meant for a massive amazon data processing centre and tata steel are getting half £1 million of taxpayers money to go green of course, and save only 5000 jobs. but there are 11 million people in the uk who could be working so do you think labour really have a plan to create jobs for you and your children in the future? and if you own a rental property, should the government be able to tell you who can live there? how long they can live there? how long they can live there for, and even whether your tenant should be allowed to keep a pet? well, get used to it . a pet? well, get used to it. that's happening in the last two hours. david lammy has committed another £600 million of your money to ukraine, whilst also

weighing up whether we should be allowed to use long—range british and american missiles to drop on russia. why? and none of these men talking about a peaceful resolution, plus american reporters are currently in ohio trying to prove the existence or not of illegal immigrants making kebabs out of cats. and it's all because of trump versus harris will be sifting through the litter tray of the presidential debates later . all that to come in the later. all that to come in the next hour. first, though, the very latest news headlines with sophia wenzler. >> bev. thank you. good evening. from the gb newsroom. it's just gone 6:00. these are your headlines. the foreign secretary has announced over £600 million worth of support for ukraine, while the us secretary of state has announced $700 million. it comes as david lammy and antony

blinken are currently in kyiv on a joint trip, calling it a critical moment in the war with russia. their visit follows reports that joe biden will lift a ban on british storm shadow missiles being used on russian territory after iran supplied ballistic missiles to russia. speaking after meeting with the ukrainian president, mr lammy announced the support package. >> i can announce we will now also send hundreds of additional air defence missiles , tens of air defence missiles, tens of thousands of additional artillery ammunition rounds and more armoured vehicles to ukraine by the end of the year. but i am most proud of the unity we and our allies have shown in support for ukraine, and that is why our joint visit today, the first joint visit of its kind for well over a decade, is such an important signal because we both recognise what is at stake here, not just the liberty of

ukraine, but the security of europe and the security of the west. and back in the uk. >> rishi sunak has reignited the battle against labour on its move to axe the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners. continuing his focus from last week's exchanges at prime minister's questions, the conservative leaders pushed sir keir starmer for details on the impact of the cuts. >> we know why he's hiding the impact assessment. the labour party's own previous analysis claimed that this policy could cause 3850 deaths. so are the numbers in his impact assessment higher or lower than that ? higher or lower than that? >> however, prime minister sir keir starmer pushed back, claiming his government was having to clear up the conservatives mess because of the tough decisions that we are making to stabilise the economy. >> we can make sure that the triple lock shows that increases in pensions will outstrip any

loss of payments. but before, before he complains about us clearing up his mess, perhaps he'd like to apologise to the £22 billion black hole . £22 billion black hole. >> meanwhile, this morning our political editor, chris hope , political editor, chris hope, asked the chancellor, rachel reeves, if the looming october budget will be more bad news for pensioners. >> we've committed to those bus passes to free tv licences for those entitled and free prescriptions, but we've also committed to the triple lock not just for one year but for the duration of this parliament. and that means that pensioners will continue to rise by whichever is higher, 2.5% inflation or average earnings. that means that pensioners have £900 more this winter and likely another £460 from next april. >> now in the us, donald trump and kamala harris have met again at a 9/11 memorial event in new york after facing off in their first and possibly only presidential debate last night.

the showdown began with a handshake , but quickly took handshake, but quickly took a turn when harris mocked trump's rallies , accusing him of boring rallies, accusing him of boring his crowds. trump hit back, defending his popularity and attacking harris on her immigration stance and economic policies. >> she's going to do this. she's going to do that . she's going to going to do that. she's going to do all these wonderful things. why hasn't she done it? she's been there for three and a half years. they've had three and a half years to fix the border . half years to fix the border. they've had three and a half years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. why hasn't she done it? >> meanwhile, harris blamed trump for nationwide abortion restrictions and the capitol riot while questioning his fitness for office. >> donald trump left us the worst unemployment since the great depression. donald trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century, donald trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the civil

war. >> and what do you call a fish with a mirror? no, it's not a joke. it's called a blue streak at the tiny tropical fish might just know what it's looking at. scientists in japan have found that the blue streak can recognise its reflection and even size itself up. before deciding to pick a fight. in lab experiments, the swimmers checked their body in a mirror before going after smaller fish. researchers think it could be a clue to how self—awareness evolved, with fish now joining an elite club alongside chimps, dolphins and elephants. those are the latest gb news headlines. now it's back to bev turner. >> for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com. forward slash alerts . gbnews.com. forward slash alerts. >> very good evening. welcome to

dewbs& co. it's me bev turner in for michelle this week while she takes a well—earned holiday. now one of my favourite hours of tv presenting ever held was in the company of my guests tonight, peter hitchens, a columnist at the mail on sunday, and aaron bastani, co—founder of novara media. do you remember guys , media. do you remember guys, when it wasn't long after the hamas invasion of, of israel, and we sat here and you two were so amazing. you were so brilliant. i almost got lost in the conversation. i didn't even want to present. >> that's really nice of you to say. so >> so no pressure, but there's a very high bar tonight, and we have got a lot to talk about. i want to hear from you as well. gbnews.com/yoursay let's talk about jobs, because the chancellor of the exchequer was very excited today about an £8 billion investment from amazon for an enormous data processing centre. have a listen . centre. have a listen. >> today i'm making an announcement of an £8 billion investment in britain in data centres to power the digital economy of the future. and i'm

