpayer speaking, because it's taxpayer funded,in rich countries and people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. there is some truth to i agree the point to that. i agree with the point about need to ensure about the need to ensure that it's spent properly on the ground couple ground and there are a couple of bafic ground and there are a couple of basic things i would do. first one would be not to have any aid going to a nation with a space program. that's a basic program. i think that's a basic example where we're example of where we're misspending our aid allocation. then recognise then the second is to recognise openly government is openly what the government is doing spending doing in spending money on asylum and would asylum seekers and would be refugees in this country and housing them part of our aid housing them as part of our aid budget. it's happening but budget. it's happening now, but because feels underhand, it's budget. it's happening now, but bec talked feels underhand, it's budget. it's happening now, but bec talked aboutjnderhand, it's budget. it's happening now, but bec talked about very'hand, it's budget. it's happening now, but bec talked about very much.it's not talked about very much. i actually would the actually would say to the countries in question, if you are receive less are going to receive less because nationals come because your nationals have come here free will, here of their own free will, paying here of their own free will, paying smugglers along here of their own free will, paying and smugglers along here of their own free will, paying and we mugglers along here of their own free will, paying and we are|glers along here of their own free will, paying and we are now; along here of their own free will, paying and we are now having to the way and we are now having to house whilst they're house them whilst they're processing. whilst their claim is processed. the problem with processing. whilst their claim is plength d. the problem with processing. whilst their claim is plength d. the pitblem with processing. whilst their claim is plength d. the pit takes with processing. whilst their claim is plength d. the pit takes to h the length of time it takes to process claim that's down to process the claim that's down to us. fault. but the us. that's our fault. but the people choosing to come and paying people choosing to come and paying people along paying people smugglers along the can help with that. the way, you can help with that. and want to make sure

and if you want to make sure more aid comes to your country, you stop your nationals you should stop your nationals coming in the first place. i've got i disagree the got to say i disagree with the pair by the way, that pair of you, by the way, that i don't actually think that it is sensible send more and more sensible to send more and more money these countries money to some of these countries because lot of these because a lot of these countries, they are you know, they're in the situation that they're in the situation that they're because of they're in often because of internal war conflicts. internal civil war conflicts. >> i don't see how just >> and i don't see how just truckloads foreign money truckloads more foreign money into will make truckloads more foreign money into better. will make truckloads more foreign money into better. i will make truckloads more foreign money into better. i would make truckloads more foreign money into better. i would argue things better. i would argue actually things actually that would make things worse. with you sending >> i agree with you sending truckloads any truckloads without without any kind supervision of how it's kind of supervision of how it's spentis kind of supervision of how it's spent is completely useless. agreed. point in it. spent is completely useless. aghasi point in it. spent is completely useless. aghas to point in it. spent is completely useless. aghas to be point in it. spent is completely useless. aghas to be done point in it. spent is completely useless. aghas to be done verynt in it. spent is completely useless. aghas to be done very skilfully it has to be done very skilfully and carefully. and if and and very carefully. and if and if money repeatedly if the money is repeatedly abused, has to stop. abused, then it has to stop. what this and this wall? >> because the money is one part stuff. >> i where are you going to build it? who's going to build it? it's a sort of donald trump thing, isn't it? it's really peculiar. know , do peculiar. there is we know, do we the european union we not, that the european union has paid turkey an awful lot of money to turn its country into a sort of wall and the used to be an arrangement until david

cameron overthrew him , that cameron overthrew him, that colonel gaddafi would prevent an awful lot of migration across the mediterranean, which was basically us paying these countries to keep their to keep their coasts from being used by by people smugglers . well, by people smugglers. well, that's as near as you can get to a wall. >> i can only assume that lord heseltine was speaking metaphorically when he spoke of a you can't up a wall. you can't wall up lampedusa. you wall up lampedusa. you can't wall up sicily, can't wall up the sicily, you can't wall up the enormous coastline greece enormous coastline in greece that been seeing both boats that has been seeing both boats come much . so the point is come so much. so the point is that he's advocating it's very interesting. people criticise britain we've got britain and say that we've got a little englander attitude when we that if someone comes we say that if someone comes here routes, here through these routes, unlawful they unlawful routes, then they should have no legitimate right to they say we're being to be here. they say we're being bigoted or we're we're bigoted or unfair or we're we're violating rights. violating people's human rights. when a european when you put it on a european level and say you couldn't come to whole europe without to the whole of europe without coming legitimately and properly, they say that's wonderful. to joy. wonderful. oh, super ode to joy. >> well, i'm going to throw it to guys because to you guys at home because i want to to you about ulez want to talk to you about ulez as well. but on that migrant

situation, what do you think about pronged more about two pronged approach more money some of you, money and a wall? some of you, i suspect, cheering that, suspect, will be cheering that, but the but what about the practicalities it? would it practicalities of it? would it actually it actually happen? could it actually happen? could it actually and you actually happen? and if you don't with plan, you don't agree with that plan, you tell me what your solution would be to is going on in be to what is going on in the channel. want talk briefly channel. i want to talk briefly before break, if i can, about before my break, if i can, about education, because rishi sunak, he's speaking today. he he's been speaking out today. he wants of wants to cap the number of students accepted students that can be accepted onto the, quote, poor quality t university degrees. and he basically what talking basically what he's talking about people about is the amount of people that high quality that go into high quality employment , the looking at the employment, the looking at the dropout rates all the rest dropout rates and all the rest of what do you make to of it. what do you make to his thoughts today? >> think it's this is an >> well, i think it's this is an election coming up and so people are starting say things which election coming up and so people are crowdig say things which election coming up and so people are crowd pleasing. hings which election coming up and so people are crowd pleasing. but s which election coming up and so people are crowd pleasing. but the1ich are crowd pleasing. but the truth is that the conservative party and the party party and the labour party together engaged in what i regard as a grave mistake of university expansion in the 1990s, is that they hugely diminished the quality of university education and they saddled an awful lot of people with with with debts because they persuaded them that it

