in issued and what do you think it's all about? the fact perhaps that you can actually arrest people stomping all over war memorials or maybe that i don't know, it might not be the best idea to have two tier policing, etcetera, etcetera. don't be ridiculous . etcetera, etcetera. don't be ridiculous. no, of etcetera, etcetera. don't be ridiculous . no, of course not. ridiculous. no, of course not. it's about which words to in it's about which words to use in order avoid causing offence. order to avoid causing offence. give me strength . yes indeed. give me strength. yes indeed. we'll be getting stuck into all of that. of course. it's friday jubilee tavern opens and tonight, joining the panel, i've got a new face. we like those, don't we? but before we get stuck in, let's cross live for tonight's news headlines .

tonight's latest news headlines. >> it is 6:01. i'm aaron armstrong in the newsroom. good evening to you. the chancellor is considered cutting inheritance and business tax in an effort to win over tory mps with his autumn statement. jeremy hunt had said tax cuts this year would be virtually impossible. now after a recent fall in inflation. he says it all depends on how much the economy's growing. >> the best way that we can reduce the tax burden for everyone is to grow the economy . everyone is to grow the economy. there's no shortcut if we grow the economy, if we support manufacturing businesses like the one i'm visiting today in sheffield, that means that we have more money to reduce the tax burden, but also to invest in public services like the nhs. so we will always take a balanced approach. but putting the economy and the chancellor has announced £4.5 billion in investment for british manufacturing as he attempts to boost sluggish growth rates in the uk . the uk. >> car makers, aerospace companies and clean energy firms will benefit from the funding, which will cover a five year

penod which will cover a five year period and become available in 2025. after the next general election . election. >> manufacturing is one of our our great secrets. we actually overtook france to become the eighth largest manufacturer in the world. and as you can see from factories like this, we do world beating stuff in the uk . world beating stuff in the uk. this factory here has just exported an electric razor to japan, which is the first one that's ever been imported into japan. and we want to support our manufacturing industry because it creates jobs all around the uk. it raises our productivity and that's the way that we can raise people's wages and people's real incomes . and people's real incomes. >> the prime minister says he's determined to press on with his plan to deport asylum seekers to rwanda, despite the government's defeat in the supreme court and opposition . opposition. >> will the prime minister rescue the rwanda plan? mrs. braverman after the former home secretary said his attempts will fail unless he opts out of the

european convention on human rights >> suella braverman sacked this week, says the proposed new treaty and legislation are simply a tweaked version of a failed plan. a the labour leader is refusing to back calls for a ceasefire in gaza, claiming his party remains united despite this week's rebellion on a visit to a gas terminal in aberdeen , to a gas terminal in aberdeen, sir keir starmer indicated his position proves he's the right person to be the next prime minister. however gb news understands there's concern within the party of a growing rift between sir keir starmer and the scottish labour leader anas sarwars. msps look likely to back an amendment in holyrood next week calling for a ceasefire the labour leader says his focus is on the release of hostages and the plight of civilians alleviating the suffering and a two state solution and making sure we get there. >> there is complete unity in the labour party . the hostages the labour party. the hostages are being held as we have this conversation, as people are dying in gaza, as we have this conversation . and i'm sure you conversation. and i'm sure you will understand that my focus is

on how we alleviate that situation, not questions of labour party management to 12 year old boys have been remanded in custody at birmingham magistrates court charged with murder and possessing a machete . murder and possessing a machete. >> they're accused of killing 19 year old sean c zahawi, who was attacked in wolverhampton on monday night and died at the scene. they'll appear in court again on monday. the man who murdered a school teacher in ireland has been jailed for life . 23 year old ashlin murphy was killed while exercising on a canal path in tullamore in january last year. 33 year old joseph puskar had denied the murder but was convicted by a jury murder but was convicted by a jury last week. outside court, police, who described the case as a monstrous crime, praised the victims family for their courage and dignity. during the trial , £83 courage and dignity. during the trial, £83 billion courage and dignity. during the trial, £8.3 billion has been promised to fix what the prime minister has described as the scourge of potholes. the funding for road maintenance in england

will be available to local authorities over the next decade . the money, the government says , was saved by scrapping the hs2 rail line north of birmingham and everton have had ten points deducted for breaching the premier league's financial fair play premier league's financial fair play rules. an independent commission found everton's losses during the 21 to 22 season amounted to 100 and £243 million. that's almost 20 million. that's almost 20 million more than the allowed limit. the penalty leaves them on four points and in the relegation zone, the club says it will appeal the decision . it will appeal the decision. well, this is gb news live across the uk on tv , digital across the uk on tv, digital radio and on your smart speaker to . that's it from me for the to. that's it from me for the moment. now it's over to . michelle >> thanks for that. i'm michelle jubrin. i'm with you right through till 7:00 tonight alongside me. we've got a new face. we do like those, don't we? lord bailey, a conservative peerin we? lord bailey, a conservative peer in the house of lords, joins me. it's a good job you

weren't last because weren't here last night because weren't here last night because we getting into the we was getting stuck into the house of lords. but you've avoided that one, which is probably the best. that probably for the best. that house lords is not on the house of lords is not on the agenda for tonight alongside them as well. my friday regular cat get rid him. anything for cat get rid of him. anything for a pound our embry a free pound is our paul embry trade union trade unionist writer. >> that's the badge trade union firefighter. >> yeah proud liberman jack of all trades. >> there's no beginning to my talents. as someone once said they are. >> that's not what we think. yes it is friday, one of my viewers already simon, has been in touch saying, michelle, how much do you charge for a stella in the jubilee tavern? money can't buy dnnks jubilee tavern? money can't buy drinks me on a friday drinks with me on a friday night, afraid. steve it is. night, i'm afraid. steve it is. invite only. so yes . no. night, i'm afraid. steve it is. invite only. so yes. no. and who's steve anyway ? it was simon who's steve anyway? it was simon that just asked me that. anyway you know the drill. you can get in touch. vaiews@gbnews.com is how get hold of me. or you how you get hold of me. or you can me at gb lots can tweet me at gb news. lots i want to get into with you guys tonight. your council tax . do tonight. your council tax. do you think it's time for

properties to be revalued so that it properties to be revalued so thatitis properties to be revalued so that it is perhaps a fairer system ? bigger houses start system? bigger houses start paying system? bigger houses start paying a lot more? would you be in favour of that ? get in touch in favour of that? get in touch and tell me and i'll have the latest police guidance as well. is it going be something is it going to be something that's to make all that's going to make us all safer? give the answer safer? i'll give you the answer to that before the end of the programme. course, programme. but of course, tonight's story, sue ella tonight's top story, sue ella braverman i mean, i don't know if any of you have noticed how many people looked at many people actually looked at her resignation her letter, her resignation letter twitter. tens of letter on twitter. tens of millions her millions of people read her letter . so they did. so she letter. so they did. so she indeedi letter. so they did. so she indeed i don't know what it is about the suella effect, but she is a very popular individual at the moment. she speaks, the moment. when she speaks, people downing tools and people are downing tools and listening been listening. and she has been speaking again today because listening. and she has been spetis ng again today because listening. and she has been spetis issued again today because listening. and she has been spetis issued ajain today because listening. and she has been spetis issued a five today because listening. and she has been spetis issued a five point because listening. and she has been spetis issued a five point plan. se she is issued a five point plan. it's all about what to do now , it's all about what to do now, of course, we know the supreme court said stopped the flights, basically taking off. let's before we get into the debate , before we get into the debate, just take a second to remind ourselves of what the five points were, shall we? this is her plan. so you'll be you will