here at a university technical college today and training up young people to work in those industries. i know if we can bnng industries. i know if we can bring stability back to the economy, if we partner with business, then we can turn around our economy and make britain better off. >> they sound like absolutely thrilling jobs. meanwhile, tata steel are getting half £1 billion of taxpayers money to go green, but they've got to save only 5000 jobs. now there are 11 million people there or thereabouts in the uk who could be working and aren't. so are these sorts of announcements just a smokescreen? do you think labour care about the jobs that you and your children will do in the future , gary smith, general the future, gary smith, general secretary of the gmb, has said today that new jobs and investment are always welcome. he said but serious questions have to be asked over whether amazon web services is a good company to celebrate. it receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer cash , while often

taxpayer cash, while often paying taxpayer cash, while often paying limited amounts in tax . paying limited amounts in tax. meanwhile, workers in amazon's warehouses are treated appallingly and denied a voice. peter, let me come to you first, this sounds like a lot of investment in big industries that don't actually require many human beings at all. >> well, no. and they don't tend to pay particularly well in the. past 40 years have been jobs which have paid somebody enough to actually finance the family. and the what's also gone is the what a lot of a lot of people regard it as the dignity of the manufacturing industry. people liked working in those big industries, even coal mining, which was always remained a very dirty and dangerous job. there was a pride in it and the destruction of these things , destruction of these things, which wasn't entirely due to the thatcher government, but had a lot to do with it, also had a lot to do with it, also had a lot to do with it, also had a lot to do, i think with our entry into the european union

was led to a huge social change. you then have alongside that the enormous cultural and moral revolution during which the family life was completely changed in this country. the idea that a family would be a mother and a father and children has been almost completely got rid of and is no longer taken seriously by the government. they don't they're not keen on that kind of family. they don't want they don't want to support or encourage it. so life has changed. and they they tended to think that a welfare state can somehow substitute for the family, which used to both raise children and look after the old and it doesn't work and it plainly isn't working. and then you have all the again, this is a result of deindustrialisation. the huge numbers of people who were paid . there was a kind of were paid. there was a kind of semi—fiction that people were actually paid, i think invalidity benefits they were called when in fact they were really unemployed. the benefits were slightly higher. they didn't appear on the unemployment statistics. it looked better on the figures than it was, and the people were better off than if they'd been officially unemployed. but it really is quite shocking that we haven't managed to employ people

in the way that we used to. and at the same time of course, as we pursue a low wage economy, which i think this kind of amazon development is probably part of, we rather than employing people who are already here, we draw in people from abroad to do these jobs. i think it's the most fantastic mess and it's the most fantastic mess and it's all the result of it. well, not all, but an awful lot of it. the result of utopian policies of the left, which claims to be concerned about the poor in this country, but whose policies, it seems to me, leaves the leave the poor considerably worse off. >> and i agree with so much of that, peter. but of course, we've had 14 years of conservative rule, so i know you haven't had 14 years of conservative rule. >> you've had 14 years of modified new labour rule under david cameron of the conservative party, accepted blairite policies pretty much wholesale, and it wasn't particularly enthusiastic about them. but it operated. yeah so there hasn't been a conservative government in this country of a genuinely conservative nature, probably since the 1950s, but we

certainly haven't had one during the cameron johnson sunak period. i've forgotten several conservative prime ministers, but then that's probably the best thing to do. we i mean, peter says we haven't had a true conservative government, for 14 years. >> and if we had, then presumably we wouldn't necessarily be in this situation . necessarily be in this situation. the economy has flatlined for the second month in a row. we learnt today as well. this government keep talking about growth. their solution is going to be economic growth. but all they've had so far is this announcement for amazon for a massive data centre. and guess what? data centres don't need human beings. and they they claim even on the government's website, that this data centre will create 14,000 jobs. but if you read the small print, it says in local businesses and part of the facilities management that we required, it's not talking about employing people. why aren't they talking more about finding jobs for people, creating jobs so quickly

on that? >> we've had two months of no growth. i would say it's your viewers, your listeners out there. ignore the monthly data, ignore the quarterly data. you know what? ignore the yearly data because often it's reviewed and they say , actually, we were and they say, actually, we were in recession when we thought we were growing or we were growing when we thought we were in a recession, when the economy doesn't grow, the tories would say, well, it's projected to grow, when it has grown, they say it's projected to grow even more so i would say when we're talking about economic growth, you need to look back at the last two, three, four, five, ten years. over the last 14 years, the economy has barely grown. right. that's just a fact. month to month. i don't want your audience, your wonderful audience, your wonderful audience to get anxiety disorder because that's that's how you get an anxiety disorder. focusing on this kind of data, which is constantly floating around in terms of this particular investment, isn't it funny? you've got rachel reeves talking there. i can announce today £8 billion. there's £8 billion of jeff bezos money. it's nothing to do with you, i have really big misgivings about amazon, as part of a broader phenomenon which is effectively