would benefit them to undergo this university education. and in cases it's of no use to in many cases it's of no use to them at all or very little use. and there was a mistake and i think there was a mistake . sooner or later we have to . and sooner or later we have to recognise it was a mistake. and i of university i think a lot of university places have to come to an end. a lot of universities have to close to go back to close and we have to go back to a much more selective, much smaller university sector. raising age raising the school leaving age to basically what to 21, which is basically what basically they did by basically what they did by expanding that's basically what they did by expariting that's basically what they did by exparit was, that's basically what they did by exparit was, was that's basically what they did by exparit was, was mistake. 's basically what they did by exparit was, was mistake. and what it was, was a mistake. and a lot of people would have been far in far better off in apprenticeships or other forms far better off in aptrainingships or other forms far better off in aptrainingships they her forms far better off in aptrainingships they were�*rms far better off in aptrainingships they were at s of training than they were at universities . i'm not universities offering. i'm not saying mouse degrees, saying mickey mouse degrees, but degrees which nowhere. degrees, which led nowhere. >> wait to get >> i could not wait to get out of school. i tell you when i of school. i can tell you when i was 15, prematurely, i was not supposed to leave. >> you're paying, if >> but if you're paying, if school away from and school is away from home and it's residential your your it's residential and your your your charmed into into taking on a huge debt which you're told won't bother you later in life andifs won't bother you later in life and it's not the same is it. that's what was done to people they they were cajoled into into taking on enormous debts which are now becoming harder and

harder well i don't harder to repay. well i don't think it's done the country any good at all. >> the expansion certainly happened peter happened in the time frame peter talks and certainly as far talks about and certainly as far as the blair government was concerned, embraced this concerned, they embraced this explosion of attendance at university, it university, not least because it acted a mask unemployment acted as a mask on unemployment . it another three years . it took another three years off. effectively paying off. people effectively paying to off the to take themselves off the unemployment suited unemployment rolls, which suited them but often didn't suit the individuals concerned . but there individuals concerned. but there is a contrary perspective, which individuals concerned. but there is a coimosl perspective, which individuals concerned. but there is a coimosl petheseive, which is that most of these establishments weren't just born afresh. on greenfield sites. they were something else. they provided a different kind of education before they were converted university very converted to university and very often more productive often that was a more productive establishment. when was in establishment. when it was in that former role than the one that former role than the one that it occupied. the polytechnics, which john major brought to an end were in many cases at what they cases very good at what they did. trouble is it's did. the trouble is it's extremely difficult to a extremely difficult to reverse a university polytechnic university into a polytechnic whilst very easy whilst it's very very easy exactly. take a polytechnic exactly. to take a polytechnic into a country into a university in a country whose which has had a series of governments who've done almost nothing mistakes , we do nothing but make mistakes, we do have reach point where we have to reach the point where we say was a mistake.

say that was a mistake. >> we have to rectify it. we have to go back on it. we have to put it back. not necessarily to put it back. not necessarily to the it was before, but to the way it was before, but certainly to recognise certainly we have to recognise that the wrong thing to that this was the wrong thing to do. shouldn't done it do. we shouldn't have done it and we have to reverse it. >> can i just make a different point though, which is about the idea government imposing idea of the government imposing caps and caps on these things? and i declare interest declare an interest because i worked education policy long worked in education policy long ago conservative ago for the conservative party, but that the but it seems to me that the government broadly speaking, shouldn't in the shouldn't really be in the business controlling the business of controlling the number to number of people who go to universities all. and universities really at all. and the that it is, is the reason that it is, is because state, peter and because the state, peter and i probably agree on is wrongly funding some people it, funding some people to do it, and therefore a taxpayer and therefore it has a taxpayer interest doing so. but interest in doing so. but individuals making the free choice and pay choice to go somewhere and pay for it, that's for the cost of it, that's something that intellectually i find difficult you find quite difficult to say. you can't the state won't can't to say the state won't support doing it, that's a support you doing it, that's a completely reasonable thing. but i these i'd i think most of these things i'd lift the cap on it outside of specific jobs where would specific jobs where i would again people again have many more people going for, say, going to university for, say, medicine, where state medicine, where the state imposes cap. the imposes a false cap. at the

moment, there's a false cap on the number of people being trained but the trained to be doctors, but the state pays for a lot of it. i would then oblige them to stay in nhs for certain. in the nhs for a certain. >> i think if you think of point, think of poor people who've parents never went who've whose parents never went to who know to university, who who know nothing faced nothing about it, who are faced with choice of what with this choice of what university go to, what to do, university to go to, what to do, whether to university. whether to go to university. >> they finish school, they >> when they finish school, they know this. they can know nothing of this. they can be almost anything. that's be sold almost anything. that's true. were true. but many of them were falsely, exploited by this. >> i accept your premise that many people went not knowing what happen after they'd what would happen after they'd gone that has gone and so forth, that that has to be right. but on the other hand, something quite hand, there is something quite paternalist to paternalist about saying to someone, you are not someone, you're not, you are not allowed on risk. allowed to take on the risk. you're adult now. we'll let you're an adult now. we'll let you in the military. we'll you serve in the military. we'll let you drive a car, we'll let you serve in the military. we'll let ghave rive a car, we'll let you serve in the military. we'll let ghave a'e a car, we'll let you serve in the military. we'll let ghave a drink. r, we'll let you serve in the military. we'll let ghave a drink. butz'll let you serve in the military. we'll let ghave a drink. but you et you serve in the military. we'll let ghave a drink. but you can't you have a drink. but you can't make decision to take on make the decision to take on higher it's higher education. i mean, it's very difficult, to very difficult, i think, to defend that. >> i think anyone's said that, though. >> e one w- w— >> did they? no one said you can't decision. it just it can't take decision. it just it should no good to put on it. >> well, that's humi- huma— >> well, that's what i'm saying. well, you should put caps.