remember that actually one of the concerns that had was the concerns that they had was not about about not necessarily about about whether or not you can send people over to rwanda. it was about whether or not rwanda was about whether or not rwanda was a safe country and they wouldn't basically send people back to the origin, their country of origin. so what she wants to do is she wants this new bill of sunak to address the supreme court's concerns re that she wants to make sure that flight s are indeed happening before the next general election . and she next general election. and she thinks a swift removal should indeed mean swift removal, thinks a swift removal should indeed mean swift removal , that indeed mean swift removal, that those arriving here illegally must be detained. and she highlights that this must be treated as an emergency . see treated as an emergency. see what she would like to happen is that parliament should perhaps be recalled and maybe spend your christmas holiday, your breaks debating this. what do you think to those five points? i'll start with you . is this the answer ? with you. is this the answer? >> it's an answer. and i think it shows a difference in leadership style. isn't it? so rishi has decided he wants to go through parliament, have that

conversation , you and give conversation, you know, and give parliament primacy where parliament his primacy where suella that, that suella said, bugger that, that isn't going to take isn't working. i'm going to take back the power. i think the interesting thing about doing this, not the only this, though, we're not the only country europe struggling country in europe struggling with immigration wonder if with immigration and i wonder if we to leave would we were to leave the arch would would countries follow would other countries follow because having a because germany are having a problem? spain and certainly france and if they if they france are. and if they if they thought they could join us in leaving, it could create a bit of an avalanche of people coming out there. but again, i think this is a difference in tactic. technically, it would work politically , it looks expensive. politically, it looks expensive. >> is suella a help or a hindrance to sunak ? hindrance to sunak? >> oh, there's no doubt in anybody's mind she's a hindrance. she has not written that resignation letter thinking, how can i help rishi? she's for i'm to get my she's for i'm going to get my boots stuck in rishi's head and it's exactly she's doing. it's exactly what she's doing. >> don't think she's >> so you don't think she's sitting can sitting there going, how can i help great nation and help help the great nation and help them with their migrant crisis, helping nation and helping the great nation and helping the great nation and helping are two helping rishi sunak are two separate and she separate affairs and she definitely has not decided to help. >> rishi listen, you have to you

have to assume she's written that letter and given these five steps out of a of a willingness to help, if you agree or not, you probably could assume that poll. >> oh , by the way, i must say, >> oh, by the way, i must say, just in case you're used to doing night—time shows on tubes, we don't beds at teatime. so we don't use beds at teatime. so if anyone did hear that at slip of tongue, we do apologise of the tongue, we do apologise anyway. paul, go. >> mean, how can you legislate >> i mean, how can you legislate for a country to be safe, which is what the government is planning to do ? apparently. how planning to do? apparently. how can say this country, even can you say this country, even though the supreme court has found facts that found on the facts that a country is unsafe for all of the reasons that it's set out, a government enacts the law saying no.the government enacts the law saying no. the law says now that that country is safe so we can use rwanda as an asylum application centre, as a as a third country. that's the first thing that strikes me as absolute bizarre. i've never seen anything like that before, but it's our courts. one thing that has got lost in this debate, it's our courts that have made this

decision. all of this talk about, you know, blocking off the european human rights convention and so on, it's our courts that have made the decision and it's because other laws were broken, other international agreements were broken, and the supreme the supreme court was quite clear about that. so i just think there's a hell of a lot of debate about the interference of other courts, european courts and so on that i think is misplaced. and the thing is, as well, it lets politicians off the hook. that's the thing. it's politicians who are responsible for the fact that our asylum system is an absolute mess. it's broken and it's been in that state now for several years. and i think there's a danger of all of the narrative about, you know, the busybody courts and lawfare and activist lawyers. and so on. it gets government off the hook . it gets the off the hook. it gets the politicians off the hook when they're the ones who are responsible for the fact that the boats are continuous coming out after 2 or years. out after 2 or 3 years. >> it does and it doesn't. so

let's clear, braverman let's be clear, suella braverman you argue she certainly you could argue she certainly would. tried hard to do would. she tried hard to do something and it was activists who frustrate started that process with the rwanda stand down. >> then the thing is, if she if it were true that and she's she seems to be making this case if it were true that the prime minister and other colleagues within government and do good lawyers and so on were stopping her as an elected politician , an her as an elected politician, an appointed as the home secretary from fulfilling the mandate that they were given by the british people , then in my view, she people, then in my view, she should have stood down on a point, couldn't disagree more. >> why should she stand down? because somebody has because somebody else has interfered in the process. that's she's in that's that's because she's in the opposite the the complete opposite of the situation. up situation. you should stand up the she's not able to do the point. she's not able to do the point. she's not able to do the job that she was appointed to choose. >> point of >> so there's a point of principle. she should talk over because i'm not here to defend suella braverman. because i'm not here to defend suebutbraverman. because i'm not here to defend sue but the erman. because i'm not here to defend sue but the ermithat someone >> but the fact that someone acts against is not about acts against her is not about her ability to the job. her ability to do the job. that's about rules. the that's about the rules. the rules and they to

rules that she and they have to play rules that she and they have to play let's be clear, play by. and let's be clear, when say they can't change when you say they can't change the law to make a safe, a place safe safety a matter of safe safety is a matter of opinion. i say that because opinion. and i say that because the say that the european union say that rwanda is safe. we and other european countries for many years now have funded a scheme that can remove refugees from other places to rwanda . so the other places to rwanda. so the europe european countries, of which we are one, seem to think it's safe. now, if our courts don't think it's safe, it's our other thing. but it would suggest to a bystander that safety is matter opinion. safety is a matter of opinion. and other piece that says, and the other piece that says, well, there's a lot of people in the black community, particularly who are particularly africans, who are furious is particularly africans, who are furiou spoken is particularly africans, who are furiou spoken about. is particularly africans, who are furiou spoken about. and is particularly africans, who are furiou spoken about. and they're being spoken about. and they're saying would would, would, would, would a white majority country the country be spoken about in the same rwanda is being same way that rwanda is being spoken there's other spoken about? so there's other delicate cases here. >> i think would be no, i >> i think it would be no, i absolutely do not think it would. be clear as >> but let's be clear as complicated histories go, rwanda definitely has that. but of course , rwanda has recovered course, rwanda has recovered quite wonderfully , actually, and quite wonderfully, actually, and in quite a short amount of time.