us technology companies taking over this country. now, this is amazon. of course, we think about amazon as a place you buy goods from online, but actually one of their largest businesses is aws, which is web services for websites. so gb news or ann widdecombe or even actually large parts of the government's own websites, gov.uk are based on aws. why does amazon do this ? on aws. why does amazon do this? it makes lots of money, and what it means is that every month, millions of pounds float over the atlantic from here to california in particular. or actually, in the case of amazon, another state, i can't remember where to the united states. and it's not just amazon . that's the it's not just amazon. that's the case with every time you make a transaction with visa or mastercard, a tiny percentage of that transaction floats across the atlantic. apple pay, every time you are using a meta product like instagram or facebook, every time you use adobe.so facebook, every time you use adobe. so this might go out as a clip online. if it goes out as a

video clip, they've used adobe software. again, it's pay to play. it's a rental product. there are so many of these products now which are american owned and that we depend on, including aws. owned and that we depend on, including aws . and it's really a including aws. and it's really a form of rent tourism. it's almost like amazon is the landlord for all of the goods and services that we depend on as a national economy. so my big criticism is build the data centre. why isn't that a british company? and that's a much bigger question. >> well, why isn't it a british company? is that the kind of industry that we just haven't transitioned into? i mean, rishi sunak every time he stood on stage, he was talking about how i was going to be the solution to all of our problems. all i can see is al taking away jobs and tata steel, you know. yes, it's getting half, half a billion pounds from the taxpayer. but even that isn't going to create many jobs. >> well, there was a long period when it was believed by most western governments that more and greater cooperation between countries lower and lower tariff barriers, lower and lower restrictions on goods and services coming across borders would be a good thing. and in

some ways, of course it is, but in other ways it isn't. and the long term consequences of it for a country which was formerly an actual country, which could enforce its own laws and run its own economy, that's really gone now, i think. i think a lot of what aaron says is absolutely true. the takeover of our economy by foreign investment, the number of things which we buy under what appear to be british brand names, which are actually american owned, is astounding. and we don't really have much of an independent economy in many ways anymore. and i don't know how you could get back to one. i am myself a protectionist. i think that it's worth sometimes paying the price of protecting your economy from foreign competition. and it's interesting that the only area interesting that the only area in which most major countries can do this now is in, is in their defence and military industries, which you're allowed to operate reasonably independently under special rules. and they tend to flourish in ways which other parts of the economy don't. look, what's happened to our steel industry, it's just disappearing . and i it's just disappearing. and i don't think a serious country

can exist without its own steel industry. it'sjust can exist without its own steel industry. it's just totally strategically necessary. and i'm astonished that governments are willing for instance, to accept ridiculous arguments that you don't need blast furnaces, you have to have blast furnaces, or you're not making steel. >> well, i mean, look, there's this. we're clear. we're at a massive turning point in history in terms of jobs. there's just no doubt about it. this is the industrial revolution that we're in. give me a job of the future, peter. you've got a teenager watching this, and they think, which way do i go and study? what's going to be a job of the future? that's guaranteed. >> i don't know all the all the americans keep saying what you need to do is either insist that your children become plumbers or they learn or they learn to code. oh, well, i mean, i can nehheni code. oh, well, i mean, i can neither, i can neither fix a fix a pipe or code . it's all over a pipe or code. it's all over for me. >> they've also got no concentration. a job of the future. aaron. i'm not going anywhere. >> i'll give you two for the uk medical healthcare. people are getting older and viticulture because of climate change. our climate is changing more favourably towards wine . that is favourably towards wine. that is a growth industry for this

country. it's true. >> we're all going to be so depressed. >> the wine industry will be, will, will be rivalling burgundy. >> before we know where we are, we'll all be sat at home on universal basic income, drinking british wine, drinking british wine. >> okay, it's not all bad. it's not all bad. yeah, right. listen, let us know what you think. what are the jobs of the future? what will still exist? gbnews.com/yoursay. but still to come as labour bring in their new rental reform bill. should the government control what you do with your property, who you put in there, and even whether they can have a pet? go

welcome back. we were just talking before the break about what people might want to do in the future, charlotte said. i'd advise teenagers to become tattoo artists. i think she's probably right. hate that. but i think she's probably right. but you've not got a tattoo, have you? >> no, i would not advise that at all. i think the less the

less tattooing there is, the better. >> i agree now the rest. >> i agree now the rest. >> were they going to run out of space too soon, aren't they? there just isn't going to be any more space finite canvas. >> right? the renter's rights bill is set to be introduced today, promising protection for the country's 11 million renters, with the government saying legislation including a blanket ban on no fault evictions will create a, quote, leaving a level playing field between tenants and landlords should there be a level playing field between tenants and landlords? if you own a property, should the government be able to tell you who should or shouldn't stay in there and whether they can have a pet? aaron bastani if i've got a house i'm renting out, it's got nothing to do with the government who i choose to put in there, or whether that person can have a cat or a dog. >> i think these are perfectly sensible reforms, i think getting rid of section 21 evictions is very reasonable, i that's the no fault eviction. i do think at the very least, it's really, really reasonable. you know, i know of people in london parents and they basically have

