has been tying himself up in knots over this one. he gave a speech today to try and resolve all of that. but did it do the job and a massive day over at the covid inquiry. dominic cummings took the stage stage, as did the former daily mirror chicken licken . suffice to say, chicken licken. suffice to say, some would say boris johnson didn't come off well. many are saying that he needs to apologise for his handling of the pandemic. does he ? and today the pandemic. does he? and today marks the removal of the cap on bankers bonuses . it kicks in bankers bonuses. it kicks in today just as the latest cost of living payment also starts to hit. bank accounts to help people survive . a talk about the people survive. a talk about the state of the nation. what do you make to it .

state of the nation. what do you make to it. all state of the nation. what do you make to it . all yes , indeed, all make to it. all yes, indeed, all of that to come over the next houn of that to come over the next hour. but before we get into that, let's cross live to tatiana sanchez for tonight's latest news headlines . michelle, latest news headlines. michelle, thank you very much. and good evening. this is the latest . evening. this is the latest. bons evening. this is the latest. boris johnson's former chief adviser has told the covid inquiry he he warned if the nhs implode like a zombie apocalypse film. dominic cummings says he called for daily crisis meetings, fearing the pandemic was coming much faster than expected. he also said the government had no plan to help vulnerable people during lockdown and the cabinet office was trying to block the creation of a shielding plan , describing of a shielding plan, describing a culture of uncertainty . he a culture of uncertainty. he said. the former prime minister was referred to by colleagues as the shopping trolley due to his tendency to change direction .

tendency to change direction. sign ahrens have sounded across tel aviv as hamas launch another rocket attack. explosions have been seen and heard as the city suffers its second major rocket barrage of the day. it comes as israel's prime minister dismissed calls for a ceasefire in the war, saying it would mean surrendering to terrorism . more surrendering to terrorism. more than 8300 people have been killed by israeli attacks in gaza. mark regev is a senior adviser to the israeli prime minister. he told gb news israelis shouldn't have to live under the threat of hamas. >> we refuse to go through the sort of attacks we've had to undergo over the last few weeks. we will never experience again what we did on october 7th, and we'll put an end to this this terror kingdom on our southern border. we are committed to destroying hamas. and at the same time, we are committed to providing civilian ian population of gaza with humanitarian aid . and we're humanitarian aid. and we're working very closely with the

international community to do that. >> it comes as 50 palestine pnsons >> it comes as 50 palestine prisons have reported been killed and 150 injured in a suspected israeli airstrike on gaza. suspected israeli airstrike on gaza . the director of a nearby gaza. the director of a nearby hospital in gaza says the attacks hit a densely populated area of a refugee camp in the north of the gaza strip . sir north of the gaza strip. sir keir starmer has reaffirmed labour's support for humanitarian pause in the israel—hamas war. speaking earlier today, the labour leader said it was the only credible approach to the ongoing conflict. protests demanding an immediate ceasefire in gaza crowded the labour leader's car as he left chatham house. but in his speech, sir keir argued that could risk more violence in the region, giving hamas a chance to carry out more attacks . carry out more attacks. >> at every stage during this crisis, my approach has been dnven crisis, my approach has been driven by the need to respond to both of these tragedies , to

both of these tragedies, to stand by the right to self—defence of any nation which suffers terrorism on this scale . suffers terrorism on this scale. alongside the basic human rights of innocent palestinians , caught of innocent palestinians, caught once again in in the crossfire plans to close ticket offices at train stations have been called off. >> the transport secretary asked train operators this morning to withdraw the controversial proposal to shut offices in england. a public consultation received the largest ever response with the rmt union, saying respondents ovennhelmingly oppose the closures. mark harper says the plan didn't meet the high threshold of serving rail passengers . xl bully dogs will passengers. xl bully dogs will be banned at the end of the year from the 31st of december. it will be illegal to breed , sell, will be illegal to breed, sell, rehome or abandon an xl bully dog. existing owners will be required to follow a strict set of rules, such as ensuring the

dog is muzzled and on a lead . dog is muzzled and on a lead. floods has hit parts of northern ireland with people being warned to avoid travel. storm is bringing strong winds and heavy rain to the uk. part of newry in county down have been left under water after a canal burst its banks with water levels in the city at unprecedented levels. the met office has issued a yellow rain alert across northern ireland from tonight until tomorrow morning, warning some communities may be cut off by flooding . and king charles by flooding. and king charles has just finished delivering his speech at the state house in nairobi , where he quoted from nairobi, where he quoted from the late queen his mother's diary in that queen elizabeth ii said she didn't want to miss a moment of kenya's extraordinary landscape up. king charles also thanked the people of kenya for their support for the late queen in 1952, when she became monarch. his majesty also acknowledged the more difficult times of britain in kenya's

shared history , finishing with shared history, finishing with a touching toast . touching toast. >> it is upon the enduring connection between our people that our partnership rests as it is on their enterprise imagination and fortitude that our common hopes depend . our common hopes depend. together, we are stronger here. together, we are stronger here. together our future is more secure and together as your national anthem says , may we national anthem says, may we dwell in unity, peace and liberty . liberty. >> this is gb news across the uk on tv in your car, on your digital radio and now on your smart speaker. by saying play gb news now it's back to . michelle news now it's back to. michelle >> thanks for that. tatiana and michelle jubilee till 7:00 tonight. alongside me, the former editor of the sun, kelvin mackenzie , and the contributing mackenzie, and the contributing editor for novara media , michael

editor for novara media, michael walker. evening , gentlemen. walker. good evening, gentlemen. you know the drill , don't you? you know the drill, don't you? on dewbs & co. it's very much on dewbs& co. it's very much about you guys at home. what is on your mind tonight? lots of things coming your way. the covid boris johnson , an covid inquiry, boris johnson, an how do you think he fared today? not least having had as we did from dominic cummings , i think from dominic cummings, i think divided opinions. i suspect will be coming my way tonight. divided opinions. i suspect will be coming my way tonight . you be coming my way tonight. you can get in touch all the usual way as gbviews@gbnews.com or tweet me at gb news. what do you make of that? xl bully ban as well? i know many passion dog owners at home, but xl bullies is it the right decision , kelvin is it the right decision, kelvin to ban? >> yes , correct. should should >> yes, correct. should should start now rather than december the 31st? yeah it's very peculiar if indeed the government does think these things know , so bad and things are, you know, so bad and all the of it, why wait all the rest of it, why wait a couple of months? >> are you on it? >> where are you on it? >> where are you on it? >> well, i had mixed feelings because i own a bully. cross but i i was very carefully i was i was very carefully reading through the government description as an description of what counts as an

xl sure xl bully. and i'm pretty sure she count. seems like she doesn't count. it seems like they have defined it they actually have defined it quite specifically. they actually have defined it qui'we've:ifically. they actually have defined it qui'we've :ifical a they actually have defined it qui'we've:ifical a picture of your >> we've seen a picture of your dog on show. i seem to dog on the show. i seem to recall you have. >> don't think her head's wide enough. >> i was just about say, and >> i was just about to say, and i no dog expert, i do i am no dog expert, i do confess, but from memory, yours looks very different it to some of those brutes that i would see and often the press. but and see often in the press. but i some of you were xl bully i know some of you were xl bully lovers and perhaps a bit upset disappointed today . get in disappointed today. get in touch. let me know all your thoughts on that. but of course, the top story in town today is the top story in town today is the whole conversation about a cease fires. now, whether or not thatis cease fires. now, whether or not that is the right thing for us here in the uk, our political leaders and all the rest of it to be calling for this is very much dividing, i would say perhaps both parties at the moment. netanyahu speaking out very passionately , rejecting very passionately, rejecting those calls for a ceasefire, essentially saying this is a war and they weren't stop until they've met that objective of getting rid of hamas, where are you on this, kelvin?