but the point is, if you have a set of rules that we all stick by and they say you can't, you can't do that, then you can't. but isn't suella braverman. but that isn't suella braverman. so the prime so it's not even the prime minister's fault, but it is both of their job to fix that system. because absolutely because where you are absolutely right, system is right, our immigration system is ridiculous . ridiculous. >> let me mention labour. if i can bring up on screen, i will. but the tories have gone on an attack ad campaign basically saying that labour back the smugglers, so they're basically saying there, there you go. that's the open door. so if you're listening, you're not watching. they're basically the labour party are backing british smugglers basically over british people . big, massive open door people. big, massive open door with keir starmer stood behind it and a massive welcome sign looking out onto the cliffs of doven looking out onto the cliffs of dover. i think it is there. is that what labour are doing? are you guys prioritise easing smugglers and all the rest of it ? >> 7- >> no, i ?_ >> no, i mean ? >> no, i mean that's crass. that's that's just, you know, party political point scoring. of course starmer and labour don't support smuggle us but

they , you know they are they are they, you know they are they are people who are in favour of a liberal immigration policy, there's no question. >> what does that mean? >> what does that mean? >> well, it means they want a relaxed approach to immigration. there are many people the there are many people on the left and speak from experience left and i speak from experience who supportive of the open who are supportive of the open borders position. >> are you one of them? >> are you one of them? >> no. no, certainly not one >> no. no, i'm certainly not one of i subscribe to the of them. i subscribe to the traditional labour from traditional labour view from many that control of many years ago that control of the labour supply really the labour supply is really important labour important because the labour supply is a dynamic supply is a market dynamic which, like all market dynamics, needs be regulated so as to needs to be regulated so as to allow the government plan allow the government to plan around housing and around welfare and housing and employment and that sort of thing. you know, about 20 or thing. and you know, about 20 or 30 years ago that was actually the mainstream on the the mainstream position on the left position of open left and the position of open borders was one that was largely held by if you like, trotskyists and now fringe and anarchists. now that fringe position moved centre stage position has moved centre stage on the left and has become mainstream. people like mainstream. and people like myself who argue for strong border control are looked upon as, you know, extreme chemists and within the labour and cranks within the labour party . and i don't think there's

party. and i don't think there's any there's any surprise. there's a correlation the change correlation between the change in that dynamic, if you like , in that dynamic, if you like, and the fact that labour has gradually over those those years haemorrhaged support among working class people because it is an issue in working class communities, not because of xenophobia bigotry, but xenophobia or bigotry, but because working class communities suffer the effects of mass immigration. you know, where it's uncontrolled in a way that, you know, the middle class can buy themselves out of. and that's why so many voters, i think, have turned against labourin think, have turned against labour in recent years. you know, obviously you're a tory, sean. >> when you hear lee anderson , >> when you hear lee anderson, when you say hear lee anderson coming out and saying stuff like, you know what, just ignore the calls . why do you support the calls. why do you support that? no no. is that a bit embarrassing for you? >> no, no, it's not embarrassing. i tell you what, i'm quite proud of it. and i'll tell why. because any tell you why. because any political party going political party that's going to work such a broad country work for such a broad country needs broad and needs to have a broad base. and lee entitled to his view. lee is entitled to his view. i might not agree all the time, but largely i it's pretty senior in the party.

>> he's not like random experience. >> a senior tory. the >> you're a senior tory. the minute you're causing trouble. i've learned in time if you i've learned in my time if you if you toe the party line, you're not senior anymore. but look a view that look lee represents a view that many, many people, tory and beyond, to because beyond, would agree to because as said, it mass as paul has said, it is mass immigration that affects working class of the class people and one of the things you've seen in the south of this country is we've become very quality, very drunk on poor, low quality, low imported labour, low cost imported labour, and that's massive effect on that's had a massive effect on working people in this country. so when starmer, when so when keir starmer, when people say that keir starmer is in favour of an open borders policy and you show that poster why it bites is because people have felt that their wallets. have felt that in their wallets. that's difference. and also that's the difference. and also keir starmer has never really given his position. what i do admire on the left is when labour members say they are in favour border because favour of an open border because at they're letting people at least they're letting people know they're with. at least they're letting people knorneed they're with. at least they're letting people knorneed ttellre with. at least they're letting people knorneed ttell it with. at least they're letting people knorneed ttell it one with. at least they're letting people knorneed ttell it one waywith. at least they're letting people knorneed ttell it one way or h. you need to tell it one way or the other. there you go. >> what do you make of it all at home? you reckon rishi sunak home? do you reckon rishi sunak is sitting home thinking to is sitting at home thinking to himself, do i about this himself, what do i do about this whole oh thank goodness himself, what do i do about this wh

himself, what do i do about this wh

>> your you're listening to gb news radio on my statement . news radio on my statement. >> i. >> i. >> hello everybody. michelle dewberry with you till seven. welcome back. alongside me shaun bailey a conservative peer in the house of lords, and paul embery, a trade unionist and writer. lots of appreciation for you . so yes, you can tell me at you. so yes, you can tell me at the end of the programme. is he allowed back or not? we do. we take my viewers opinions very seriously. >> he's got talent. >> he's got talent. >> yeah. dup got talent. yeah, you do. so i like to. i take it seriously what my viewers think. so if you do a good job, you might get allowed might just. might get allowed back. let's talk benefits, shall we, the we, everybody? because the government to clamp government is planning to clamp down apparently you down on them. apparently you know, lot know, there's a lot of conversation about this. this is all about what they're calling a back plan. it's all

back to work plan. and it's all about the people about targeting the people potentially well, those that potentially as well, those that have been off very long term sick. asking, well, sick. some are asking, well, if people are ill, these people really are ill, are these things going affect are these things going to affect are these changes affect changes going to affect them? this is, of course, has got to be all signed off. but it what it will basically mean is that if you refuse repeatedly to engage that you engage and decide that you actually want work, actually don't want to work, then tougher sanctions can then now tougher sanctions can come some points well. come in at some points as well. if after 18 months, for example, you're still not working well, they're going to get you onto work placements in some cases, they off the benefits. they will cut off the benefits. do you think is the right do you think this is the right approach on the broad thing for me is this it is always right to clamp on people abusing the clamp down on people abusing the benefit but must be benefit system, but it must be done concert with clamping done in concert with clamping down who are not down on people who are not paying down on people who are not paying tax. paying their tax. >> people at the other end of the scale who earn big money. let's make they're let's just make sure they're paying let's just make sure they're paying tax. let's just make sure they're paybut tax. let's just make sure they're paybut why tax. let's just make sure they're paybut why do (. let's just make sure they're paybut why do you have to do >> but why do you have to do them in tandem? why? >> because isn't to talk >> because it isn't fair to talk about people. do you remember back when we had all back in the 90s when we had all this that people were this idea that people were scrounging off the benefit

system and stealing? well, you've got people are you've got people who are stealing what, don't know, £63 stealing what, i don't know, £63 a and then got a week. and then you've got other people had a tax band, other people who had a tax band, £650 this true. £650 million. this is true. i feel we need to concentrate feel like we need to concentrate on both. that's thing. but on both. that's one thing. but the other thing to say, the biggest scandal in my mind in this that most of the this country is that most of the people are poor actually people who are poor actually work. that i think work. and that for me, i think is massive scandal. so what work. and that for me, i think is alwayse scandal. so what work. and that for me, i think is always thought l. so what work. and that for me, i think is always thought isso what work. and that for me, i think is always thought is you�*hat i've always thought is you should not to earn more should not be able to earn more on benefits than you can in work. that is terrible. and the other i that is other reason i think that is because we people who because we have people who genuinely those benefits. genuinely need those benefits. so we're giving benefits so if we're giving benefits to people could support people who could support themselves, those people who genuinely themselves, those people who gen less./ is themselves, those people who genless./ is right for the get less. so it is right for the government make that our government to make sure that our benefit is going people benefit spend is going to people who and not people who who need it and not people who could work but decided not to work. paul well, i think sean's completely right, actually, i was you a labour was going to offer you a labour party membership card there, sean, that's sean, because that's, that's very sensible. >> yeah. i mean, i'm not opposed to people being, you know, punitive people punitive action against people who choose not to. who can work but choose not to. but do we never go for but why do we never go for people the top end the