to leave at the drop of the hat because they made a complaint about the heating, not working. and i just don't think that's a way for a civilised country to carry on. and we are your house. >> if it's your house, you should surely be able to say, i'm going to change the tenant. >> but if there's a child there, we're complaining in this country that the birth rate is too low. it's now something like 1.4. who would raise a family under those conditions? i know what you're saying. at the end of the day, people should be able to dispense and dispose of their property as they see fit, but also there are major consequences of policy as it stands. and i honestly don't think this is a particularly radical. i think it's really welcome. i think getting rid of section 21 is very sensible, i would like to see a default of two year tenancies. obviously you have a notice period from either side. you have reasons for breach of contract, but i think making that the norm is good. also one of the changes is you can only raise rent once every year. i think that's sensible. i think all of us out there with a mobile phone contract, we think we've paid the contract, we think we're going to pay so much a month and then actually eight months or

ten months or 12 months into the contract, it goes up. you think, what? i've got a two year contract. how does that work? i thought a contract is a contract. and i think the same appues contract. and i think the same applies here, really. >> but what if the landlord's mortgage goes up? it's not like, oh two or vodafone. like they can absorb some costs like if, if your mortgage goes up because the interest rates as a landlord, as the owner and you can't pay that, that you have to say to your tenants, i'm really sorry, i've got to put the rent up. >> so what if interest rates go down, you're going to cut, you're going to cut the rent. you might want to in 12 months. i mean, i mean, you might, but surely you should be free to make that decision yourself. i just think i think doing it once every 12 months, i think is, is reasonable. and on the pets thing, i, i quite like pets. i think people pay a deposit. if obviously the pet doesn't need damage to the house, you might want to charge more for the deposit. right now the norm is 4 to 6 weeks. you might say, well, if you want a pet, it's going to be eight weeks. i mean, these are details that people can work out without the government being involved. i think that's, you

know, a sensible thing to do, surely. >> well, i've thought for a long time that we needed a better rental sector in this country because not everybody can afford, especially now, can afford, especially now, can afford to buy. and the great pressure which was on all of us when i was starting work to buy rather than anything else was, was enormous. and i always rather admired the germans for continuing to rent a lot. now i think they have a fairly strongly regulated rental sector, but if you overdo it, which was certainly the case in this country in the 60s and 70s, with all kinds of restrictions on what landlords could do, then the rental market simply dries up. people stop, people stop moving because they can never get such good conditions again. and landlords stop, landlords stop renting. i think pets is difficult because it's also a matter of what the neighbours think, and you could probably have have particular buildings in which everybody was agreed that they could have pets, but i think it's reasonable for there to be some regulation. you pay an awful lot these days for rental property in any in any big city. i'm astounded by the rents that are charged now , so rents that are charged now, so i think it's only reasonable that something some sort of regulation controls the. so there aren't pirates in

operation. also, i do think just being just being evicted for complaining about the heating is wrong and there has to be a reason for an eviction. and if there is a reason for an eviction, then you should be able to enforce it. but if there is no reason other than that you've taken against the tenant for complaining, that's not good enough and there should be protection. people should have be able to be secure in their in their habitation for a reasonable length of time, and it's say, as there is a yearly renewal of the rent and perhaps a two yearly renewal of the whole thing isn't actually that oppressive. >> but isn't this? >> but isn't this? >> but isn't this? >> but i think what we really needin >> but i think what we really need in this country, and i say it every time the housing comes up, we really need is to is to rebuild the stock of social housing, which was destroyed in the very mistaken period when we sold off council houses , because sold off council houses, because i think an awful lot of people need that. >> it would be far, far better. one of the things which distorts the rental system very badly is housing benefit, which is which is an extraordinarily badly managed and, and indeed

pernicious form of paying for housing, which costs, as it happens, more than the royal air force . force. >> would you like to? i'm sort of surprised to hear you say it, but would do you think they've gone far enough then would you like stricter restrictions on what landlords private landlords, can and can't do? >> i think this is i think this is the bare minimum. and i think they've done that for a reason. i don't think they want to put too many no's. i mean, maybe your audience might disagree. they don't want to put too many noses out of joint, but i think that this is reasonable. another one, for instance, is you can't discriminate against people because they have children or they're on housing benefit. i think this is the bare minimum. and i think, you know what? we can probably get enough. >> so just to be clear on that. so what that means is that if you have a small house now and you have a small house now and you say, i don't want tenants in there with children, yeah, you can no longer say that. even though kids can kick the skirting boards and drop juice on the carpet and paint on the walls, you now tough. you've got a house. you can. anyone is in it. if somebody wants to be in there with six kids, you're