>> caps on by by by >> you put caps on by by by having fairly you have to having a fairly you have to reconstruct school reconstruct the school examination the examination system. the a—levels, joke a—levels, which are a joke now need completely need to be completely reconstruct can reconstruct so that you can actually through actually put people through a selective exam nation which enables judge enables universities to judge whether they to you. enables universities to judge wishould:hey to you. enables universities to judge wishould:heyguidedo you. enables universities to judge wishould:heyguidedo by)u. enables universities to judge wishould:heyguidedo by by it should be guided then by by how many people qualify to do a proper course. lot proper university course. a lot of a lot of of people won't. for a lot of people, is not where people, university is not where they to be. they need or want to be. >> it's time we recognise >> and it's time we recognise that a lot of people will say it's great fun though i imagine that a lot of people will say it's goft fun though i imagine that a lot of people will say it's gof people iough i imagine that a lot of people will say it's gof people have i imagine that a lot of people will say it's gof people have had agine that a lot of people will say it's gof people have had some a lot of people have had some fantastic student at university. >> you one of them not? >> are you one of them or not? and parental snobbery. i think a lot out there, lot of parents out there, they're for their kids they're desperate for their kids to go to university so that they they're desperate for their kids to gtell university so that they they're desperate for their kids to gtell theirersity so that they they're desperate for their kids to gtell their mateso that they they're desperate for their kids to gtell their mates thatt they they're desperate for their kids to gtell their mates that their! they're desperate for their kids to ghas their mates that their! they're desperate for their kids to ghas gone mates that their! they're desperate for their kids to ghas gone m university. 1eirr they're desperate for their kids to ghas gone m university. how kid has gone to university. how do we undo all that, though? if indeed do? indeed you think that we do? your thoughts on email gbviews@gbnews.com child gbviews@gbnews.com to child policy the policy when it comes to the child limit in child benefit limit in this country , do you agree with it or country, do you agree with it or not? your thoughts

of that, it's no excuse to. >> you're listening to gb news radio . radio. >> oh, hello. i wasn't expecting you back so soon. i was just

reading emails to these, to the compliments that had been received from my dear viewers . received from my dear viewers. it was very lucky i wasn't saying something else. something perhaps been perhaps that might have been a little bit than that. little bit ruder than that. >> would never that. >> but you would never do that. you'd as far as you'd never been rude, as far as i know. >> anyway, very much >> anyway, thank you very much for your feedback on the panels tonight. michelle, i tonight. glenn says, michelle, i can't you're saying can't believe you're saying mickey mouse degrees not mickey mouse degrees are not worth to worth doing. i went to university years and university for three years and i learnt to get extremely learnt how to get extremely drunk. yes, he says that he drunk. and yes, he says that he might have some debts, but it was a great experience there or thereabouts . yeah, you could thereabouts. yeah, but you could have drunk on fraction of have got drunk on a fraction of that dosh. that's my point. and you made some great you could have made some great friends well. friends along the way as well. anyway alex dean, the pr consultant, is alongside me, as anyway alex dean, the pr cothe.tant, is alongside me, as anyway alex dean, the pr cothe columnistongside me, as anyway alex dean, the pr cothe columnist forside me, as anyway alex dean, the pr cothe columnist for the me, as anyway alex dean, the pr cothe columnist for the mail. s is the columnist for the mail. on peter hitchens. now on sunday, peter hitchens. now let's , shall we, two child let's talk, shall we, two child benefits cap. do you have children? more than more than two. do have none at all? two. do you have none at all? and think that you and think perhaps that you shouldn't pay for anyone and think perhaps that you shoulc kids? pay for anyone and think perhaps that you shoulc kids? let's pay for anyone and think perhaps that you shoulc kids? let's listen)r anyone and think perhaps that you shoulc kids? let's listen toanyone else's kids? let's listen to keir starmer at weekend, keir starmer at the weekend, shall we? >> if you have more than two children at the moment, you

don't get benefits. would that change labour government? >> changing that policy. you're not changing to >> you're not changing the to benefit policy benefit child to child policy benefits. okay >> right. yeah. well, there you go. so basically what he is alluding to there is the fact that the two child benefits cap is here to stay. it basically says, alex, i'll come to you first. i am from a big family. i think big families are fantastic. i'm one of six. but there is a debate that's been raging for a very long time. hence the fact that you do have this two child cap. now, as to where limit and should where is the limit and should there on the there be a limit on what the taxpayer helps to fund and contribute when comes to the contribute when it comes to the number of children that a family chooses to have? where are you on we went to on it? well, before we went to the peter was saying the break, peter was saying people taking different the break, peter was saying people now:ing different the break, peter was saying people now because rent the break, peter was saying people now because we've got positions now because we've got an coming an election coming up. >> i think this is >> and i think this is a reflection of that in spades because it's the labour because it's been the labour party's for some years party's position for some years that would repeal cap that they would repeal the cap and now is and their position. now is dictated, interestingly and tellingly , by the growing belief tellingly, by the growing belief that they will be in government and part of being in government

is having to try to balance the books. so the from rachel books. so the line from rachel reeves and everyone tucking in behind going behind her is we're not going to make announcement make an announcement without costing you know, costing it, which is, you know, echoes post echoes very much actually post 97, blair approach of 97, the blair approach of following the party's following the tory party's budget term in budget for the first term in government . that is try to government. that is to try to say to electorate, we be say to the electorate, we can be trusted economy because trusted on the economy because we're not going to change things that from the that we're inheriting from the tories. interestingly enough, the only actually been the cap has only actually been with since 2013, and eagle with us since 2013, and eagle eyed viewers will remember that that coalition that was the coalition government introduced it. government that introduced it. so really going so you're not really going to get dems get outflanked by the lib dems ehhen get outflanked by the lib dems either, right . so the fear either, right. so the fear normally would saying if we normally would be saying if we drop commitment to the cap, drop our commitment to the cap, then we'll get outflanked on the left by the lib dems and therefore keir starmer made left by the lib dems and the|rather(eir starmer made left by the lib dems and the|rather cynical. ner made left by the lib dems and the|rather cynical. ifer made left by the lib dems and the|rather cynical. if you'renade the rather cynical. if you're a lefty watching and 48 labour mps rebelled some time rebelled against this some time ago. if you're lefty watching, ago. if you're a lefty watching, you leader's you think my leader's been really he knows the really cynical. he knows the left's going to come in left's not going to come up in the form of the lib dems so he can get away with this. yeah. >> and mean about >> and i mean you say about them criticise it very recently. i mean a couple of years ago you mentioned well starmer we can