people at the top end of the scale? are scroungers at scale? there are scroungers at both ends of scale. we're both ends of the scale. if we're honest about it. and there is, as i've said on this show honest about it. and there is, as i've michelle,iis show honest about it. and there is, as i've michelle, there's' before, michelle, there's enormous wealth and income inequality in this country. and some people the top work very some people at the top work very hard their just hard and deserve theirjust rewards. criticising rewards. i'm not criticising those there are some those people, but there are some people don't people who frankly don't and some who to get out some people who look to get out of and some people who avoid of tax and some people who avoid paying of tax and some people who avoid paying and big corporations paying tax and big corporations who as who pay as little tax as possible. and would like to possible. and i would like to see a bit of a focus from government on those people as much they go for much as they always go for people the bottom end . you people at the bottom end. you know, i say, i don't think know, as i say, i don't think people should get away with claiming if they're fit claiming benefits if they're fit and to work and there's and able to work and there's a job available to them. and that's there has to that's a key thing. there has to be availability. and be job availability. and it's the saying that, know, the old saying that, you know, the old saying that, you know, the state should be a the welfare state should be a safety and a comfort safety net and not a comfort blanket. so i'm not i'm not defending people who just want to sit idle when there is work to sit idle when there is work to be done when there is to be done and when there is work them. but it work available to them. but it does need to be a tandem approach because otherwise people look, people will think, look, what are priorities are the priorities of government? why they going government? why are they going for person over the

government? why are they going for people? person over the big people? >> it gives you the moral, >> the it gives you the moral, it you moral right to it gives you the moral right to do that. i mean, the tax do that. i mean, look, the tax man would suggest he's always chasing who chasing people. and anybody who works for living will feel works for a living will feel like, well, the tax man is always you know, he's always on my payslip. so we chase my payslip. so we do chase people paying. but people who should be paying. but sometimes get a frenzy sometimes you get a frenzy around that people are around the idea that people are on scrounging , they are on on the scrounging, they are on the benefits all the rest the benefits and all the rest of that. you know, just that. and you know, i just i don't like that notion because it means people are struggling can that they can sometimes feel that they can't for help, that they can't ask for help, that they don't be seen in that in don't want to be seen in that in that way. been that way. and i've been unemployed. i've been homeless. i like. and if i know what that's like. and if someone's recover from someone's going to recover from that, going to need that, they're going to need help. a nation, of help. and as a nation, one of our boasts is that we our proudest boasts is that we do people who need help. do help people who need help. but it then does mean if you're at home freewheeling, off at home freewheeling, get off your i'll check the figures. >> yeah, i'll check the figures. the richest 10% of households in the of all the the uk have got 50% of all the nation's wealth and the poorest 50% of households have only got 9% of all the nation's wealth. and the top 1% of households has

got 230 times more wealth than the bottom 10% of households. now that tells me that there is a massive disparity between rich and poor, between the haves and the have nots in this country. we've got banks making record profits from the interest rate rises, making billions of pounds of profits at the expense of people and businesses who are struggling got energy mortgages. we've got the energy companies mortgages. we've got the energy compa out increase in profits out of the increase in energy bills. i think there's scope windfall tax scope there for a windfall tax that could help to redistribute wealth. i think there's scope, but that's that's question, but that's that's the question, isn't it? >> e because now you've isn't it? >> on because now you've isn't it? >> on to 3ecause now you've isn't it? >> on to another now you've isn't it? >> on to another thing.)u've moved on to another thing. what's made country safe is what's made this country safe is that people can be very financially successful . so if financially successful. so if you overly punish people for that, everybody feels it. and whatever happens financially, you can guarantee the poorest feel earliest, longest and hardest. so there is a balance there. and the word redistribution, i think, can sometimes be terrifying . we need sometimes be terrifying. we need to we need to figure out what that means. are going

that really means. are you going for instance, you for instance, i'll give you another figure. have a record another figure. we have a record level people who are level of people who are economically many economically inactive. how many of us are really that ill? i'll give you another figure. >> one feels economically inactive, have or inactive, have retired or whatever . whatever. >> yeah, but the point is, >> yeah, but. but the point is, then somebody who is works in a chip shop, let's say i speak to the fellow who works in my local chippy all time. yeah, he chippy all the time. yeah, he has paid to that he is paid has paid to see that he is paid in well, but is paid for in as well, but he is paid for my university education. so therefore that fair to keep, therefore is that fair to keep, to keep taxing people , people in to keep taxing people, people in that and the other figure that way and the other figure i'll give you, 1% of people pay 33% of income tax . so our system 33% of income tax. so our system does ask rich people to pay, but often often shown proportionately as a proportion of their income, often don't pay a lot more than people at the bottom end of the scale. >> so in absolute terms, they make to the rules they're playing by the rules. >> and if you work hard and you know that's succeed by know that's how you succeed by outperforming gap. we do outperforming that gap. we do have income disparity, serious income disparities country. but i think the real problem we have

is twofold. one, to live a an ordinary, fulfilling life in this country costs too much money. it just costs too much. and to buy an ordinary flat or house is ridiculous. almost everywhere in the country and i think if we could settle those two things, you know, then many more people would be happy. >> and the other point is actually huge disparities in wealth between rich and poor actually reduces us economic performance. and there's an enormous amount of international data to show that that, you know, the wider the inequality that's often accompanied by reduced economic performance. so it doesn't actually benefit no matter what the times of prosperity, no matter what the topic. >> i could bet my bottom dollar that on a friday you will take whatever topic it is that we're discussing and turn it into the disparity between the rich and the poor and someone needs to. >> that to me labour's sticking. >> it's labour's answer to absolutely everything . just take absolutely everything. just take money off the labour stick. >> the is, michel, >> but the point is, michel, it's at the heart of so much

thatis it's at the heart of so much that is wrong with our country and our society. when and with our society. when you've got people at the top who are off you've are creaming it off and you've got people at the bottom during a of living that are a cost of living crisis that are struggling ends meet and struggling to make ends meet and you've got a government that isn't reducing that isn't focussed on reducing that inequality that inequality and redistribute that wealth it's not for wealth fair. it's not good for economic it's not economic performance. it's not good terms of family life, good in terms of family life, it's in terms of local it's not good in terms of local communities , it's not good in communities, it's not good in terms of work life balance. all right. >> so we'll get the point. not a huge amount. that's not fair. >> not how much money the >> it's not how much money the government lockdown. government spend on on lockdown. we highest missed tax we have the highest missed tax burden we've for years. burden we've had for 70 years. i actually think one of the problems with left and labour in particular focus on particular is their focus on pubuc particular is their focus on public because public services, because what that you filling the that is, that's you filling the pockets of your members. you know, it's easy to say, oh, let's public but let's do public services. but how are public how efficient are these public services? want them? are services? do we want them? are they fulfilling the they actually fulfilling the need the public has for need that the public has for instance, we constantly talk about nationalisation. the current obsession is nationalising the rail. right. but how terrible was british rail? british rail ? british rail rail? british rail? british rail was horrific. it was not as bad

as it's not as bad as the privatised railways. >> far worse. absolutely not as bad as the privatised railways. and is, the privatised and the point is, the privatised railway is being railway system is being subsidised to a huge degree still by the taxpayer. we are still by the taxpayer. we are still ploughing more than british rail would have. millions of pounds into subsidised in what has become, in my view and you know the problems i trying to get into the studio. we talked about a couple of weeks ago didn't we. and getting home again, you and then getting home again, you know, a dirty and unreliable bill, disjointed and bill, a disjointed and fragmented british fragmented service. now british rail was perfect by any rail was not perfect by any terrible was terrible, but i think that privatised nation has been an unmitigated disaster. well, me just in terms of well, let me just in terms of the the the railway system. but the water system and let just water system and let me just bnng water system and let me just bring this back on the track. >> do you see what i did there? very good. what i find weird about charleton not just about you charleton not just you as an individual, but the collective tory kind of church, if like. when started if you like. when we started this you to this conversation, you said to me, yes, we can do me, you know, yes, we can do this kind of simplification, clampdown or whatever on the i'll use word check .