going to have to let them. >> well, i don't know the details of the proposals. >> i don't know if that's true. >> i don't know if that's true. >> well, like you said, you can't. you can no longer ban a family. you can't say this room is these rooms are available, but without children. >> well, you should be able, it seems to me, to make that provision. if people don't want to let to families with children, they should be able to say, i don't want to do it, but they can't change their minds midway. but i think you should be able to make reasonable conditions. i've been both a tenant and when i've been abroad, a landlord, and there are things you need to be able to do. and that's that's not an unreasonable one, actually. but i think to be to be forced if you're if you're letting the place at all to go beyond the bafic place at all to go beyond the basic thing of, of letting to, to people to not be able to make any conditions at all must be wrong, does it just put people off being landlords? >> yes, it can do. >> and that's that. >> and that's that. >> is that a good thing? well, thatis >> is that a good thing? well, that is the problem with any restrictions of any kind. >> they can benefit quite a lot of people, but they may well mean there's simply less property to rent and you have to make a judgement on on how much

to restrict it. so why i said this should be a public rented sector which, which , which gets sector which, which, which gets rid of a lot of this problem. i don't think the private sector will ever actually be able in this country to cope with the need for rental property, >> aaron, do you a bit of a personal question, but do you own do you a renter, do you own a house? >> so you own a house. you're sort of that generation as well that would have been raised to think, well, maybe one way of increasing my assets in the future, as you know, into retirement, might be to invest some money in a property and to become a landlord. it has been for the last 30 years, a good way of gaining assets and caphal way of gaining assets and capital. would you think about that now, against the backdrop? at the moment that seems so unfriendly towards landlords. >> i would never have done it in the first place. why not, look, if, say, my father passed away and you've obviously you've got to you've got 12 months before you sort the estate out. so you might say, well, you might have a tenant there for six months or whatever. i mean, i would do it at such a low rate that it was

effectively, effectively a social rent. why i so i rented for 16 years in london 15 years, and i basically had to move every year because of the awful conditions. now i know london is not the country, but renting in london between 2006 and 2020 actually it was 14 years was awful . it was actually it was 14 years was awful. it was an actually it was 14 years was awful . it was an awful. awful. it was an awful. i wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy , so that's not to say all enemy, so that's not to say all landlords are bad. there are some some landlords were actually wonderful landlords to my wife and i. my now wife and i. but it's not a racket i would want to get involved in though. and the thing about, well, you might regulate some of them out of existence. the thing that matters most for landlords is obviously that margin between interest rates and what you can charge for rent. and if interest rates go down, i'm sure if interest rates go down 2% over the next 12 months, i don't think landlords are going to mind too much about this. your problem is, if you have high interest rates and you have more regulation, like you say, people might say, yeah, i don't fancy it. not worth it. >> no. put it on the market. >> no. put it on the market. >> we're going in a different

direction with interest rates, i think. >> yeah, maybe. okay. right thanks, gentlemen. so still to come, foreign secretary david lammy has just committed £600 million of your money to ukraine, helping to nudge the west towards world war iii with putin. do you think you voted for that

we' re we're just talking in the break about what you should invest your money in. and aaron bastani said, land. and then what did you say is doing very well, aaron. >> no, it was a criticism, actually. >> it was . no. >> it was. no. >> it was. no. >> come on, i didn't realise it's a tax dodge, but, grouse moors, you don't pay inheritance tax on them. so lots of people are buying grouse moors because you're not paying tax. so you, you're not paying tax. so you, you are going to basically invest in grouse moors for shooting and vineyards. >> i would never shoot. you are so posh aaron bastani you are a proper champagne wine. >> definitely. >> definitely. >> right. aaron bastani and peter hitchens are still here with me. so the foreign

secretary was speaking just a little while ago to confirm £600 million of additional support for ukraine. have a listen . for ukraine. have a listen. >> and today i can confirm more than 600 million worth of support for ukraine, including 242 million this financial year for immediate humanitarian energy and stabilisation needs, as well as support for reform recovery and reconstruction and seriously on a very serious issue. >> the us and the uk are currently deciding whether to allow ukraine to launch long—range missiles into russia. the kremlin have said that any decision to do so would trigger a response. so peter, there are still remains, in my opinion, no clear strategic off ramp at the moment for this conflict. what are blinken, biden, lamy, etc? what are they playing at here? >> well, i don't know. and i've never been able to get anyone to answer the simple question what are the strategic interests of the united kingdom in pursuing

its involvement in a proxy war between the united states and russia on the soil of ukraine? and nobody can answer it for me? well, absolutely don't, because there is an american foreign policy faction which wants the united states to be indirectly at war with russia, pretty much permanently. that's their affair. if people in the united states want to maintain a government which wants to do that, that's also their affair. but i cannot for the life of me see why we should be doing this. nor can i see how we can afford it. last friday, the daily mail published an absolutely astonishing story, which ought to have been more widely followed, that the entire fleet of british nuclear attack submarines. that's not the nuclear missile submarines, the trident ones, but the ones which are actually part of the fleet are actually part of the fleet are now in dock. the navy doesn't operate, and many, many of our surface ships are also permanently in dock. they don't move , they're in permanent refit move, they're in permanent refit or just move, they're in permanent refit orjust nothing happens to them or just nothing happens to them or just nothing happens to them or they're broken down. we don't actually have. to all intents and purposes, a navy. therefore, our own defence of our own home