>> well, i agree. i agree with netanyahu's spokesman person who was just on just just ahead of this show, starting in which what they were saying was we are no longer going to suffer the tyranny of these terrorists coming across our border and killing our people. we're going to wipe them out once and for all. and we are going to live in peace. and the people of gaza actually will no longer live under the tyranny of hamas or or if they've embraced it , they've if they've embraced it, they've done nothing about it. this last 17 years, to be honest . perhaps 17 years, to be honest. perhaps they enjoy actually living alongside terrorism and actually want what hamas wants, which is a one state solution, i.e. palestinians. they want to drive the jews out of the middle east, out of their homeland and let and once we find that out, then they can carry on pushing their way through gaza, which i'm very pleased to see. >> and where are you on it, michael? >> because i think there's a couple of things to note here. first all, talked about

first of all, you talked about netanyahu's war aims. now i think there's actually bit think there's actually a bit of a thing what a misunderstood thing about what they think lots of people they are. i think lots of people keir starmer today to be keir starmer today seem to be suggesting that what they want to precision strikes, to do is with precision strikes, take terrorist take out a terrorist organisation sort of organisation and then sort of allow different regime to allow some different regime to take just press pause. take over. so just press pause. >> agree that hamas >> do you agree that hamas is a terrorist organisation? because i other day on jacob i saw you the other day on jacob rees—mogg's you rees—mogg's program and you conceded that hamas had committed terrorist act . but committed a terrorist act. but then as i understood it, as i interpreted what you were saying, you stopped short of saying, you stopped short of saying that you regard them as a terrorist organisation. >> . so i think terrorist organisation. >> .so i think we terrorist organisation. >> . so i think we need to be >> yes. so i think we need to be historical about what hamas is and how got to the position and how they got to the position they are because not they are because they're not like al—qaeda they're this sort of group who wants to of small sect group who wants to commit terrorism commit global sort of terrorism and of islamic and a sort of islamic revolution. hamas came into power gaza partly as a result power in gaza partly as a result of netanyahu . so the president of netanyahu. so the president or the prime minister of israel being quite keen to strengthen them. and the reason he wanted to that is because he has to do that is because he has always against peace always been against a peace process. everyone process. so everyone in this country want a two state

country says we want a two state solution. doesn't. solution. netanyahu doesn't. hamas but hamas don't either. but netanyahu there was one netanyahu doesn't. there was one faction in the palestinian movement . movement. >> that's true, by the way. >> that's not true, by the way. he doesn't doesn't want it he doesn't he doesn't want it under circumstances of under the circumstances of having put his head by having a gun, put his head by a terrorist. right. >> so who are the >> so fatah, who are the organisation who renounced violence, they said we are going to go into a peace process with the israeli government. it was the israeli government. it was the government at the the labour government at the time that fell through. what time that fell through. and what netanyahu has wanted to do ever since say we want hamas to be since is say we want hamas to be the opposition, not fatah, because so long as fatah are the opposition, have to engage in opposition, we have to engage in a peace process. doesn't want opposition, we have to engage in a |engage ocess. doesn't want opposition, we have to engage in a |engage in ass. doesn't want opposition, we have to engage in a |engage in as. doesn't want opposition, we have to engage in a |engage in a peaceioesn't want opposition, we have to engage in a |engage in a peace process.ant opposition, we have to engage in a |engage in a peace process. so to engage in a peace process. so he has literally told his cabinet that if we want to have the of greater that cabinet that if we want to have thewant,of greater that cabinet that if we want to have thewant, which |ter that cabinet that if we want to have thewant, which we that cabinet that if we want to have thewant, which we want, that cabinet that if we want to have thewant, which we want, which we want, which we want, which means israel, including the west bank including what bank and including gaza, what we've strengthen we've got to do is strengthen the who will block a the opposition who will block a peace process. and so i think we're danger of giving him we're in danger of giving him what he wants. if we say, well, you've created this organised nation, bolstered nation, you've bolstered this government get government and now now you get to the world, oh, they're to say to the world, oh, they're like isis, so i have to bomb to

smithereens too. >> a fascinating >> but that's a fascinating history lesson. we don't answer. >> but that's a fascinating hisibut lesson. we don't answer. >> but that's a fascinating hisibut it'son. we don't answer. >> but that's a fascinating hisibut it's notwe don't answer. >> but that's a fascinating hisibut it's not true on't answer. >> but that's a fascinating hisibut it's not true either. swer. >> but it's not true either. just mike just making it up. just mike was just making it up. hamas had no intention of never shown intention a to two shown any intention of a to two state whereas the plo, state solution, whereas the plo, the has had and want one the plo has had and want one today. and i am certain that the outcome of this today. michael the outcome of this today, this terrible battle that's going on right now as as we opine on it, not that anybody gives a stuff about what the uk thinks as we opine on it actually will be aa2 state solution is more likely than ever before. i need to i need to drill down on this because i need to get clarity in my head. >> and i think my viewers would appreciate the clarity as well. thatis appreciate the clarity as well. that is an interesting history. we can debate, you know, whatever perspectives on it. but in the and now in the in the here and now in the uk, hamas proscribed as you know, hamas is proscribed as you know, in its entirety as a terrorist organisation. and do you share that? do ascription only if we apply the same term to the israeli government. >> and i want to explain myself

when i say that because i know that will be controversial to lots of your viewers, really be i know be controversial to explain. >> shocking thing to say, michael, i spoke to someone last friday who lost his family friday who lost 20 of his family members, of his family members, 20 of his family members, 20 of his family members an airstrike. members in an airstrike. >> now, weren't militants. >> now, they weren't militants. they any they weren't member of any political actually political party. they'd actually lived south of the part of gaza which israel has told people to evacuate . and he lost his father evacuate. and he lost his father , three brothers, two sisters and all of their children. right now . now, that man, as you can now. now, that man, as you can imagine, is completely traumatised in the west bank where hamas aren't even in power . what we're seeing at the moment is settlers is rounding up palestinians , filming them, up palestinians, filming them, uploading, torturing them. what also happens in the west bank is. how do you mean? >> how do you mean torturing? >> how do you mean torturing? >> torturing? so tying them up, stripping them naked and then humiliating them on so humiliating them on camera. so most would recognise that most people would recognise that to where did you see that on the >> where did you see that on the internet today? >> okay >> verified. okay >> verified. okay >> who, who, who verified that? >> who, who, who verified that? >> we yesterday on channel 4