i'll just use the word check. and don't mean to be rude and i don't mean to be rude about term. answer to about that term. your answer to that well, then we should that was, well, then we should simultaneously clamping simultaneously be clamping down on talked to me on the top. he then talked to me about the government about right, the government spent helping spent all this money helping people and all the people on lockdown and all the rest. government was rest. the government was absolutely rinsed during lockdown many that lockdown by many members that were very close to that government, if not members of that party. and i don't actually think that the tories are doing enough at all to try and get those.i enough at all to try and get those. i would probably argue hundreds of millions of pounds back for us. then when you say , back for us. then when you say, well, we can do this on one side, but only if we're doing it, it's you guys that are in charge of doing the other, which is getting that back. so is getting that money back. so why you doing it? why aren't you doing it? >> completely right. and >> you're completely right. and if it was up me, i would if it was up to me, i would get it back. the first thing, of it back. the first thing, all of the that went on under the fraud that went on under under under when we under under lockdown when we were salaries, were paying people's salaries, i would the back. would get the money back. >> then why isn't the >> i am. but then why isn't the tory party priorities saying that? >> @ know e- @ know if all i can >> i don't know if all i can tell you, i was in charge, if tell you, if i was in charge, if it was tory party, you can't it was my tory party, you can't make me responsible for the

prime minister >> no, but you're a member of the party. you're peer. the party. you're a tory peer. >> you defend your tribe. come on. have this on. you have ins with this party. the house of lords. >> you're in the house of lords. all of people. we sit all of us lay people. we sit here and we agree with you. which is? it's pretty damn disgraceful, that disgraceful, actually, that all of was and i would of this money was and i would argue in some cases, perhaps even defrauded out of our system. then people that system. but then the people that can about it, which can do something about it, which are nobody to are the tories, nobody seems to do about it. and then are the tories, nobody seems to do i about it. and then are the tories, nobody seems to do i ask about it. and then are the tories, nobody seems to do i ask anyone it. and then are the tories, nobody seems to do i ask anyone about then are the tories, nobody seems to do i ask anyone about it,en are the tories, nobody seems to do i ask anyone about it, it's when i ask anyone about it, it's always, well, it's not my fault, it's else's. so why are it's someone else's. so why are the that be not doing it? the powers that be not doing it? >> can't tell you that >> well, i can't tell you that i'm not the powers that be. if i. what you question, though? >> course do. >> of course i do. >> here and question with >> i sit here and question with you and what do they say to you? they say to me that it's fine. and then and. and what do you say? tell them say? you can say i tell them it's let's be very, it's not fine. let's be very, very help me. >> let me be in this conversation. >> when you say to them, what about this they say it's about this money? they say it's fine. say it's not fine. fine. you say it's not fine. then happens? fine. you say it's not fine. the nothing. appens? >> nothing. >> nothing. >> not acceptable. >> but that's not acceptable. >> but that's not acceptable. >> acceptable. you're >> isn't acceptable. you're asking me as if i had the

executive power, i would administer in a very administer the money in a very different wouldn't different way. i wouldn't have given as much of it. i'd have different way. i wouldn't have given much ch of it. i'd have different way. i wouldn't have given much bettert. i'd have different way. i wouldn't have given much better controlive different way. i wouldn't have given much better control of it, taken much better control of it, and would have got and i certainly would have got back money that personally back the money that i personally think has has gone i'd think has has has gone awry. i'd have gone. >> you making a bid for the >> are you making a bid for the leadership after the next election? >> well, listen, never >> well, listen, you never know. >> well, listen, you never know. >> he didn't rule it out, did he? >> don't say that. if you're in a newspaper tomorrow, we go. but but it's but my point is, i think it's a it's a disgrace to the public to waste their any way. waste their money in any way. i would tried to get it back. would have tried to get it back. >> tories taking it >> are the tories taking it seriously to seriously enough trying to recoup the recoup that money for the british for. british taxpayer, for. >> yeah, i would say, yeah, i'd have been. >> you believe believe >> do you believe do you believe what you're saying? >> they been successful? what you're saying? >> no. they been successful? >> no. >> no. >> do you believe that they have got that are got intent and that they are trying try ing to trying actually try ing to proactively money proactively get this money back? >> don't >> yeah, because i don't have the money, can't spend the money, then they can't spend it. that the government it. the idea that the government would the money go go. would just let the money go go. in fact, let me put it put it this they haven't tried this way. they haven't tried hard there's that hard enough. there's things that i probably tried. i i would have probably tried. i would that would have tried to get that money the real money back in tax, but the real problem made the they problem was made in the way they distribute it in the first

place. that's where the real mistake made. place. that's where the real miswell, made. place. that's where the real miswell, mean,e. place. that's where the real miswell, mean, i'm just >> well, i mean, i'm just thinking things these thinking about things like these massive would massive vip loans that i would argue many of them were abused. and i think it is an and i just i think it is an absolute disgrace. completely absolute disgrace. i completely agree if agree with this whole if somebody physically work and somebody can physically work and chooses to, i completely chooses not to, i completely agree that we need be, you agree that we need to be, you know , tougher and all the rest know, tougher and all the rest of i also completely of it. but i also completely agree primary point. agree with your primary point. your point, which we your first point, which is we also at the other also have to go at the other end. but just cannot get end. but then i just cannot get my why people are my head around why people are allowed that. not to allowed doing that. not to happen. trundling allowed doing that. not to happen. life, trundling allowed doing that. not to happen. life, batteringndling allowed doing that. not to happen. life, battering people through life, battering people for the tenners that they might be their pockets for the tenners that they might be working their pockets for the tenners that they might be working cashir pockets for the tenners that they might be working cashir [hand s while working cash in hand and all it whilst all the rest of it whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to hundreds of millions eye to the hundreds of millions on side. says , on the other side. alison says, i i've got many i am disabled. i've got many illnesses and she says i feel i am being put in the same category as all the shirkers. and it's not fair on the genuine sick people , kevin says. sick people, kevin says. whatever they do, the incentive must be to encourage worthy work, not sit on their backside. kevin my viewer, i'm going to push that back to you. what do

you mean? to encourage worthy work? are you saying that if someone gets offered a job and they're benefits and say they're on benefits and they say actually, worthy actually, that's not a worthy position, cool with position, would you be cool with them that and them turning that down and waiting so—called waiting for a worthy so—called position? determines what position? who determines what a worthy position should be worthy position is? should it be the case that you just have to take job, it back to take any job, offer it back to you, and anyone else you, kevin, and anyone else has a that? says, i can a view on that? ian says, i can remember days that you remember the days that if you signed on, they'd you for signed on, they'd send you for three interviews. you three job interviews. if you were a and were offered a job and you turned down, your benefits turned it down, your benefits were stopped. simple he says. were stopped. simple as he says. darren , i know people who darren says, i know people who go to job interviews with a bad attitude and looking scruffy with aim of being with the aim of not being successful. says, successful. then he says, they'll their jobs they'll go back to their jobs advisor well, i've advisor and say, well, i've tried. fault. tried. it wasn't my fault. i wasn't dave says, wasn't successful. dave says, why not? you mentioning the why not? are you mentioning the people on benefits who work cash in ? richard says, i blame in hand? richard says, i blame this on the civil service, who basically don't know how to assess the applicants . and who assess the applicants. and who is this one? i mean, lots of you were getting in touch. this one really has got you talking. but lee says michelle, a very

important question. sean important question. have sean and a buy one, get one and paul done a buy one, get one free on their jackets tonight? i'll ask them in the break and i'll ask them in the break and i'll you once we come i'll let you know once we come back. you in two. back. see you in two. >> the thing is,