islands has been neglected to the point where it will take many years and a lot of money and a great deal of recruiting and a great deal of recruiting and training to get it back into and training to get it back into a state where we will have a properly defended coastline and at the same time, we're spending enormous amounts of money promoting and continuing a war in which we have no national interest. now, there is a fascinating discussion to be had about this and about the nature of british foreign policy and why we are always over and over again, the fifth wheel in the american car. but it is not had andifs american car. but it is not had and it's actually quite astonishing that if you try to even question this, you're immediately accused of treachery, of working for the russians, of being someone will no doubt be, even now, tapping away on twitter or on your email saying peter hitchens is a kremlin shill. i am not a kremlin shill. i am not a kremlin shill. i am not a kremlin shill. my interests are entirely in the defence and security of my own country, and icannot security of my own country, and i cannot see any purpose whatsoever in this . and then on whatsoever in this. and then on top of that, the appalling carnage among among ukrainians in ukraine and indeed young

russians being killed or disabled or disfigured for a war which nobody can explain. there is absolutely no rational explanation as to why this war is even taking place at all, and it was incredibly easy for us to have avoided it if we had wished to avoid it. but we did not. in fact, we did many, many things to help bring it about. >> we also heard today that the british army is currently constrained because we're spending so much time training ukrainian soldiers as well. aaron. now, peter has obviously not read the media handbook, which says that you have to say at all times that putin is evil, he has imperialist ambitions, and he's going to take over the whole of the western world. have you? >> he is evil, but he doesn't have imperialist ambitions. >> in my view . >> in my view. >> in my view. >> and if he does, we don't stop. >> if he does, he can't fulfil them because he can't even capture kursk, which is about 40 miles from his own border. if he can't capture kursk, i think the danger of him arriving at calais is pretty thin. >> do you think more people are waking up to the fact that we're

being sold a dud on this particular conflict? >> well, i think what you just said is obviously outlandish. and if i was lithuanian, i'd probably i'd probably be quite worried. i understand why the baltic states are worried. i understand why the poles are worried. you know, this is historically a foe, which is has torn your country to shreds. but in terms of britain, there is absolutely no threat or risk . absolutely no threat or risk. doesn't mean we shouldn't participate in a broader alliance to make sure that putin doesn't invade other countries. but in terms of what peter is saying around national security, there is none at all. >> well, can i just correct myself? >> i meant to say kharkov, not kursk. they are two different places. kursk has been in the news lately, but it's kharkov he can't capture. and he can't. he can't capture. and he can't. he can't hold on to a piece of his own country around kursk, which is. >> that's right. i mean, you have a massive. they've had a massive mobilisation of conscripts to basically edge a few inches a day deeper into ukraine. the idea that it's a threat to western europe, by the way, which i'm very critical of, of where we fall short , the of where we fall short, the european union and britain is what, 450 million people, some of the world's largest defence

contractors, some of the world's most powerful industrial conglomerates. the idea that where we where we have a problem is energy. that is the big problem. and two years ago we felt the pinch with regards to energy because russia turned off the taps of gas into europe. thatis the taps of gas into europe. that is the shortcoming. and that's where we have a major deficit. and it's why we traded that particular commodity with russia for so long. but on every other index , europe is superior other index, europe is superior to russia numerically , to russia numerically, technologically, the size of their militaries. >> so they have more natural resources and more land than they can ever harvest. those resources from. the idea that putin has imperialist ambitions to take over more land is for the birds. >> what do you think? so wouldn't you? but it's repeatedly said and people say, well, he said it in such and such a speech. and i once had a twitter argument with a very noted liberal left journalist. and i said to him, just you keep saying this, but could you please point me to the passage

in the speech where he says this? and of course he couldn't. he said, well, it's on google or he wouldn't. he didn't know he'd taken it as he'd taken it as read, and then he'd frantically tried to find it and discovered, as everybody does, he tries to find it's not there. it's not what this is about. i'm not saying that there isn't a purpose for it, but the idea that russia is, is trying to reconquer the areas which it lost at the end of the cold war is fatuous, and some of them might like to, but they know they haven't. the capacity. >> but even on the even on the eve of invasion of ukraine, that speech that putin gave, which was very sort of sentimental and he's very much into the history of russia and the motherland, etc. he was very clear about defending the russian people who live in the donbas. he was under a lot of pressure from his own people to defend people in that region. >> well, he wasn't defending anybody. he was making an attack. >> so but attacking them in order to defend them from bombing, that was already happening. >> he was it's a it's a long story, but the truth is that if someone tries to provoke me into

a fight, then i think i would be a fight, then i think i would be a prize fool if i allowed myself to be provoked. >> russia was provoked into that fight and beyond question. that was that was provocation . robert was that was provocation. robert kagan, one of the principal neoconservative thinkers in washington, dc, will tell you that there was provocation. it's not in doubt. ridiculous the way people call it unprovoked, but he shouldn't have responded to the provocation, and he should not have invaded ukraine. >> even with nato moving closer with anything russian invading sovereign countries is a is a is basically it's a criminal act. >> it's also a stupid act which this country, the united states , this country, the united states, foolishly engaged in in iraq 20 years ago. so it's not just them that do it, but whoever does it is doing something both wrong and stupid . and we must be clear and stupid. and we must be clear to condemn that because there's no international order if people are just allowed to invade. >> the idea that it was unprovoked, though, i think we'd agree on it, was absolutely it was provoked. >> but you shouldn't. if i am provoked, i don't respond and the same should be true. should be true of countries.