news. you might have watched it yesterday didn't watch it. yesterday on i didn't watch it. >> watch channel news. >> i don't watch channel 4 news. >> i don't watch channel 4 news. >> to a family who >> they spoke to a family who lived in west bank who lived in the west bank who describe they have settlers. describe how they have settlers. so israeli settlers knock on their door tell them that their door and tell them that unless home, unless you leave your own home, we you . unless you we will kill you. unless you leave your own home, will leave your own home, we will kill you. then what they do kill you. and then what they do is they cut their is they cut off their electricity, cut off their water supplies. i mean say supplies. so what i mean to say by giving this explanation, is there extremists on both sides ? there extremists on both sides? there are very violent people on both sides. i'm asking you by calling michael , a specific calling you michael, a specific question and what you're doing, it will be very offensive to people. >> you're not answering my question. you question. i've asked you, do you agree with the description that hamas are terrorists? and what you're telling me is a whataboutery telling me whataboutery you're telling me you things the you describing things on the other the coin. i'm not. other side of the coin. i'm not. i'll come to the other side of the coin in minute. i'm asking the coin in a minute. i'm asking you, government in this you, the government in this country, hamas a country, describe hamas as a terrorist organisation. a huge amount of will amount of people will absolutely, categorically agree with that definition. are you one of them? >> . no. >> no. no. >> no. no. >> and the reason i say that is.

well no. unless we also call the israeli government terrorist israeli government a terrorist government, israeli government a terrorist gowside ent, and israeli government a terrorist gowsideent, and the one side terrorists and the other a legitimate state, other side a legitimate state, what are is putting what we are doing is putting more weight the scales, so on. >> on. >> so we got there in the end. so you don't regard hamas , so you don't regard hamas, although i do think that was an act of terrorism. but you act of terrorism. right. but you don't as don't regard hamas as a terrorist organisation? don't regard hamas as a terrorist unless sation? don't regard hamas as a terroristunless we on? don't regard hamas as a terroristunless we also describe >> not unless we also describe the netanyahu government as a terrorist organisation. >> why we this? >> why? why are we doing this? what because i don't what about because i don't really care. >> care if we call them >> i don't care if we call them a organisation not. a terrorist organisation or not. what about is how we what i care about is how we define them relative to the other side in the conflict. what define them relative to the othink ide in the conflict. what define them relative to the othink is; in the conflict. what define them relative to the othink is very he conflict. what define them relative to the othink is very important. what define them relative to the othink is very important ithat define them relative to the othink is very important is the i think is very important is the other is of course is a is other side is of course is a is a democratic country that has been this war been forced into this war because a collection of vile , because a collection of vile, vile people have decided , i tell vile people have decided, i tell you what we'll do. >> we'll go over the we'll go over that border line there and we'll simply wipe out anybody, children, parents, grandparents . children, parents, grandparents. we seize a load of hostages and we'll kick off. we will kick off what is now happening . right. so what is now happening. right. so it's not as though the israelis

said one day, i'll tell you what, we'll go into gaza. they didn't say that at all. they they in fact , facilitated the they in fact, facilitated the aid going through those two to gaza every day now for literally how long how long is it, 17 years or however long it's been the truth is that israel would love to have a two state solution. these people do not want a two state solution. you know that, michael . i don't even know that, michael. i don't even know that, michael. i don't even know why there's any argument about it. i mean, even the plo hate the hamas, for god's sake. you weren't listening. >> i said in my >> so what i said in my introduction. most introduction. yeah, i know most of that fabulous. of that was fabulous. >> way. i think you just >> by the way. i think you just sit there and make it up. >> so hamas don't want a two state solution. fatah do want a two state solution. and the argument which argument i'm making, which is made and israeli made in haaretz and israeli newspaper, netanyahu has newspaper, which netanyahu has made to his own cabinet, is to newspaper, which netanyahu has ma(that his own cabinet, is to newspaper, which netanyahu has ma(that her own cabinet, is to newspaper, which netanyahu has ma(that he prefers|binet, is to newspaper, which netanyahu has ma(that he prefers hamas s to newspaper, which netanyahu has ma(that he prefers hamass tnhis say that he prefers hamas as his opposition fatah as his opposition than fatah as his opposition, doesn't opposition, because he doesn't want state solution. he want a two state solution. he wants takes up wants an opponent who takes up arms then he thinks arms because then he thinks that he absolute nonsense . he that is absolute nonsense. >> the way, it couldn't >> and by the way, it couldn't possibly get elected a

possibly get elected on a consistent basis in israel if he was saying we'll have one rather than the other. it is ridiculous . the people of israel , who i . the people of israel, who i know very well, the people of israel, anything today, israel, would do anything today, yesterday, and really for the last, i don't know, 75 years to know that they had secure borders. and the trouble is that you are now an apologist for really the most shocking crime that even even people who come from the left , like you would from the left, like you would even agree . even agree. >> i think what happened on the 7th of october was was horrendous. i think killing civilians is horrendous. i think targeting and killing civilians is horrendous when both sides do it. also think the it. and i also think the description you've given there is mistaken very important is mistaken in a very important way, what is often way, because what is often discussed western press discussed in the western press is this conflict started is as if this conflict started on the 7th of october with those awful, awful attacks. right. and this didn't start on this conflict didn't start on the 7th of october, as you say, for the last 17 years, gaza has been siege. israel been under siege. now israel will we're providing will say, oh, we're providing them some water and them with with some water and some but also some food, but they're also stopping any imports coming in.