>> you're listening to gb news radio . radio. >> hello there, michelle dewberry on this lovely friday night shaun bailey a conservative peer in the house of lords, although he did just tell me i'm not here to speak for the government. that is a fair point. and paul embery, a trade unionist and writer alongside me, charlie says excellent tonight. excellent panel tonight. michelle, calm, proper, respectful debate from both sides. is perfect to watch sides. it is perfect to watch and to able to hear reasoned and to be able to hear reasoned arguments both sides. arguments from both sides. there's a lot of for love the new face as well . sean is great, new face as well. sean is great, says chris speaks a lot of sense, probably wasted in the lords. and by the way, my wife says very handsome. i'll says he is very handsome. i'll take that. there you go. if all

else fails. chris his wife thinks that you are very handsome. by the way, ali, handsome. and by the way, ali, i've up the matter in i've cleared up the matter in the break. they don't have the same didn't do same jacket on. they didn't do a buy one, get one free. they're very, very similar, they're very, very similar, but they're not listening not the same if you're listening not the same if you're listening not have no idea not watching, you have no idea what about . so take what i'm talking about. so take it me. they both very it from me. they both look very dappen it from me. they both look very dapper. let's talk council dapper. now let's talk council tax shall because homeowners tax shall we? because homeowners in wales , as you know, when we in wales, as you know, when we talk council tax and often talk about council tax and often we about mansion tax and we talk about mansion tax and bedroom tax and this tax and that there's now that tax anyway, there's now plans to increase council tax overin plans to increase council tax over in wales on the most expense live properties. get this , by £1,000 a year. the this, by £1,000 a year. the basically going to be revalued and this will be the first time in 20 years that it has happened. paul embery what do you make to this good idea or not? i think it is a good idea. >> it's a good old fashioned measure to redistribute wealth, isn't it ? isn't it? >> and i'm going to have a bingo board. what can be. >> i'll have full house by about quarter past six. >> it can be wrong with that. i

saw the figures, top band in saw the figures, the top band in wales, average house wales, the average house is worth times more than the worth nine times more than the average home in the bottom band, but only attracts but actually only attracts charge of council tax of three and a half times more than the lower band. so in that in that sense, i think it's a regressive tax. i'd get rid of council tax altogether, to be honest. i think it's out there. it's only introduced as an emergency measure. replace it with what i would see something like measure. replace it with what i wlocal see something like measure. replace it with what i wlocal incomeee something like measure. replace it with what i wlocal income taxomething like measure. replace it with what i wlocal income tax base hing like measure. replace it with what i wlocal income tax base org like measure. replace it with what i wlocal income tax base or a like a local income tax base or a service poll tax . service poll tax. >> the riots we had on the back of that suggestion, absolutely not and the council not a poll tax and the council tax in, don't forget, tax came in, don't forget, in 1991, think it was directly as 1991, i think it was directly as a result of fact that a result of the fact that thatcher's tax was so thatcher's council tax was so unpopular and was causing riots up country up and down the country and was introduced an emergency introduced as an emergency measure, as a sort stopgap . measure, as a sort of stopgap. >> and we are 32 years >> and here we are 32 years later and it's still here, but and i don't think it's been re—evaluated england in re—evaluated in england in 30 years. terms of bands, years. in terms of the bands, there's two i'd say. years. in terms of the bands, the firstly,» i'd say. years. in terms of the bands, the firstly,» lot i'd say. years. in terms of the bands, the firstly,» lot people >> firstly, a lot of people now look and wish they had. we look back and wish they had. we had poll tax because that had the poll tax because that was focussed individuals was focussed on individuals and it have better.

it might have been a better. >> going to i'm >> you're not going to i'm not asking to the poll asking for a return to the poll tax. no no chance. >> i'm just telling you it looks in some cases than than in some cases fairer than than council tax. but here's the thing. london, this would thing. in london, this would have a massive negative effect because there's many, many households in london that have a households in london that have a house that is worth significantly more than their income the house price income because the house price rises in london have been ridiculous. then meant if you ridiculous. it then meant if you swapped and revalued , swapped system and revalued, you'd a lot of people. so you'd punish a lot of people. so so what do like about this , so what i do like about this, because it's been done by the welsh , as were, the welsh assembly, as it were, the welsh assembly, as it were, the welsh know welsh government, they know what's their region what's going on in their region and devolved and that's real devolved power and that's real devolved power and they're collecting taxes in and they're collecting taxes in a way that works for them . if a way that works for them. if we had devolved power . so the had more devolved power. so the scottish london scottish assembly, london assembly to do this, it might look different because london assembly to do this, it might lookwouldznt because london assembly to do this, it might lookwould be because london assembly to do this, it might lookwould be aecause london assembly to do this, it might lookwould be a verye london assembly to do this, it might lookwould be a very seriousidon this would be a very serious punishment, particularly to a lot elderly people who've punishment, particularly to a lot (theiry people who've punishment, particularly to a lot (their foraople who've punishment, particularly to a lot (their for home nho've punishment, particularly to a lot (their for home a|o've punishment, particularly to a lot (their for home a long owned their for home a long time. the value of that home has risen steeply. they've now retired and simply wouldn't be able big increase in. able to take a big increase in. >> but the thing. how do able to take a big increase in. >> iliterally the thing. how do able to take a big increase in. >> iliterally physicallyg. how do able to take a big increase in. >> iliterally physically pay ow do you literally physically pay that you don't have you that money if you don't have you have a fixed income. so like

your pension, would your pension, what would you do? >> to the house >> you'd have to leave the house to you'd have to government >> you'd have to the government would give relief or would have to give relief or you'd to that and you'd have to sell that home and downsize but london, downsize wise. but in london, this would look like a pretty severe punishment. this would look like a pretty sevi'e punishment. this would look like a pretty sevi'e punthat'snt. this would look like a pretty sev i �*e punthat's all the this would look like a pretty sevi'e punthat's all the more >> i think that's all the more reason, not, move away reason, is it not, to move away from from the system in the first because first place? because there are these in it. mean, these inequities in it. i mean, it inherently for some it is inherently unfair for some people. as say, people. you know, as you say, there people a low there may be people on a low income, happen to have an income, but happen to have an expensive income, but happen to have an expwell,3 of my viewers, >> well, one of my viewers, john, lives in switzerland john, he lives in switzerland and he's saying here in switzerland, everyone pays council tax based on their tax declaration. the richer you are, the he says the more you contribute. he says even on benefits have to even those on benefits have to make declaration and could make a tax declaration and could be pay. he says even if be made to pay. he says even if it was only a penny really , phil it was only a penny really, phil says, i don't mind if houses are evaluated , but what about when evaluated, but what about when you've got four people living in the same household , all earning the same household, all earning a wage, all using basically a lot more of the local services? that's your point . what you're that's your point. what you're then saying about it being on an individual level rather than a home? because what phil's suggesting how about perhaps suggesting is how about perhaps everybody on a wage should pay