>> do you think, though, that the british voter thought, when they voted for starmer, that this soon into the premiership, david lammy would be giving ukraine another £600 million, probably to some extent, because a big part of starmer's political brand is to say i'm not jeremy corbyn, i am part of the, the, the status quo foreign policy establishment, which basically means, as peter, so lucidly said a moment ago, britain is the fifth wheel in the american car. >> so that is probably the only part of the starmer prospectus where he was pretty clear. >> but this 20 we keep hearing from, from rachel reeves. we heard it so many times today when she was talking in her unfortunately robotic way about the business strategy, about this £22 billion black hole, £22 billion black hole. well, they just found £600 million to give to you. >> like his extraordinary the way money is found for military operations. >> and whilst taking it off pensioners this winter. >> but the advice that the foreign office will give to any new government and gave to the blair government as well, is always stay as close to the

united states as possible. that is the advice incoming governments get generally in kind of governance of foreign policy. illiterates they know no better and it seems sensible to them , and they stay as close to them, and they stay as close to them, and they stay as close to them as possible, even if they're doing things which are actually crazy. and this it is astounding that in this country we have not developed anything remotely resembling an independent foreign policy which pursues our own national interests. is there anybody that can that can call this out? >> is anybody ? will any of the >> is anybody? will any of the trouble is, the only person who ever tried to actually say publicly that maybe there was sort of some nuance that was being lost from this particular conflict? was nigel farage, and he got roundly criticised in the media for being a putin apologist. it'sjust media for being a putin apologist. it's just the way to silence people, isn't it? instantly there's nobody that's ever going to stop this. it feels like a train in motion towards it's popular, it's popular. >> this country has believed for a very long time. it goes back really to the to the 18th and 19th centuries, when we successfully intervened all over the world, particularly on the

european continent and in north america, without anything really ever happening domestically. the first time a modern war actually affected this country domestically was, was the 1939 to 45 war, and even from that, we were we were far less affected, say, than than france or the or the low countries or italy were. so there's still a feeling that this country can intervene in wars without any great cost to itself. and wars are quite politically popular here. and until they until they go seriously wrong, the iraq war was initially popular. the blair intervention in kosovo was popular. the intervention in libya, which was a catastrophe for the whole of europe, was popular . and if you oppose these popular. and if you oppose these things, as i've as i have done on on all those occasions, you find out very rapidly how popular they are and how speaking against them gets you accused of being of being some sort of traitor. >> our viewers, sorry to interrupt people. our viewers said age of reason says our troops in ukraine are training

on the job. they are learning as well. and lady westminster says, no doubt, no one doubts that putin is a dictator. but the amount of money and resources we spend on ukraine is disgraceful. when our own people are suffering. the ukraine—russia war is not our war. a lot of you are starting to say that which is very different, i think, from when that initial invasion that is interesting that that more people are saying that i do agree, don't go anywhere. things got heated in the us first presidential debate last night, but has it made any difference to the polling? i'll tell you in just a minute. don't go

welcome back to dewbs & co with welcome back to dewbs& co with me bev turner. this week, while michelle is on her holidays , michelle is on her holidays, peter hitchens and aaron bastani, i'm delighted to say have remained with me for the last 49 minutes and hopefully we'll do for the next 11, because we're going to talk now about the american debate. trump

and kamala harris went head to headin and kamala harris went head to head in their first debate last night. trump made some big claims about haitian immigrants in illinois . in illinois. >> in springfield, they're eating the dogs. the people that came in there eating the cats they're eating. they're eating they're eating. they're eating the pets of the people that live there. >> now, she didn't really need to do anything, did she? apart from just laugh at him when he said that. but has it made any difference ? according to a snap difference? according to a snap poll. post the debates by cnn, of course. so they are obviously a left leaning media organisation. they said that only 4% of americans would vote differently because of. but they certainly said that kamala harris won the debates. what did you make of it, aaron? broadly, i you know, who came out on top for you? >> i, i struggled to believe it was real. i was watching it in the early hours of this morning after 2 am, and it was like an episode of the simpsons made all the more impressive by the fact