so build up any kind so gaza cannot build up any kind of independent the of independent economy in the west is run by west bank, which is run by fatah, you're agreeing as fatah, who you're agreeing as sort of moderates who want a sort of the moderates who want a two solution? well, two state solution? well, they're more moderate. >> they're very >> they're not they're not very moderate, more moderate, but they're more moderate, but they're more moderate, settlements. moderate, but they're more mo and :e, settlements. moderate, but they're more mo and people settlements. moderate, but they're more mo and people need settlements. moderate, but they're more mo and people need seunderstand >> and people need to understand what settlements mean. what expanding settlements mean. so international law. and so it's international law. and really basic really the most basic international what really the most basic int(critiqueil what really the most basic int(critique russia what really the most basic int(critique russia for, what really the most basic int(critique russia for, where it we critique russia for, where you can't occupy a territory and then move your people in and what doing, what israel has been doing, israel proved in past israel has proved in the past they're knock down they're prepared to knock down those there is those settlements if there is a peace process. >> and i am sure that with a two state solution, probably nearer today is possible, today than we think is possible, they will that they've they will do that again. they've done before and they will done it before and they will do it again. are desperate it again. they are desperate for peace. the jews peace. why should the jews not be allowed to in the middle be allowed to be in the middle east? that's what hamas are east? that's what the hamas are doing that's what the doing and that's what the enemies, enemies of jewry enemies, the enemies of jewry generally in the world are saying. we would like to see you dnven saying. we would like to see you driven out. we would like to see jews driven out the middle jews driven out in the middle east right . order satisfy east right. in order to satisfy some some terrorist outfit who are prepared to do the most shocking things. it is a most

upsetting argument. yours michael, upsetting the michael, honestly upsetting the idea accusing israel idea of accusing accusing israel of being a terrorist is a shocker , an absolute shocker . shocker, an absolute shocker. >> i'm going to throw this open to you as well. you know, you're very important to this conversation. what do you make to you're hearing? and to what you're hearing? and crucially, the calls for a ceasefire in this situation? do you support that or not? keir starmer, as well as being speaking out, we'll have all

what they were describing as the pnson what they were describing as the prison like conditions . prison like conditions. >> you're listening to gb news. >> you're listening to gb news. >> hi there. michelle dewberry tools seven the former editor of the sun, kelvin mackenzie, alongside me, as is the contributing editor for novara media. michael walker. we kicked off the program talking about the very emotive, divisive topic of whether or not a ceasefire should be what the uk is calling for now. keir starmer he's tied himself up in knots basically you'll be familiar with off the back of his lbc interview , where

back of his lbc interview, where some have interpreted him as basically saying that the israelis can remove food , remove israelis can remove food, remove fuel from people in gaza. that has of course created quite an outcry . you've seen various outcry. you've seen various different resignations and very well quite a few people now threatening to resign. he keir starmer spoke out today . let's starmer spoke out today. let's listen . listen. >> make no mistake , this is >> make no mistake, this is terrorism on a scale and brutality that few countries have ever experienced. so not this one. while i understand calls for a ceasefire at this stage , i do not believe that it stage, i do not believe that it is the correct position now for two reasons. as one, because . two reasons. as one, because. because a ceasefire always freezes any conflict in the state where it currently lies . state where it currently lies. and as we speak, that would leave hamas with the infrastructure and the

capability to carry out the sort of attack we saw on october the 7th. >> now, i found this quite interesting, kelvin, because as this issue is really dividing political parties , so we've seen political parties, so we've seen a ministerial or government sacking in the tory party because there was a call for a ceasefire. then we've seen someone have the labour whip removed from them for talking about from the river to the sea, palestine will be free and repeating that chance . so this repeating that chance. so this whole notion about whether or not collective response ability should be i.e. everyone should be applied, i.e. everyone has to follow the line of the party, othennise you're out the door. party, othennise you're out the door . that's quite up for door. that's quite up for dispute at the moment. the labour party don't seem to be faring well on this matter and rishi sunak of course sees an opportunity here to create problems for starmer. where are you on it all? >> well , what starmer is trying >> well, what starmer is trying to do is to try and actually effectively be a be a be a conservative in this matter

because he thinks that there is political there is no political gain to be supporting . the gain to be supporting. the gazans in this right now. he will be forced to in the end because the power within his own party actually if you look i mean there are i don't know how many nine nine muslim mayors of major cities in our country. there are 3.2 million potential labour voters in the shapes of muslims . there's only 300,000. muslims. there's only 300,000. 300,000 is jews . and they have a 300,000 is jews. and they have a history in the labor party of being anti—semitic. so what he's trying to do is trying to kind of claim that he's actually fighting on the israeli side . of fighting on the israeli side. of course, the reality in the end is he won't be. he probably isn't, but he feels if he doesn't put up some kind of show, then he will lose even more ground than he's than he's losing right now.

>> and did you agree with what he was just saying then about the ceasefire? >> yeah, i do. yeah. i mean, it'd be absolutely madness. i i am an israeli person. i am a voter. i'm a democrat. i've just seen i've just seen families wiped out. i thought pat mcfadden had a good bit of mathematics the other day as the campaign is the campaign leader for labour labour and a former former blairite. actually what he said was if you took the number of people in israel today against the number of people in our country, if you grossed it up for the number of deaths, it would be the equivalent that 1400 would be the equivalent of 12,000 english or british people being murdered in that way. and that number is enough is enough in our country , even even in our country, even even allowing for some of the supine politicians, we have to go out and fight and fight to our death. and that's why i'm so, so pleased that the israelis are acting in the manner that they are . are. >> well, if we're going to play the numbers game, i mean, yes, 1200 being lost in

1200 people being lost in a population of 8 million is enormous. but in gaza , we've had enormous. but in gaza, we've had 8000 people lost population 8000 people lost in a population of million. of 2 million. >> they are the >> but they are they are the enemy. they are the enemy. they are the 2.2 million are they are the 2.2 million people. they are they are the enemy. they sat there for enemy. they have sat there for 17 and done nothing about 17 years and done nothing about it. they have risen up it. they could have risen up against they've never. why against it. they've never. why haven't didn't haven't they? if they didn't like the way they were being treated, why didn't they rise up again? in and speak for >> come in and speak for a while? because i like while? because i feel like you've lot of speaking. you've done a lot of speaking. >> well, actually, >> okay. well, actually, that's what i'm here for. okay. >> so i think this goes back to a really important point, which, kelvin, be kelvin, you seem to be suggesting israel has suggesting that israel has always peace. always tried to choose peace. now, that's manifestly now, i think that's manifestly not a historian, not true. there's a historian, israeli avi shlaim, israeli historian avi shlaim, very and he very intelligent guy, and he says choice. they says israel had a choice. they could or peace. and could choose land or peace. and what chose was land . and what they chose was land. and the evidence for that is the expansion of the settlement in the west bank. so there could have been a two state solution, but that would require settlers to west the to leave the west bank. so the palestinians, have palestinians, which will have a proper state, which will happen. well, would have faith and