the council tax? richard said no change needed at whatsoever. you get services, whatever change needed at whatsoever. you get of services, whatever change needed at whatsoever. you get of your rvices, whatever change needed at whatsoever. you get of your house, whatever change needed at whatsoever. you get of your house, he atever change needed at whatsoever. you get of your house, he says. the size of your house, he says. it's only politics of envy, which is the reason to change that again, carol, she says , that again, carol, she says, again, we all getting the same service . so why does anyone have service. so why does anyone have to pay more based on the property size? >> the other thing to remember as well, poll tax is in the wider region of how much tax you pay wider region of how much tax you pay anyway because we pay significant amounts of income tax. so if you look at our overall tax bill, we shouldn't be raising any taxes at all because we're at record levels of tax. >> the poll tax, though, sean, was because you had >> the poll tax, though, sean, wlord because you had >> the poll tax, though, sean, wlord of because you had >> the poll tax, though, sean, wlord of the because you had >> the poll tax, though, sean, wlord of the manor:ause you had >> the poll tax, though, sean, wlord of the manor paying ou had a lord of the manor paying exactly same amount. exactly the same amount. i couldn't the couldn't agree more sweeping the roads. mean , that was roads. and i mean, that was let's blunt, was let's be blunt, that was thatcherite philosophy. and she got cocky and thought she got too cocky and thought she could get away. >> won't, won't that >> i won't, i won't accept that because when thatcher talks about poll tax, i was about having a poll tax, i was focussed on the individual the country actually country rioted. so actually i won't i won't accept that that was what i do. >> i don't support riots, but

they got angry with good reason . they got angry with good reason. what inherently unfair, what i do is inherently unfair, grotesque , unfair. grotesque, unfair. >> accept that that that >> i do accept that that that that tax is unfair. i do that this tax is unfair. i do accept that. i do accept and let's be clear. i'm not arguing for a poll tax, but the point that should pay that an individual should pay tax their income, that tax based on their income, that bafic tax based on their income, that basic should be followed. >> okay. what do you think to that home? that at home? >> and this the theme >> and again, this the theme that keeps coming through on my inbox whole notion of if inbox is this whole notion of if you're all using the same services is surely what are people saying is literally the same. bill, please. this whole word about politics of envy, it does seem to be coming through as well. thick and fast. look, i'll bring in some more of your thoughts in after the break. but also to ask the also i want to ask you, the police with new police have come up with a new policy, right? you think policy, right? what do you think it you think it's about it is? do you think it's about law and order, crime busting or perhaps something else? multiple choice. there you go. you tell me answer i'll see you

in two earlier on breakfast with stephen and ann, former home secretary suella braverman lays down a devastating piece in the telegraph this morning attacking the government's approach to the rwanda scheme. >> high risk ex—convicts , >> high risk ex—convicts, including violent sexual offenders, murder , heirs and offenders, murder, heirs and rapists, were managed at the jobcentre in central oxford without their restrictions being recorded or observed . recorded or observed. >> if we have sexual offenders, stranger rapists applying for work, for training work, applying for training opportunities that still had court order restrictions, we just didn't know. >> the whole thing is a mess. and now working with and people are now working with individuals who are dangerous and they're unaware of that. >> that's disgusting . actually. >> that's disgusting. actually. unbelievable. i've just watched that myself for the first time, and i can't i can't believe it. >> breakfast with stephen and ann to sunday from 6 am. ann friday to sunday from 6 am. >> hello there, everybody . >> hello there, everybody. welcome back to jubes and. lots of you getting in touch. i'm

going to come on to the police story in just a second. but judy. says, you know, paul, he just keeps going on about redistribution of wealth all the time. don't we just start time. so why don't we just start with why didn't just with him? why didn't he just start anything that start sharing out anything that he's lead by he's got? he could lead by example. good example. that's a very good point. a point. i'll try and take a tenner off him before we leave. look, the pair them look, i've sat the pair of them together just in together as well. mainly just in case, know, if they ever case, you know, if they ever need to wear an extra cash, they could catalogue could perhaps do some catalogue modelling. them. what a modelling. look at them. what a handsome pair of specimens they are with their matching jackets. so that was so that's the point that lee was making on. many making earlier on. still, many people getting in touch saying that tax well, mark, that tax should. well, mark, actually, tax should be actually, he says tax should be based on the ability to pay and what earn . also the amount what you earn. also the amount of people when you say mark, i found that quite interesting that tax should be based on that the tax should be based on the ability to pay. so if you've got loads money you put got loads of money and you put it know, it into, i don't know, like a fixed, like a fixed term savings account, i don't know if you tie your up. so you're minted , your cash up. so you're minted, your cash up. so you're minted, you for five years, you tie it up for five years, you tie it up for five years, you can't get access to it. would you let people off? so they've the cash, the

would you let people off? so thejcould the cash, the would you let people off? so thejcould access:ash, the would you let people off? so the could access to h, the would you let people off? so thejcould access to it. the would you let people off? so thejcould access to it. i'm:he would you let people off? so thejcould access to it. i'm not cat could access to it. i'm not so about that one. anyway so sure about that one. anyway look, it's friday. jubilee tavern open, cheers all tavern is open, so cheers to all of you. the weekend starts here, so it does. cheers is right. so it does. big cheers is right. let's get down to business because the police area wants to talk you about. i was teeing talk to you about. i was teeing it up. perhaps they've decided talk to you about. i was teeing it arrestrhaps they've decided talk to you about. i was teeing it arrest people 1ey've decided talk to you about. i was teeing it arrest people thata decided talk to you about. i was teeing it arrest people that , decided talk to you about. i was teeing it arrest people that , you ded talk to you about. i was teeing it arrest people that , you know, to arrest people that, you know, really disrespect war memorials . really disrespect war memorials. or maybe they've woke up and realised, know these realised, you know what, these two tiered maybe two tiered policing, maybe that's a good idea. no, that's not such a good idea. no, don't want to burst your bubble. that's not what's happened at all. actually happened all. what has actually happened is staffordshire police is that staffordshire police have issued a guide, everybody. it's useful , have issued a guide, everybody. it's useful, um, because it's very useful, um, because it's all about aiming not to offend people with the words that are used. so now we can't say police, ma'am. we can't say man up because apparently that would even risk breaking the law. i find this. well, in fact, no, no , i think you tell me what no, no, i think you tell me what you think. paul embery. >> i think sometimes it's sensible if they are not overly heavy handed about it. so, for example, policemen on. >> are you a fireman? >> are you a fireman? >> no, i'm a firefighter and i