mentioned as well starmer we can have that. he pledged have a look at that. he pledged there, quite rightly there, as you say quite rightly it's the cap as it's a pledge, the cap and as recently well last month, recently as well as last month, you've got jonathan ashworth as well. he was calling the policy, i quote, an offensive nonsense. angela rayner as well as being less than complimentary about it. to peter, where do you stand on it? >> well, it's just so expensive under current circumstances that it's very difficult to discuss it's very difficult to discuss it broadly without without having that in mind that it would cost so much, much money to do and it would cause all kinds of resentments to, i think, among those people who didn't who weren't getting it . didn't who weren't getting it. >> i don't i mean, in my own my own yearning is, of course, to reinstate state the institution of marriage and to support it. and would love if we had and i would love it if we had a welfare system that did that. but that would to achieve that would a huge social would involve a huge social revolution in this country returned to views which have by and been pushed to the and large been pushed to the margin. can't really state margin. so i can't really state any sort of general any any sort of general principle about it because it

would be so futile. is what's basically is going on as alex says, is that the labour party is paring down its budget commitments before an election as it has to do because it expects that's all it's expects to win. that's all it's about has has no other about. it has it has no other significance. but what you significance. but what do you think my viewers, one of think one of my viewers, one of the comments i received the first comments i received into show tonight was from the first comments i received into of show tonight was from the first comments i received into of sh viewers, ht was from the first comments i received into of shviewers, dave, from the first comments i received into of sh viewers, dave, if'om the first comments i received into of sh viewers, dave, if my one of my viewers, dave, if my memory correctly, memory serves me correctly, where he was saying that children essentially children are essentially a lifestyle he's lifestyle choice and why he's saying taxpayer have lifestyle choice and why he's sa'pay taxpayer have lifestyle choice and why he's sa'pay anything taxpayer have lifestyle choice and why he's sa'pay anything attaxpayer have lifestyle choice and why he's sa'pay anything at alliayer have lifestyle choice and why he's sa'pay anything at all forer have to pay anything at all for people's kids? >> i heard that. but my actually my position different my position is different to dave's, reflection of dave's, and it's a reflection of the we're having the conversation we're having about believe about university. i believe that we should small group we should support a small group of about their of people, not about their backgrounds , but about their backgrounds, but about their abilities university abilities to go to university because interests the because in the interests of the state create produce state to create and produce great not 50% the great minds. not 50% of the country, but i'm not saying by any means i would be in that small but small group small group, but a small group of be of people who should be supported university , a supported to go to university, a policy got destroyed when policy that got destroyed when we expanded university education policy that got destroyed when we expa we d university education policy that got destroyed when we expa we did1iversity education policy that got destroyed when we expawe did .versity education policy that got destroyed when we expawe did . equally,ducation policy that got destroyed when we expawe did . equally, ijcation policy that got destroyed when we expawe did . equally, i think] the way we did. equally, i think we we need children. i don't we do. we need children. i don't have any children, believe have any children, but i believe in paying my taxes and

supporting policies, supporting child policies, including state including paying for state education, of education, another form of support i support for children that i don't i believe in don't have because i believe in the but the future of our country. but again, to be again, there has to be a balance. it doesn't mean we're going to pay as a country for you ten, 15 children and you to have ten, 15 children and subsidise own in that subsidise your own life in that way. state has to way. so the state has to produce. number produce. i think, a number the state has that number is state has decided that number is two. and if you think that number wrong, then can number is wrong, then you can debate about surely the debate about it. but surely the surely position being taken debate about it. but surely the surthe position being taken debate about it. but surely the surthe naysayersn being taken debate about it. but surely the surthe naysayers and ing taken debate about it. but surely the surthe naysayers and the taken debate about it. but surely the surthe naysayers and the labour by the naysayers and the labour party as many kids party is no cap for as many kids as you want because it really, as you want because it really, as peter says, gets as peter says, it gets phenomenally expensive at that point . point. >> it does. and what i find quite interesting the quite interesting is the difference mindsets a difference in mindsets towards a certain when they're certain people when they're thinking about having children, because in because you'll have one group in society sitting there society that are sitting there going, i want going, right, okay, i want to have child will have a child and they will really sit down and work out. right? afford what right? can i afford this? what does child care does it look like child care wise ? do have to get a bigger wise? do i have to get a bigger property? i afford that property? can i afford that extra bedroom? whatever, whatever. that family extra bedroom? whatever, whate�*decide that family extra bedroom? whatever, whate�*decide actually at family extra bedroom? whatever, whate�*decide actually ,t family extra bedroom? whatever, whate�*decide actually , ifamily might decide actually, i literally afford to literally cannot afford to whether it's have second child whether it's have a second child or have any child, or maybe even have any child, any children at all, then you'll have it feels and seems perhaps

that you have another side of society actually they society which actually they don't think at all about the financial implications of it because their view would be, well, it's fine . the benefit well, it's fine. the benefit system just help me out. system will just help me out. i'll get a council house when i have this child. i'll get you free childcare and all the rest of it is true. >> anybody who uses the welfare system irresponsibly destroys it for other people who want to use it responsibly. and that is one of problems about that of the problems about it, that a sensible welfare system should be and prevent that be built to try and prevent that from but that's not from happening. but that's not easy. but it is not it is not. the more you think about it, the more it doesn't seem to be a simple question as i say, i would, however we did it, i would, however we did it, i would prefer this country to going to having many going back to having many, many more married families in more stable married families in which up. which children were brought up. and that obviously if and i think that obviously if the tax and benefit system would at least stop not favouring that as at the moment it makes it in my view, it actually discriminates against it, then that would be a good thing. but i think an argument about how

many children you could have benefit from current rates is benefit from at current rates is not even realistic argument. not even a realistic argument. to have. not even a realistic argument. to ithere's of strong >> there's a lot of strong feelings coming through. so mark says want kids then says if you want kids, then pay for yourselves. he says , i for them yourselves. he says, i did, i bet you will have got did, but i bet you will have got family surely family allowance, though surely mark and peter says child benefit should be abolished entirely if you can't afford your children, don't rely on the states. penelope though she says, i think child benefit is a good thing. it helps young families that are starting out in life and not always earning those high salaries. and you make very good point when you make a very good point when you say a need babies say we all want a need babies because be them paying because it will be them paying the taxes to support us as we get into our ripe old age. i agree with you on that one. keep your thoughts, though, coming in, because i find that it really generates a straw , strong really generates a straw, strong opinions, particularly , i think, opinions, particularly, i think, from people that don't have children that would essentially say, well, why do i have to pay for your kids? >> then what should >> then that's what we should explosive then explosive to raise it. but then i would ask, that's why it would become politically difficult