well, why would i have faith and why palestinian why would any palestinian have faith that this would happen when in 2003 there were 230,000 settlers the west bank? settlers in the west bank? there are million. so what are now half a million. so what we've got is a government which is full of is actually packed full of settlers. netanyahu settlers. so netanyahu is currently coalition with currently in coalition with settlers. there express policy is much of the west is to settle as much of the west bank. to be bank. yet you seem to be suggesting, oh, no , if they had suggesting, oh, no, if they had a. >> well, it's happened before, as you not as you well know. you choose not to make that argument. they have destroyed settlers rights. whenever was opportunity whenever there was opportunity for felt it had for peace or they felt it had gone far. the truth gone too far. and the truth about matter is that there about the matter is that there cannot be peace while there while many of those settlers are on the west bank the on the west bank and the settlers it as and settlers know it as well. and if there two state solution, there was a two state solution, which not possible under which is not possible under these pigs who who these terrorist pigs who are who are killing people in their beds, you keep talking about democracy. >> and i do actually think that is important. israel is a democracy and, well, nowhere, nowhere else. effectively nowhere else. it is effectively appealed to citizens. and appealed to their citizens. and the i think there the reason why i think there hasn't the middle hasn't been peace in the middle east because israelis east is because israelis have been the option, which is been given the option, which is to don't have to choose to say you don't have to choose peace. explicitly

peace. and this is explicitly what netanyahu said to the what netanyahu has said to the israelis for the past 20 years, which is say, you know, which is to say, you know, before when those politicians told you can told us the only way you can have is making deal with have peace is making a deal with the actually screw the palestinians, actually screw that. do is can that. what we can do is we can keep expanding israel. that is, we that is a shocking. we can keep that is a shocking. >> and the reason we are shocking analysis is a shocking analysis. no you've been speaking three speaking for the last three minutes. give us a break. that is a shocking analysis es of the situation a country that was situation of a country that was born out of warfare. actually, situation of a country that was born (truthful. rfare. actually, situation of a country that was born (truthful. gentlemen lly, situation of a country that was born (truthful. gentlemen to. to be truthful. gentlemen to sex, we do respectful debate. >> can we try and get to the crux the matter? you think crux of the matter? do you think there be a ceasefire there should be a ceasefire >> yes. so the reason i think there should be ceasefire is, there should be a ceasefire is, one, are seeing one, because we are seeing thousands people dying every thousands of people dying every couple days. right. i've couple of days. right. i've spoken had 20 spoken to people who've had 20 members family killed members of their family killed and two, i don't see what this war achieving. and i really war is achieving. and i really do we are at a real do think we are at a real dangenl do think we are at a real danger. i encourage because you're a panel you're listening to a panel debate so you debate at home. right. so you can say they didn't say that. i can say they didn't say that. i can say they say that. can say they did say that. i think look israeli think look at what israeli politicians saying. the politicians are saying. so the defence minister you can

defence minister said you can find google. the defence find this on google. the defence minister said we are interested in accuracy. the in damage and not accuracy. the ministry information has ministry of information has endorsed a plan. so this is a government ministry has endorsed a say we want to clear a plan to say we want to clear all 2.2 million people out of gaza and leave forever . gaza and let them leave forever. right? this is written down as a suggestion by a government ministry . so i'm not making this ministry. so i'm not making this up. you can keep saying i'm making this up, but i'm guessing lots of the audience have google, so they can look up what israeli politicians are actually saying. said saying. netanyahu said gaza is amalek means in amalek now, what that means in the testament is you would the old testament is you would kill all them. so amalek was kill all of them. so amalek was the enemy of the israelites and in testimony it it in the old testimony it said it said to the amalekites, what you have kill every man, have to do is kill every man, every every child. every woman, every child. >> i didn't. come on, baby. i didn't come on here to get a history lesson. what came on history lesson. what i came on here to actually. no, i am. here was to actually. no, i am. i am saying i am saying 101% that there will people that the there will be people who are innocent, who will innocently die. right but they've had the choice for the last 17 years to throw hamas

out. and they have chosen not to throw hamas out. but what they aren't doing that on doing that. they are endorsing saying they are endorsing , they are are endorsing, they are endorsing the actions is right. and there were loads of cheers and round the world right. the anti—semites had a field day after october the 7th. you know that as well as i do. the idea that as well as i do. the idea that you're painting, you're painting gazans and other people like them as though they're all innocents abroad saying, oh , innocents abroad saying, oh, what a surprise that was. all those people. >> i do think it's >> because i do think it's really important to say right now, which you're now now, which is you're now throwing this word throwing around this word anti—semitic, other anti—semitic, as if other people are tweeted last are racist. you tweeted last week hussein, one week that michelle hussein, one of leading presenters, of the bbc's leading presenters, should been taken off air should have been taken off air because muslim and because she was muslim and therefore qualified wear. >> but i because didn't know >> but i because i didn't know what i said was i did not like the manner in which he conducted. and then you interview being muslim, i said it difficult . it was it was difficult. it was difficult for her to having views home, views at views at home, having views at home which were different, which one? which she had to go and live with. had to and

live with. she had to go and leave door. when she got leave at the door. when she got to the and i believe that to the bbc. and i believe that excuse don't honestly , we excuse me, we don't honestly, we do respectful debate do a respectful debate here. >> just to throw >> i just want to throw something over you . i read an something over to you. i read an interview . she was british interview. she was a british soldier . she was being called up soldier. she was being called up by the idf as well. so she was obviously israeli. now, she said and i'll just quote you a couple of lines she said about the ceasefire. she didn't support the ceasefire she was prepared to go and fight. she was prepared to potentially lay her life she said it's not life down. she said it's not just a fight to save israel from hamas. she said it was a fight to save the western world from hamas. she said if israel doesn't defeat hamas , she fears doesn't defeat hamas, she fears that the west is next. your thoughts on that and all of what you've heard, quite frankly, tonight, gb views a gbnews.com. don't go anywhere and i'll see you

several decades now that decisions aren't made around the cabinet table . cabinet table. >> hello there. welcome back to dewbs& co me michelle dewberry

till 7:00 tonight. well we've just been having very heated debate there about ceasefires. israel and hamas and all the rest have been interested in your thoughts reading through those during the break. but for now, i do want to move on, if you will indulge me, because there are other things going on in this country, least the in this country, not least the covid now, it's been a covid inquiry now, it's been a big because dominic big day there because dominic cummings, he took to the stage basically evidence . of basically to give evidence. of course, saw the i know it's course, you saw the i know it's a little bit frivolous to describe him as this, but the former daily mail chicken, also known as the former downing street director of communications , lee cain, he communications, lee cain, he pretty much both of them, kelvin , have been getting stuck into bons , have been getting stuck into boris johnson. there's quite a lot of divided opinion about how bons lot of divided opinion about how boris there's one side of boris fared. there's one side of the camp that says boris mishandled everything and should apologise is the other side of the fence that says basically he didn't the second lockdown. didn't want the second lockdown. he to follow sweden and he wanted to follow sweden and it advisors , etcetera. it was his advisors, etcetera. the onto him where are