have no issue. >> is that. >> is that. >> well, i mean, it's not it's not a question of choice. it's a question reality. we've question of reality. we've had women service for 40 women in the fire service for 40 years or more. so if we if we stuck to the language of firemen, would just be firemen, it would just be factually incorrect. firemen, it would just be factualbecauseect. firemen, it would just be factualbecause it. firemen, it would just be factualbecause i would be happy >> so because i would be happy to be called a fireman because to be called a fireman because to you wouldn't be human. to me, you wouldn't be human. human i'm a human human man, human. i'm a human and a operator. and i'm a fire operator. >> that's what people >> that's not what people understand firemen. understand with firemen. >> was changed. >> that's why it was changed. you be a fire woman. you could be a fire woman. and i guess would be guess that would be understandable. don't use understandable. but we don't use the woman. what we the term fire woman. what we do is use term firefighter is we use the term firefighter because all bases. so because it covers all bases. so on things like that, i don't have provided have a particular issue provided it's without trying it's implemented without trying to on the head with to knock people on the head with a there are a with a big stick. there are other need worry other things we need to worry about sort of about more than that sort of thing, which is the erasure of the word woman from don't the word woman from oh, don't get that two before the word woman from oh, don't gget that two before the word woman from oh, don't gget on that two before the word woman from oh, don't gget on to that two before the word woman from oh, don't gget on to that that two before the word woman from oh, don't gget on to that john two before the word woman from oh, don't gget on to that john and before the word woman from oh, don't gget on to that john and stuff; i get on to that john and stuff like that. >> tell me your thoughts on this police work. >> so i'll tell you where >> so i so i'll tell you where it from. the it comes from. it's the proliferation say proliferation of jobs that say you anti this or you are you are the anti this or you are to that. i said to to promote that. if i said to you are to you know, your you you are to you know, your job is chief rose distributor

there'd be roses all over your house. say to house. so when you say to someone is to make someone your job is to make everybody feel comfortable, they start everybody start to try to make everybody feel has feel comfortable and it has repercussion. be repercussion. and let's be clear, every time use the clear, every time we use the words firefighter or whatever, you remove women, i you do, sort of remove women, i sometimes think wouldn't it can't you just call a fire fighter or a policewoman a policewoman because it accepts that women do the job? if everybody is a police person, it then sounds like women don't do then sounds like women don't do the job and that's that's my i mean, have no issue with that particularly. >> but in reality, that's not the language that's you the language that's used. you know, will know, people people will still use or police use either policemen or police officer or fireman and firefighter. so so the latter of those two are better because they take into account the fact they take into account the fact they are women in the job. >> firefighters, it might be a bit different, but with police, because the police because we use the word police officer, included because we use the word police officer, but included because we use the word police officer, but the included because we use the word police officer, but the more1cluded because we use the word police officer, but the more important anyway. but the more important point is this if you make every police officer have to worry about the language they are using. >> hang on a minute. we have. oh, whoa, going can oh, whoa, what's going on? can i apologise? i hate to. was an invasion. >> we've got invasion on.

>> we've got an invasion on. >> we've got an invasion on. >> yeah, well, there's a lot of those in britain at the moment. yeah. >> mark dolan is. >> mark dolan is. >> what are you doing? i did not. come via via the not. i did not come via via the channel. but let me just interrupt this great broadcast by saying i heard that the dewberry and it dewberry tavern is open and it is quite fancy a drink. but then i realised that i've is quite fancy a drink. but then i work realised that i've is quite fancy a drink. but then i work to 'ealised that i've is quite fancy a drink. but then i work to do ised that i've is quite fancy a drink. but then i work to do because i've is quite fancy a drink. but then i work to do because i'm» got work to do because i'm launching a brand new show called live with called friday night live with mark dolan. so it's just water for me. >> shocking. oh, well, you're letting you're letting the side down. you're just a bit. >> we're we non alcohol >> we're we allow non alcohol drinking tavern we drinking in drury tavern we don't you're drinking in drury tavern we don"welcome you're drinking in drury tavern we don"welcome there's you're drinking in drury tavern we don"welcome there's a»u're drinking in drury tavern we don"welcome there's a double very welcome there's a double vodka that. vodka in that. >> really? yeah. >> really? yeah. >> a big very >> that'll do. it's a big very i think it's probably. yeah. so tell us anyway, so what you're doing, what excites show. doing, what really excites show. >> my big opinion , but >> we've got my big opinion, but it's friday special. it's it's a friday special. it's pretty . there's few pretty outrageous. there's a few 9395 pretty outrageous. there's a few gags well . should gags in there as well. should the rishi sunak and the tories ditch rishi sunak and call a snap election with the new leader ? plus, does nigel new leader? plus, does nigel farage going into the jungle pave the way for our brilliant presenter and friend becoming prime minister of this country? i've got about a minute left, so go on then. >> show us your comedy genius. give a joke. okay

give us a joke. okay >> my wife and i do role >> well, my wife and i do role playing. okay she's got a naughty nurse's outfit . i dress naughty nurse's outfit. i dress up as her ex—boyfriend, steve. >> right. we pass 9:00 am. >> right. we pass 9:00 am. >> i get in trouble at home for that. >> by the way, double vodka. get in a time show. >> i didn't get that joke whatsoever, mainly because as soon as opened your mouth soon as you opened your mouth and telling was and started telling me i was cringing. i was there cringing. so i think i was there thinking, thought thinking, oh gosh, i thought it was therapy session. was a therapy session. >> anyway, that's obviously that's goal. have that's my goal. and i'll have a word with about his role word with him about his role playing minute. playing in a minute. >> i think needs support >> i think he needs some support and perhaps shoulder and perhaps a shoulder to cry on, sort that in on, so i'll sort that out in a second. but in the meantime, sean, be very to sean, you'd be very pleased to know not the know or perhaps not the overwhelming opinion from the people at home that you, my people at home is that you, my friend, come again soon. if, friend, can come again soon. if, indeed, like indeed, if indeed you would like to. embry lots love for to. paul embry. lots of love for you. always for you guys at home, i would like you to say thank you for you for your company tonight. we're very much enjoyed it. don't worry, i'll have with mark about his have a word with mark about his jokes. up his game before jokes. he'll up his game before 8:00. he's looking forward to seeing meantime,

seeing you. in the meantime, have . have a fantastic weekend. everybody. stay out of trouble . everybody. stay out of trouble. stay safe, and i will be back on monday. actually lee anderson is up next with his program real world. we love that. will you be watching it, sean? >> absolutely. good >> absolutely. good >> see you on monday nights

>> welcome to the anderson's real world. tonight on the show , real world. tonight on the show, i'm joined by former ukip leader henry bolton, former brexit mep beunda henry bolton, former brexit mep belinda de lucy. she's back on the show for the second time. also got political commentator

matthew stadler and former bbc journalist and royal correspondent michael cole. he's on for the first time and designer and reality tv star april bambury. designer and reality tv star april bambury . but first, let's april bambury. but first, let's go to the news headlines . at 7:00. >> i'm karen armstrong in the gb newsroom. the chancellor is considering cutting inheritance and business tax in an effort to win over tory mps with his autumn statement. jeremy hunt had said tax cuts this year would be virtually impossible. well now, after a recent fall in inflation, he says it all depends on how much the economy's growing. >> the best way that we can reduce the tax burden for everyone is to grow the economy. there's no shortcut if we grow the economy, if we support manufacture , bring businesses manufacture, bring businesses like the one i'm visiting today in sheffield, that means that we have more money to reduce the tax burden, but also to invest in public services like the nhs. so we will always take