i would ask, that's why it would be do ne politically difficult i would ask, that's why it would be do and politically difficult i would ask, that's why it would be do and politicalwhy fficult i would ask, that's why it would be do and politicalwhy keirlt to do and why and why keir starmer pulling away from it. >> and i would those people >> and i would ask those people at if you are in that at home, if you are in that camp, you're allowed to be all opinions and all that. so opinions valid and all that. so if have the if you don't have all the children who take care of children who will take care of you? you get into your you? then when you get into your old physically old age, whether it's physically or revenue what's or via tax revenue, what's your answer conundrum ? answer to that conundrum? another conundrum as well, perhaps ? or do you perhaps gambling? or do you think gambling should be allowed to advertised in sport? get to be advertised in sport? get this, apparently when looking at some football games , apparently some football games, apparently betting logos were popping up every 16 seconds. is that a bit much or . not every 16 seconds. is that a bit much or. not earlier on gb news radio with me now is nadia essex, who is a dating coach. >> nadia, thank you very much. i don't think i'll be getting too much traction on the old dating apps after people have just seen me scream like on the me scream like a baby on the telly. anyway, so look, when telly. but anyway, so look, when it to this old spiders web it comes to this old spiders web sex stuff, i mean, hey, i suppose it's good news for people . well, yeah. people. well, yeah. >> i mean, i suppose i feel like

if you've had surgery and perhaps you've had problems with your prostate or i think it's, your prostate or i think it's, you know , to do with prostate you know, to do with prostate cancer , then what a great way to cancer, then what a great way to sort of get back out there and have something that's kind of made by nature help you get it on. >> again, i'm just going to explain a little bit about how it apparently works. so they did this study so six men in their 50s, which i actually think is a really age to do this study really good age to do this study because a lot of people, i think, associate prostate issues with men in their 80s by with men in their 80s or 90s, by which perhaps they're which point perhaps they're the bed much bed isn't rocking as much as it once used anyway. but in your once used to anyway. but in your 50s in prime. so six 50s you're in your prime. so six men 50s had them men in their 50s had them attached these spider webs, attached to these spider webs, had them attached to the ends of a nerve that would have been severed during some kind of prostate and apparently prostate surgery. and apparently obe three of the six. i'll obe with three of the six. i'll take those odds. three of the six said their sexual function returned to normal in just 12 weeks. the nerve grew back, so

thatis weeks. the nerve grew back, so that is great. but not not. can i just ask you a that is great. but not not. can ijust ask you a bit that is great. but not not. can i just ask you a bit about, you know, if anyone is out there potentially struggling in the impotency department at the moment, are there any tips, for want of a better phrase as to how you can overcome this ? how you can overcome this? >> , i suppose you have to >> well, i suppose you have to find out the two things of whether it's sort of a psychological issue or a medical issue. sometimes it's your body just can't do that. and so therefore , you do need medical therefore, you do need medical advice . and then sometimes it's advice. and then sometimes it's psychological . we all, you know, psychological. we all, you know, know that you know, the stresses of the world. you've got so much stress on people's shoulders at the moment. it's stress inside the moment. it's stress inside the house. outside the house, climate change. people are told to worry about. i mean, we're told that there's another pandemic around the corner and there's virus out there's a killer virus out there. if people are having trouble performing . and it's to trouble performing. and it's to do with the stress levels , the do with the stress levels, the best, best advice is turn best, the best advice is turn your phone off, turn the telly off, put some nice music on, cook a nice dinner, enjoy a glass of wine, and just let the

roman ounce flow. >> i agree with all of that until the point where you told my viewers to turn their telly off and you will be banned. you will be banned now from ever coming it is good coming back on. but it is good advice, and in fact, advice, actually. and in fact, i'm touching this the next i'm touching on this in the next hour all of this fear and hour about all of this fear and scare mongering that's going on at especially at the moment, especially about the weather and stuff like that. i mean, i get it. you know, there's bit of climate change there's a bit of climate change knocking about, but if you turned telly, you know, turned on your telly, you know, and other news and watched some other news outlets, would seriously be outlets, you would seriously be forgiven for thinking that the world literally about to end. world is literally about to end. but nadia, very much. but nadia, thank you very much. nadia there. nadia essex there. >> listening gb news >> you're listening to gb news radio .

because this divides people. some people say gambling companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise at all. some people say free market, free society. do what you want. where are you on it? >> well, i think gambling is an evil i mean, i have been known to have the occasional bet myself. once myself. i once i once once substantial of money at substantial sum of money at ascot tip from frankie to ascot from a tip from frankie to tori, i've got over, tori, which i've never got over, but imagine would but i don't imagine it would ever and i do ever happen again. and i do office sweepstake and the

occasional political bet. but i actually think that gambling is an evil and tempting people into it is disastrous and it ruins lives on a colossal scale . and lives on a colossal scale. and we ought go back to where we we ought to go back to where we were in the 1950s. this were in the in the 1950s. this is one of the occasions when i really do say should go back really do say we should go back to when was largely to the 1950s when it was largely banned on on actual banned apart from on on actual race , because i think it race courses, because i think it does immense harm. people does such immense harm. people can't they destroy can't handle it and they destroy their lives they destroy the their lives and they destroy the lives because they do lives of others because they do things themselves into things like get themselves into incredible have to have incredible debt and have to have to family home because to sell the family home because of disasters. to sell the family home because of di basically make it illegal. >> oh, i think yeah, i think i think it is a genuinely evil thing on its current and thing on its current scale. and i there's there's no i think there's no there's no defence for it. the, the profits which it makes are shocking and unbearable to witness. and the, the, the dismal disastrous effects it has on the individuals who get captivated by it are simply undeniable . by it are simply undeniable. let's just not have it. >> if you think that in the penod >> if you think that in the period you're talking about gambling only took place on racecourses. no, i don't think