the pressure onto him where are you it all? you on it all? >> well, the narrative as you expect, if you if you ask junior colleagues to give their view of a senior colleague in any organisation about once the power had gone , whether they're power had gone, whether they're geniuses or halfwits , let me geniuses or halfwits, let me just tell you, you always emerge as a halfwit. okay. so there is no nobody says, oh, that person was fantastic . look, i'm not was fantastic. look, i'm not here 100% to support boris johnson. what i would say was this was a very tricky issue with new stats coming in all the time. um, and underneath him, he had a series of advisers and civil servant s had a series of advisers and civil servants giving him probably conflicting advice. and then he sees what's going on in sweden where a lot of people still today say, why didn't we follow the swedish example? why do you think we got inflation? the reason got inflation is the reason we got inflation is we people of their we paid people 80% of their money for 18 months to sit on their and not produce their backside and not produce anything. be that anything. now, it may be that actually in the end, boris ended up the middle road up going down the middle road and was the road he and that was the road that he probably have taken

probably should might have taken all who knows? we are all all along. who knows? we are all all along. who knows? we are all got 2020 all we've all got 2020 hindsight, right? this lot have. it's quite clear. after all, bons it's quite clear. after all, boris was fired, lee cain was fired. they were all slung out. you were left with you were left with a load of civil servants who may have done a good job or may done a good job. may not have done a good job. and i see that cummings even used the c word about about matt hancock and so, you know, they were all they were all all were all they were all rats, all falling out of a sinking ship. >> there was language that would make your hair curl in some of those whatsapps where are you on it? michael well, i mean, i mean, i think boris johnson's handung mean, i think boris johnson's handling was quite bad. >> i do actually feel a bit sorry for these guys having their whatsapp sort of broadcast to because think to the world because i think we all whatsapp that all say things on whatsapp that we to be broadcast we don't expect to be broadcast to the world. now, it's not a surprise to me that politicians are now their whatsapps are now turning their whatsapps to deleting to sort of self deleting messages sort the messages in terms of sort of the concrete, you know, judgement of bons concrete, you know, judgement of boris during covid. i'm boris johnson during covid. i'm actually sympathetic actually relatively sympathetic towards him in that march 2020

penod towards him in that march 2020 period because i do think at that point in time no one really understood what was going on. the advisers also seemed to be a little bit confused about what to do . i think it was that to do. i think it was that autumn period where he just made autumn period where he just made a complete mess of everything, because think then he had because i think then he had actually of sage saying you actually all of sage saying you need some restrictions, not necessarily a lockdown, necessarily a full lockdown, because got remember because we also got to remember that sweden had serious restrictions. they never had a full but they had full lockdown, but they had serious boris serious restrictions. and boris johnson to be johnson seemed to just be saying, i'm done with this. i'm sick listening to the sick of listening to the scientists think he scientists and i do think he behaved in a very irresponsible fashion. the same i fashion. at the same time, i think is important that we're think it is important that we're spending public money spending a lot of public money on inquiry. so we on this public inquiry. so we should focus on how do we improve our pandemic preparedness, not just what politician do we think behaved most appallingly between the years of 2020 and 21? >> the one thing you will take out of this, i totally agree with there will be nobody with this there will be nobody who's position of who's not in a position of authority who is now not scrubbing their whatsapp scrubbing all their whatsapp messages telling messages and also telling colleagues that we don't write

anything down. the great triumph of that, by the way, is rupert murdoch. you will never see anything from rupert a anything from rupert except a conversation unless you're taping his conversation. nobody will ever know. so there is so he was ahead of the game for here boris. boris actually, his evidence will be very interesting. his will be quite amusing, right? i mean, after all, he fired after the people who piddling from the who are now piddling from the top pyramids on him. so top of the pyramids on him. so l. top of the pyramids on him. so i, you know, i expect him to emerge badly in something as dramatic and as serious as this. there is going to be division in. there is even division. taking your point, michael, in israel right now about the conduct of the war and how it should be, how it should be fought. and under what circumstances. you even got generals saying kick, kick netanyahu actually, netanyahu out. so actually, actually see boris being attacked. is actually no surprise. and probably will add to the value of his book or his next speaking engagement . next speaking engagement. >> well, i can tell you now you talk about division. there is divided opinion at home. fiona and simon said, my husband and i

do not think boris should apologise is in opinion, he apologise is in our opinion, he saved lives, our lives rolling out the vaccines . leave him out the vaccines. leave him alone. basically is their sentiment. jeff said. it's all coming out in this inquiry. what a vile, self—centred person bons a vile, self—centred person boris johnson actually is . les boris johnson actually is. les says we were in uncharted territory. it's easy to comment with the benefit of hindsight, bons with the benefit of hindsight, boris did the best he could with the hand he was given it really does, annette says. boris does not need to apologise . this is not need to apologise. this is all out of context. if you take anything out of context, it would look like that, jim says. no way should he apologise. who is this one? john john. sorry, i think i've just read john's out. david. devin, i think that's your name. you said i've never believed in boris johnson. and heanng believed in boris johnson. and hearing today what has been disclosed at covid inquiry, disclosed at the covid inquiry, i horrified that he is i am horrified that he is joining gb news. he is going to tarnish the good work of the channel what about. >> what about. what about the other person? i imagine all this

who you wouldn't want to hire in a thousand years would be dominic cummings. i mean apart. dominic cummings. i mean apart. dominic feels he should be king president prime minister. he should be the prince in waiting. should be the prince across the waters actually pouring a bucket on almost everybody within within the within the cabinet. everybody was an idiot . the everybody was an idiot. the whole of the whole of all the doctors were idiots. everybody was an idiot. could it be i'm not hostile to dominic cummings having a view, but could it be that he's not he's not the brightest spark. actually he if everyone else is the problem, it might be you. indeed >> who's this? julian says, well, if you believe dominic cummings , there's something cummings, there's something wrong with you. quite frankly, you've got to. when you think about all of this, everybody seemed to be doing wrong , doing seemed to be doing wrong, doing everyone that was telling everyone that was telling everyone else how to live their lives , that they couldn't go to lives, that they couldn't go to the funerals of loved that the funerals of loved ones, that they this, that they they couldn't do this, that they couldn't do that well simultaneously , apparently simultaneously, apparently testing , driving testing their eyesight, driving to castles. you had journalists

every night of their lives lecturing us through the screens. you can't do this. you can't do this while simultaneously birthday simultaneously having birthday parties . they were all at it. parties. they were all at it. and i find it quite interesting, actually, how quickly so many people moved on from all of people have moved on from all of this and say , understand, i this and say, understand, i understand what you're saying. yes. a of other yes. there is a lot of other stuff going on, but we live with the consequences of the covid response to this day , and we response to this day, and we will do for years. and years and years to come. i was terrified about covid at the beginning. absolutely then absolutely terrified. but then as along, it was as you progressed along, it was obvious that so many of the decisions that were being made did not make any rational sense. >> okay . what about the one >> okay. what about the one issue where for where i think people might have a real division about it was this suggestion that the old people can get it because either they survive and die and actually they were living longer with covid than without covid. well, yeah. so this was the 81 to 85 where they were saying, well, actually, what seemed to be

happening when you do the analysis that actually once you've got over 80, if you've got covid, there's a very good chance going to live for chance you're going to live for quite a good long period of time. was the time. this was this was the whole this whole point whole this was the whole point of his, his his point. so the real question is, would it would he have done better to just have just everybody stay. just said, no, everybody stay. everybody go go about their business? in better business? would we be in better shape and would our shape today? and would our numbers dramatically numbers be dramatically different ? different? >> i suppose one thing i'd like to bring that's sort to bring up that's sort of i feel like we're danger of feel like we're in danger of forgetting what i'm a bit forgetting and what i'm a bit depressed about it comes to depressed about when it comes to sort we've taken from sort of what we've taken from covid beginning, like two covid at the beginning, like two seconds. at the beginning, it seemed learning a seemed like we were learning a lot of things about society, about essential workers, about the people working on the value of people working on the value of people working on the like the frontline. and it felt like when for them, we when we clapped for them, we were saying, know, we're were saying, you know, we're going you. i don't going to value you. i don't think we're doing that enough. >> well, there go for open >> well, there you go for open to as always, to you, as always, gbviews@gbnews.com. you gbviews@gbnews.com. what do you make it the cap today on make to it all the cap today on how get in how much bankers can get in their been lifted. their bonuses has been lifted. kelvin's what do you their bonuses has been lifted. kelvinto what do you their bonuses has been lifted. kelvinto that? what do you their bonuses has been lifted. kelvinto that? i'll what do you their bonuses has been lifted. kelvinto that? i'll see it do you their bonuses has been lifted.

kelvinto that? i'll see you: you

in two. hi there, michelle dewberry till 7:00 tonight alongside me, kelvin mackenzie, the former editor of the sun, remains, as does contributing editor at novara media. michael walker. welcome back , everybody. now get welcome back, everybody. now get this from today , if you are this from today, if you are a banker , you will be high fiving banker, you will be high fiving your friends, everybody, because the cap that restricted, how much bonus you could receive. basically, i was going to say and but some people would argue they don't really earn them but that cap has now gone. so you can earn you can earn in your bonuses, whatever you want. many people pointing out online that today also the that the today is also the day that the latest cost of living payments are your £300 goes into people's bank accounts with people that really struggling. so you've really are struggling. so you've got these complete two different ends the spectrum. ends of the spectrum. >> they've got nothing to do with other and it's only

with each other and it's only the left managed to push the left who managed to push fonnard things. look, fonnard these things. look, the situation i'm delighted situation here is i'm delighted erm i not erm what they like. i could not care these private care less. these are private industries. and not only that, the good suppose you've the good news is suppose you've got bonus, 450,000 of got £1 million bonus, 450,000 of it will come back through the tax, through inland revenue will be paid into, into the exchequer and therefore the people on benefits were set up. >> is a is a pay employer. they will be pay for a banker's bonus. >> don't don't worry about that. hmrc are very strong on all these things now. so the bottom line on it is that actually the treasury benefit bit by the tune of how ever it's going to be, 45% of it, right? so i'm entirely in favour of it. i wasn't even in favour of imposing any, any kind of cap on anything. what is the point of doing that? surely if 45% is coming back and it's coming from private industry by and large, who cares how how it all works ? who cares how how it all works? is there a the argument from the left is that there's a sense of

unfairness in it all. look, these people are entitled to two times their two times their salary anyway , if they were on 3 salary anyway, if they were on 3 or 400 grand. right. they can get they can get £800,000 anyway. so the idea that there was fairness , there is no such was fairness, there is no such thing as fairness. i mean, look, michael, unattractive man, kelvin rather handsome man who was to know who was to know that that's the way life would work out. so being fair, i don't i don't think is part of the issue. life is not fair in this hashtag metoo era. >> i don't comment on looks. michael i won't comment on looks either. >> i mean, i suppose there's two issues. >> so one, i do think that vast inequality tends to not be particularly good for society. i think it's good if we live in the same sort of world and when people are getting million dollar bonuses or million pound bonuses, i that's sort of, bonuses, i think that's sort of, you particularly you know, is not particularly healthy for the social fabric. but i also think here you've said, well, because i think it's helpful all live in the helpful if we all live in the same the world that we same world, if the world that we live are similar we have

live in are similar and we have a experience of, say, a similar experience of, say, the but i do want to say i the nhs, but i do want to say i do think is a secondary do think that is a secondary issue because you've said that the only about it the left only care about it makes sense. makes no sense. >> what do you mean? that we have to live in this equal world? that we've all got completely equal. >> think many >> but i do think that many people agree that sort of people would agree that sort of when got lots of people when you've got lots of people working time and taking working full time and taking home grand then home 20 grand and then some people time and people working full time and taking £3 million, then taking home £3 million, then that doesn't seem particularly fair open market. fair and also an open market. >> want be the >> so if people want to be the bankers whatever million bankers earning whatever million pounds a year, they perhaps pounds a year, they can, perhaps choose career path and choose that as a career path and get themselves there. that get themselves in there. is that open to do you think, or open to people, do you think, or closed what? closed shop or what? >> well, i think most >> well, i mean, i think most people are reporting i think we talked about this on the show the day, the institute for the other day, the institute for fiscal social fiscal studies saying social mobility at its lowest. >> it's been at a very long time. that has less do with time. that has less to do with bankers bonuses and more to do with wealth. actually, with wealth. and so actually, the why inequality is so the reason why inequality is so high at the moment and social mobility is so low is because so much people's wealth is tied much of people's wealth is tied up their house up in

up in their house or tied up in their inheritance. i'm their inheritance. so i'm actually fast. that's actually not that fast. that's that's normal that that's pretty normal that i mean, for people that mean, for ordinary people that is looks like. is what wealth looks like. >> the wealth looks like their house. everyone. house. oh, yeah. for everyone. i'm that. are you i'm not against that. are you against that? >> well, i suppose my issue is when it's somewhat arbitrary. say, parents, for say, look at my parents, for example. bought a house example. they bought a house in the think it was worth the 1980s. i think it was worth about grand. now it's about 30 grand. now it's probably worth about grand. probably worth about 600 grand. right. puts me in right. and that puts me in a very, very unfair advantage compared of mine whose compared to a mate of mine whose parents rented their house or who house in yorkshire. who owned a house in yorkshire. >> you're not honestly >> what, you're not honestly coming television coming on national television to start in favour of start arguing in favour of a kind of equal? we all live in the houses and we the same little houses and we all approximate the same all earn approximate the same money. tell me we're money. and don't tell me we're all going to wear a little tunic, mao tunic on. tunic, little mao tunic on. >> problem here >> there's a problem here because you're suggesting there's which is full there's two things which is full communism complete neoliberal communism or complete neoliberal capitalism communism or complete neoliberal capitalione's what i want and no one's taxed. what i want is bog standard social democracy. so you have a mixed market economy. have some market economy. you have some privateyou think actually levels think? you think actually levels that redistribute ? that redistribute? >> don't you think we've already got that? we've got the highest, highest that i can