that i know. >> but it was still it was still very widespread. >> and the thing about it was it wasn't regulated any it wasn't regulated in any way. it paid tax. and it was often paid no tax. and it was often delivered someone who break delivered by someone who break your didn't up. your legs if you didn't pay up. so there are attractions to having the legitimate having it within the legitimate system . so i'm going to choose system. so i'm going to choose my words care, actually, my words with care, actually, because when people may because we when people may not know watching, but know when they're watching, but we see what we in the studio can't see what the adverts are when we go to a break. know if you break. so i don't know if you had a gambling advert in the middle last segment middle between the last segment and this one, i would make the point advertisements assist point that advertisements assist in subsidising effectively a free to air broadcasting . they free to air broadcasting. they make it cheaper or they make it free. and that's a good that's a social good and it's a good that enables free speech on our part to an audience hopefully to an audience that hopefully wants to us and all wants to listen to us and all manner of legal activity is there. i myself rather like a flutter. i accept peter's position , but peter's position position, but peter's position to my mind that you to my mind means that you shouldn't than none shouldn't bet rather than none of be able to. of us should be able to. >> well, it obviously that >> well, it obviously means that too. i think >> well, it obviously means that too. ithink just >> well, it obviously means that too. i think just i just think too. i think i just i just think by it much more

by by having it made much more difficult do, particularly difficult to do, particularly the can the way in which people can basically clicking on device basically be clicking on device and tossing money they don't have down a bottomless pit. i think that is an outrage and it really ought not to be allowed to happen. >> so that's a different point about how modern technology has changed. >> it is a different point, but it's nonetheless it is the case that is one the reasons that that is one of the reasons why the argument for preventing it very strong. >> the gap there between what you think should be done and what happen is really what could happen is really quite large because, course, quite large because, of course, in united states until in the united states until recently, banned forms recently, they banned many forms of whilst of online betting whilst they were elsewhere and were legal elsewhere and effectively they just found it wouldn't the custom wouldn't didn't work. the custom found its way to the supply if the demand is there, it will find the supply. >> i don't agree. >> i don't agree. >> i don't agree. >> i think if you if you if you take seriously if take it seriously and if you if you really limit it with with serious carefully applied serious and carefully applied laws, you would you would save an awful lot of people from what is tragedy. it is is actually a tragedy. and it is a tragedy when it happens. you know, the sort of cases i'm talking people's talking about where people's people's spouses find that their

husband or wife has has run up such enormous debts through gambling that the family home has to be sold in secret . they has to be sold in secret. they don't know this kind of thing should not should not be encouraged in any way. it's as dangerous in many ways as drugs. and i'm sick of it. >> well, let's put some numbers behind this then, because apparently it's estimated that there are . between 250,000 and there are. between 250,000 and 460,000 problem gamblers in great britain. now now, you know, that basically tells me that most people can gamble safely. it says here 0.5% of people in england have identified as a problem gamblers. so why should people that actually , you know, quite that actually, you know, quite like going to casinos or quite like going to casinos or quite like i don't know betting on whatever why should they have their enjoyment curtailed ? and their enjoyment curtailed? and because group because a minority group struggle with it because that's the price you have to pay for living in a civilised society. >> you sometimes have to give up pleasures do harm pleasures which do you no harm because pleasures an

because the same pleasures an argument. you ask me the question which you have, you have to give pleasure which, which, which don't do you any harm. same harm. because those same pleasures immense harm to pleasures do immense harm to others. as just a others. it's just as just a simple bargain. the line. >> would alcohol >> then would you ban alcohol because are , oh, because loads of people are, oh, you can't ban alcohol. >> would definitely bring >> but i would definitely bring back the alcohol laws back the alcohol licencing laws which the which were abolished in the 19805, which were abolished in the 1980s, to to be 1980s, which seemed to me to be extremely sensible and a extremely sensible and it was a grave mistake to rid of grave mistake to get rid of them. you couldn't you them. you can't you couldn't you couldn't them. you can't you couldn't you couldthe islamic republic of even the islamic republic of iran can't alcohol. the same iran can't ban alcohol. the same you certainly make it you could certainly make it a lot harder to the same sorts lot harder to do the same sorts of that michelle of figures that michelle is talking same sorts talking about are the same sorts of approximately of level, approximately same sorts who sorts of levels of people who claim that they can't control what eat. what they eat. >> they've got they've got various eating various problems about eating because by because they're too tempted by what food industry put because they're too tempted by waront food industry put because they're too tempted by waront of ood industry put because they're too tempted by waront of them.1ustry put because they're too tempted by waront of them.1ustrthey put in front of them. and they simply will control simply lack the will to control themselves. your logic, most themselves. on your logic, most we be deprived we would be deprived of all sweet and all savoury sweet things and all savoury things because the small minority can't control minority that can't control themselves to have their themselves need to have their needs, their behaviour needs, dictate their behaviour to of us. we haven't to the rest of us. we haven't touched on food. >> talking about gambling. >> we're talking about gambling. >> we're talking about gambling. >> then we're

>> i know, but then we're expanding so you expanding it out so you can expand it out. >> ruins the lives of a small minority people. therefore minority of people. therefore none of us should be able to it. >> well, it it's not a small minority people. case minority of people. in the case of it happens. and it of food, as it happens. and it would seem to me that some sort of some sort of limits on the levels in food, levels of sugar in food, particularly in the sugary dnnks particularly in the sugary drinks , which are which are drinks, which are which are given out fast food, given out with fast food, wouldn't all a thing wouldn't be at all a bad thing because of the damage they do. but don't i'm not when but i don't i'm not i when someone says nanny state, i don't oh, that's a don't think, oh, that's a terrible thing . think nanny is terrible thing. i think nanny is i'm rees—mogg would i'm sure jacob rees—mogg would agree me. i think nannies agree with me. i think nannies can fantastic people and they can be fantastic people and they do good. i think is do a lot of good. i think is that we have gone much far do a lot of good. i think is th.thee have gone much far do a lot of good. i think is th.the directionyne much far do a lot of good. i think is th.the direction of much far do a lot of good. i think is th.the direction of the ch far do a lot of good. i think is th.the direction of the nanny far in the direction of the nanny state over the past 50 years. the difference is the nanny is tragedy. >> family asks the fact that the family , which is the right family, which is the right vehicle for raising a child . i vehicle for raising a child. i assume agree the family assume you agree the family thinks nanny a figure thinks that nanny is a figure that wish to play part in that they wish to play a part in it. the state being in loco parentis of all of us as free adults is quite different. and that's the misnomer. >> well, i love that not to be