highest tax levels that i can remember. on remember. anyway, that's on income, though. >> on wealth. and >> that's not on wealth. and that's talking about that's why i'm talking about wealth. all right. >> so now you want to start taxing houses, do you? taxing people's houses, do you? yes. you? well, there yes. do you? right. well, there we think a property tax, we are, i think a property tax, at come out. at least the left have come out. so you're watching it right so if you're watching it right now living in a now and you're living in a house, just expect when michael becomes running becomes i mean, i'm not running for vote. i'm just saying for that vote. i'm just saying what i think a good idea, to what i think is a good idea, to going start charging large going start charging you large amounts of tax. >> do want tax on primary >> do you want tax on primary residence, capital gains tax on primary residence you primary residence or what you can council tax. can do is reform council tax. >> i think at moment what >> i think at the moment what you've we talked about you've got so we talked about this on the show before as well. the housing crisis, which is that you've got of people that you've got lots of people in in london especially, in in in london especially, which region know most which is the region i know most about are under occupying which is the region i know most abou'homes.'e under occupying which is the region i know most abou'homes. somder occupying which is the region i know most abou'homes. so you've:cupying which is the region i know most abou'homes. so you've:cup sort their homes. so you've got sort of couple in a three of an elderly couple in a three story and can live story house and they can live there essentially for free because paid off their because they've paid off their mortgage. now, really mortgage. now, what you really want because they're clever. >> well, that's because they're smart. >> well, or they inherited it or whatever. >> they're smart. they they took a risk when somebody else decided buying a house. i'll

carry on renting. >> a house not a risk. >> buying a house is not a risk. and the barrier, the barrier to buying house doesn't tend to buying a house doesn't tend to be whether willing be tell whether you're willing to people who bought a to that to people who bought a house months when they house 18 months ago when they thought interest thought that their interest rates 1.8% now they're thought that their interest raiyou 1.8% now they're thought that their interest raiyou tell 1.8% now they're thought that their interest raiyou tell me': now they're thought that their interest raiyou tell me that now they're thought that their interest raiyou tell me that i'mv they're thought that their interest raiyou tell me that i'm takingre thought that their interest raiyou tell me that i'm taking a 6, you tell me that i'm taking a risk as well because then people can't on going back to can't follow up on going back to the bankers bonus issue, though. i think important i mean, i think it's important to this brought to remember why this was brought in in the first place, which wasn't just about fairness. it wasn't just about fairness. it was in the lead up was also to say in the lead up to the 2008 financial crisis, what we was a situation of what we had was a situation of what we had was a situation of what moral hazard, what you call moral hazard, whereby were all working whereby bankers were all working towards profits towards the highest profits they could at could potentially have at the end the year. and what that end of the year. and what that meant they took a lot of meant is they took a lot of risks and what people the risks and what the people at the top those banks knew is that top of those banks knew is that if this all collapses, these banks to fail, the banks are too big to fail, the state will choice but to state will have no choice but to bail us out. you're bail us out. and so you're saying this no no saying this has no no consequence the bankers consequence for the bankers bonus nothing to do with the bonus had nothing to do with the collapse of. >> yes. a load of money was was given mortgages. actually >> yes. a load of money was was given actually ages. actually >> yes. a load of money was was given actually eventuallyrlly which actually eventually blew back almost destroyed the back and almost destroyed the western banking. >> the but reason

>> but the reason but the reason that given the that money was given the argument is not true. >> not reason >> that is not the reason bankers cause bankers bonuses did not cause the destruction our economic the destruction of our economic situation in 2008. >> who didn't have to. >> time has flown. we could carry this on. one of my viewers, as jim says, michelle, you make fascinating point you make a fascinating point about but he about all this stuff. but he says want to start taxing says if you want to start taxing high earners, what about footballers? what about film stars? bankers? stars? why pick on the bankers? i'll with you to ponder i'll leave it with you to ponder all that. michael kelvin, thanks for nigel farage. for your coffee. nigel farage. up for your coffee. nigel farage. up don't go anywhere. for your coffee. nigel farage. up alex don't go anywhere. for your coffee. nigel farage. up alex deakin|o anywhere. for your coffee. nigel farage. up alex deakin here where. for your coffee. nigel farage. up alex deakin here with re. for your coffee. nigel farage. up alex deakin here with your >> alex deakin here with your latest from the latest weather update from the met gb news. met office for gb news. this time tomorrow. storm kieran will be arriving. there are many warnings in place damaging warnings in place for damaging gusts wind , particularly gusts of wind, particularly on thursday of the thursday across parts of the south heavy rain. there's south and heavy rain. there's warnings this area warnings tonight from this area of bringing more of low pressure bringing more rain. comes the storm, rain. but here comes the storm, as i say, really arriving during wednesday and then wednesday night and then lingering throughout thursday with warnings across parts with amber warnings across parts of the south. we have met office yellow warnings in place for tonight and tomorrow across parts northern and parts of northern ireland and the south—east for the heavy rain that moves in. the rain also spreading its way into

southern scotland through the night. showery night. lots of showery rain coming wales southern coming into wales and southern england, quite a breezy england, too, and quite a breezy night. night but night. mild night here, but another northern another chilly one in northern scotland where most of the night will be dry, but it's going to be very wet a very different be a very wet a very different day tomorrow for rain day tomorrow for the rain spreads across scotland. as i spreads in across scotland. as i said, got warnings in said, we have got warnings in place the night. and first place for the night. and first thing the morning for thing in the morning for northern across the northern ireland and across the south—east will be a lot of spray and surface water on the roads the morning rush hour. roads for the morning rush hour. pretty here, a pretty blustery here, too. a gusty a mixture gusty bluster day with a mixture of and showers for most of sunshine and showers for most staying across northern staying soggy across northern scotland. best scotland. temperatures at best getting the teens. here getting into the teens. but here comes storm kieran spreading up from the south and then spiralling in across the country dunng spiralling in across the country during wednesday night and lasting for most of thursday with the ground so saturated, we are likely to see further flooding issues. the strongest winds south winds across parts of south wales southern england. wales and southern england. please office please check the met office website for details of all

>> good evening. a tory mp caused uproar last week, saying her staff were being harassed by asylum seekers. we went to hartlepool to find out whether what she said was true. we'll cover the latest protests in london tonight, which are pretty shocking and go to israel and find out what is happening in gaza as we speak. and it was the big day in the covid inquiry when those closest in the government, boris johnson, including dominic cummings, gave their testimony. they tell us today what they really thought about the prime minister. but is it really true? was he really like a shopping trolley crashing around the corridors of number 10? we'll debate all of that this evening. but first, let's get the news with tatiana sanchez. >> nigel, thank you very much.

and good evening.