the case, but as i said in the discussion about child benefit, my the the my for case the for the reconstruction of and strengthening of the married family is one that has absolutely no chance of winning any support. so in the absence of that, how are we going to stop the misery caused by by how about gambling on this scale? >> where does free will fit >> and where does free will fit in position on? in your position on? >> people have it, but they don't. not they're not don't. they're not they're not encouraged educated to encouraged or educated to exercise encouraged or educated to exe and encouraged or educated to exeand so are encouraged or educated to exe and so are too encouraged or educated to exeand so are too stupid to >> and so we are too stupid to be allowed real freedom and therefore the state needs to intervene. it's not the stupid, ignorant, let's be fair to you. ignorant? >> no, those are not the words that simple that i use. it's a simple burkean won't burkean point if people won't restrain themselves, then the state step to restrain state has to step in to restrain them. i wish they would restrain themselves. i think we should be much more restrained. society. i would just for the would long as not just for the reconstruction married reconstruction of the married family, for the family, but for the for the reconstruction, spreading reconstruction, the spreading again of the protestant christian religion , which used christian religion, which used to way people to dominate the way people behaved country. but behaved in this country. but these fetched these are far fetched ideas. >> had his regret to

>> if peter had his i regret to say, just make a basic utilitarian point, right? >> if peter his way and the >> if peter had his way and the industry was basically stamped out one, it would go underground. this study underground. and two, this study we've been referring to, i can't find the source, but bet you find the source, but i bet you it paid by the industry, it was paid for by the industry, which moment being which is at the moment being compelled gambling compelled to support gambling addiction. it out, addiction. if you stamp it out, it disappear. just it doesn't disappear. it just goes . goes underground. >> underground is >> but going underground is often if something often better if something can only only be marketed and only be can only be marketed and sold criminals , its sold by criminals, its operations more limited operations are far more limited than it can advertise every than if it can advertise every three seconds on television . three seconds on television. that's the whole point of making things that's why we things illegal. that's why we made cigarette advertising things illegal. that's why we made cibecauseidvertising things illegal. that's why we made cibecause if/ertising things illegal. that's why we made cibecause if yousing things illegal. that's why we made cibecause if you if|g things illegal. that's why we made cibecause if you if you illegal, because if you if you if you use the law against something which is bad, then it's effective as well. and the fact that it goes underground is all crime is caused by law. >> well, i can tell you, if it went underground , you'd lose went underground, you'd lose £3.2 billion in tax. take that apparently . apparently. >> wouldn't that just be why politicians don't anything politicians don't do anything about politicians don't do anything abowell, that what >> well, yeah, that is what the gambling apparently gambling industry apparently paid 2021. and 2022. paid in tax in 2021. and 2022. financial year. lots of people here saying gambling is fine.

it's the adverts that you're saying should be banned. i just completely disagree. i think each to their own . and if you've each to their own. and if you've got a problem as some of you might do, there are so many places now that you can go out and reach out to, to try and get some free help. and there's no shame asking for help . i want shame in asking for help. i want to move on and talk about religious beliefs. do you think that are compatible with that they are compatible with serving public office, serving in public office, particularly when it comes to politics? yes or no? >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers proud sponsors of whether on gb news. >> hi there. >> hi there. >> it's aidan mcgivern here from the met office with the gb news forecast. >> today's showers ease overnight clear and cool conditions for many , but more conditions for many, but more rain in places by dawn. that rain in places by dawn. that rain arriving from the west. a small frontal system, a slack area of low pressure ahead of it, actually a ridge of high pressure helping to kill off

monday's showers in many places as clear spells widely across england , wales and scotland. england, wales and scotland. overnight, showers overnight, just a few showers continuing for north of continuing for the north of scotland . different for scotland. a different story for northern ireland as well as eventually parts of wales and towards the southwest. here, clouds thicken 12 or 13 celsius by dawn , but towards the north by dawn, but towards the north and the east, sheltered spots getting off to a cool start eight nine celsius in 1 or 2 places, as well as plenty of sunshine. we'll get the sunny skies for northern scotland as well as the south and south—east of england during the morning in between a lot of cloud outbreaks of rain and that rain pushing north into central scotland, affecting much of northern england, wales and eventually the southwest . the rain most the far southwest. the rain most persistent across parts of northern ireland and under the wet weather, it's going to feel on the cool side. all of on the cool side. now all of that away during wednesday that pulls away during wednesday morning. keep a cloudy morning. we keep a cloudy swathe, i think through northern england the midlands parts england into the midlands parts of wales and east anglia. showery rain through much of the day elsewhere , a mixture day here, elsewhere, a mixture of spells and showers, dry

of sunny spells and showers, dry towards south—west. but towards the south—west. but we'll the showery we'll keep the showery conditions thursday and conditions on thursday and friday all the while it is friday and all the while it is going bit cooler. going to turn a bit cooler. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers proud sponsors of weather on .

gb news. >> hello there, michelle dewberry with you till seven. peter hitchens, alex dean still alongside me now a christian counsellor tweeted the following pride as in a gay pride celebration. it's not a virtue, but a sin. well anyway, he has been suspended from the conservative party as a result . conservative party as a result. he's also gone on to say the council this is, he reckons, is being, i quote cancelled by six other organised nations after expressing his religious beliefs on social media. to what do you

think to this? because you know that's his his view. he would say that it represents his religion . is there a place in religion. is there a place in politics for that kind of view? >> well, let's take the free speech point first. he of course, hasn't been suspended as a councillor. he's had his membership which, membership of a to party which, to i belong suspended. to be clear, i belong suspended. the is quite the difference is quite important because it's not as if he hasn't been suspended from being a democratically elected person indeed you will person and indeed you will nofice person and indeed you will notice that in the list of 17 candidates in the uxbridge by—election that patrick was forced to read out in the show before because you have if you mention something, you have to read because there read the lot because there was a christian people's alliance candidate in that. and of course, can run explicit course, people can run explicit and overtly on the basis of their christian belief and seek to elected in that capacity. to be elected in that capacity. so that's the first my first point about free speech, which exists in country, and you exists in this country, and you can broadly speaking as you can say broadly speaking as you wish, although it's not as well defended like. the defended as i might like. the second is this. he didn't second point is this. he didn't just gay isn't just say gay pride isn't a virtue . it's a sin which might virtue. it's a sin which might be thought to a you

be thought to be a coy. you know, his pride is one of the sins in bible. he did sins in the bible. well, he did go say some other things. go on to say some other things. there making it clear that it was about pride month and gay rights effectively. so using the hashtags for pride month and so forth. so i think that was probably his mistake. >> i want to come back to you on on your first point, but before i do, peter, where do you stand on this? >> well, if alex says this free speech in this country, i don't agree. it's quite plain. there are some things which are now pretty unsayable . and it pretty much unsayable. and it sounds as if this guy has said some of them . it's also not true some of them. it's also not true to say that he could stand or somebody with those views could stand for the christian peoples alliance. i don't know what their towards their attitude is towards it anyway, about the anyway, but the point about the conservative party, so—called , conservative party, so—called, and the labour party as well, is that these are the two tribal parties which control the access to almost all the electoral system in this country. they they win most of the parliamentary they win parliamentary seats. they win most the council seats. their

most of the council seats. their electoral machines. and the tribal habits of voters mean that if you don't get selected by them, your chances of being of being elected to any post are pretty slender. but peter you are you are eloquent and you are thoughtful. >> you clearly your views on the two main parties are very clear . why don't you start your own and convince people that they are wrong? >> well, anybody start >> well, anybody can start a political party, but this political party, but saying this is party is absurd. is a political party is absurd. unless the unless the party can overcome the huge the huge barriers to becoming a major party, it bears as much relation to the labour party and conservative party as a toy train set does to the french railways . i won't say british railways. i won't say british railways because they're a sort of toy system anyway, but certainly there isn't. you aren't you, aren't you, aren't you can't just you can't just declare that you're in politics. the political parties are supported by state funding. their supported by dodgy billionaires. their supported by dodgy billionaires . they're supported billionaires. they're supported by broadcasting rules which give them large amounts of time on

them large amounts of time on the basis of their previous performance and exclude others. and they also, as i say, have the have the benefit of decades of tribal habit among voters who will, especially at general elections , will return to them. elections, will return to them. so they control they are the gatekeepers of british politics and what they decide can or cannot be said is what happens. >> let me link you because we're almost out like we're literally almost out like we're literally almost out like we're literally almost out of time. i want to link directly to what said link directly to what he said as a it now almost a quote. it is now almost impossible something impossible to say something biblically truthful on sexual ethics in society without ethics in uk society without being having your being cancelled or having your life ruined. when it comes to life ruined. so when it comes to the tory packers, yes, you're quite rightly pointing out is still but now still a councillor, but not now as part conservative as part of the conservative party. true then? can party. so is he true then? can he not state his biblical sexual ethics? truth and still remain within the conservative party? >> i'm sure you come. i certainly have no brief to speak for the party, but i would say this that didn't mean to this that i didn't mean to besmirch the christian people's alliance either. may or may alliance either. they may or may not person as not want this sort of person as a candidate, was making the a candidate, i was making the point can have point that you can have overt religious beliefs and stand for

election in this country. >> religious >> john says. keep religious views and all of it views and religion and all of it out public topics, including out of public topics, including anti—religion. well jane says, i think more think we should have more religion. some religion. we might get some moral rather than the bunch. she says that we have now. look at it. time does fly, but it. the time does fly, but you're divided on that one. i have to say, gloria, she says politics and religion, those two things are the things that cause more arguments anything , more arguments than anything, even money, she says. lewis says there's always been a saying in there's always been a saying in the pub, never talk about religion, never talk about politics. people should heed politics. and people should heed that advice. >> not we're not the >> we're not we're not in the pub, though. >> no, this is very true. i wish i was quite frankly. no, we are not. we're living rooms not. we're in your living rooms right this right now having this conversation. this is conversation. but look, this is all got time for, all i've now got time for, peter. alex, you. thank peter. alex, thank you. thank you. you. i'm off for you. thank you. i'm off for the rest so rest of this week, so have a good few days and i will see you again next week. >> temperatures rising, boxt >> the temperatures rising, boxt solar the sponsors solar the proud sponsors of weather on . gb news. weather on. gb news. >> hi there. it's aidan mcgivern here from the met office with the gb news forecast. today's

showers ease overnight. clear and cool conditions for many, but more rain in places by dawn on that rain arriving from the west . a small frontal system , a west. a small frontal system, a slack area of low pressure ahead of it, actually a ridge of high pressure helping to kill off monday's showers in many places . clear spells widely across england, and scotland. england, wales and scotland. overnight, just showers overnight, just a few showers continuing for the north of scotland . a different for scotland. a different story for northern ireland as as northern ireland as well as eventually parts of wales and towards the southwest. here, clouds thicken 12 or 13 celsius by dawn , but towards the north by dawn, but towards the north and the east sheltered spots getting off to a cool start eight nine celsius in 1 or 2 places, as well as plenty of sunshine. we'll keep the sunny skies for northern scotland as well as the south and south of england during the morning. in between . a lot of cloud between. a lot of cloud outbreaks of rain . that rain outbreaks of rain. that rain pushing north into central scotland, affecting much of northern england , wales and northern england, wales and eventually the far southwest at the rain, most persistent across parts of northern ireland and

under the wet weather, it's going to feel on the side. going to feel on the cool side. now pulls away now all of that pulls away dunng now all of that pulls away during wednesday morning. we keep a cloudy swathe. i think through northern england into the parts of wales the midlands parts of wales and east showery rain east anglia. showery rain through much of the day here. elsewhere, a mixture of sunny spells showers. dryest spells and showers. dryest towards southwest . but we'll towards the southwest. but we'll keep conditions on keep the showery conditions on thursday friday all the thursday and friday and all the while is going turn a bit while it is going to turn a bit cooler , the temperatures rising cooler, the temperatures rising , boxt solar proud sponsors of weather on .

gb news. gb news. >> good evening . i tonight will >> good evening . i tonight will >> good evening. i tonight will >> good evening. i tonight will give you an update on my banking give you an update on my banking relationship or otherwise with relationship or otherwise with coutts plus many , many stories coutts plus many , many stories coutts plus many, many stories coming in from you about why you coutts plus many, many stories coming in from you about why you are being banked are being banked rishi sunak

today said something about the university's that i thought made a whole lot of sense to many