that this anecdote about people eating pets is from springfield. so it was a rather outlandish debate. what it tells me is that, yes , lots of liberals were that, yes, lots of liberals were getting behind kamala saying she won, but also saw lots of conservatives. so, you know, often you should not listen to one or other camp. we listen to hillary's people in 2016 about how she was going to nail it. 99% chance of winning. the big difference this time , though, is difference this time, though, is i think trump is struggling to gain momentum. in 2016, there was clearly a sense of momentum . was clearly a sense of momentum. i think most pundits, people in the sort of political media elite in the us didn't think he'd get over the line, but there was something he was saying, stuff that the american electorate hadn't heard before. this time, there is not momentum that said, it's still going to be, i think, really close . be, i think, really close. >> does it make any difference? we saw from the poll, didn't people's views are so entrenched, peter, in either trump or the harris camp. nothing's going to make it. >> i don't think political debates make much difference. most of the time. no. and that one will be remembered for the cat allegation for sure, and

almost nothing else about it will be remembered, which is maybe his purpose in dropping that in. he probably thought it would be better if people forgot the rest, so it'll just be the cats. but one of the problems with with british views, the united states is we see everything through , mostly everything through, mostly through the prism of fairly left wing british commentators reporting on that country and telling us their view of it. and they don't tend either to know very much about or to understand the very large parts of america which quite like donald trump . which quite like donald trump. so i think you always get an underestimate of the republican or right wing or conservative vote in any assessment from british media. so i'm not. again, it's impossible to tell who's who's winning. i don't myself think kamala harris is a particularly impressive candidate herself. i don't like donald trump, but i think it would be unwise for people to assume that just because a load of british commentators say that trump has blown it, that he has

blown it because there are other things going on all the time, and i think it might still be quite close. but as i haven't been there for some years, i'm basically guessing. but i would always say be careful. i think it's part of british commentary on america. i think it's possible to see the flaws in trump's character, which i can do, but still think i'd rather him be in charge than kamala harris coming election. >> i feel like he'll get stuff done.i >> i feel like he'll get stuff done. i feel like he could have the conversations with the likes of putin that we were just talking about, in a way that it will be a more measured, measured kind of meeting, a meeting of minds, maybe. erin. >> yeah, i suppose that would be one part of his pitch is that i would have a very different foreign policy to the last three and a half years, because, of course, he can tie kamala harris to biden. biden domestically has done some pretty impressive stuff. the economy has done pretty well. foreign policy, the complete opposite. so i suppose that's where she is exposed. what peter is saying about not looking at this through the lens of british broadcast journalists, who tend to be on the centre left. right. yeah

print media tends to be on the right. centre right broadcast tends to be on the left, centre left. i think that's that's entirely accurate, what i would say is as well that kamala harris and the democrats are at a deficit, so to speak, they can win the popular vote by several million votes, and trump can still win the electoral college. so these these headline polls aren't always telling you the full story. nate silver has given trump a 65% chance of winning the electoral college. that was before that debate. so by no means write him off. just because some british podcaster says, oh , nightmare, a nightmare says, oh, nightmare, a nightmare must be a narrow victory. >> i have to write you two off now. aaron and peter , you did now. aaron and peter, you did not disappoint. thank you so much. thank you. i'll be back on britain's newsroom at 930 tomorrow morning. here's nigel farage with a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb. >> news . >> news. >> news. >> evening time for your weather update from the met office here on gb news. pretty cold out

there this evening. temperatures are going to fall further through the night. are going to fall further through the night . yes, there through the night. yes, there will be a touch of frost, particularly in parts of the north in the countryside thanks to the winds coming around this area of low pressure all the way down from the arctic. hence why we do have the chill at the moment. there's a fair few showers still around this evening, but for many they'll tend to fade. we'll keep some going in northern scotland, a few for the north of northern ireland, northern parts of wales, northwest england, but elsewhere many areas dry and clear and the winds easing a touch overnight, which is why those temperatures will tumble down to 4 or 5 degrees in towns and cities. but rural spots, particularly in the northern half of the uk, likely to be close to or a little bit below freezing to start thursday. so yes, a chill in the air tomorrow morning and there will still be showers in the air as well, coming in across northern scotland. still a fairly brisk wind, but not as lively and not as gusty as the winds have been through the day today. those breezes will bring a few showers across northern parts of northern ireland. plenty packing

in across wales, although the south coast probably dry and a good part of england having a dry, fine and sunny start to thursday , albeit with that chill thursday, albeit with that chill in the air now as we go through the day, we'll see the clouds bubbung the day, we'll see the clouds bubbling up a little bit, but i don't think we'll see as many showers as we've seen through the course of today. still plenty for wales and a few more coming into south west england and across northern scotland, but much of southern scotland, dry and large parts of eastern england and the midlands also staying dry and dodging the showers with some sunny spells. but despite a bit of sunshine, temperatures on the chilly side similar values to today , but at similar values to today, but at least the winds tomorrow will be a little lighter. lighter still on friday and even again likely to see more of a frost on friday morning. much of the country, though, will be dry and fine. on friday we will see rain coming into the north—west, the winds picking up here as well. that's a sign of a change. things turning wetter across the north into the weekend, staying dry in the south and slowly warming up. >> looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers sponsors of

>> good evening. a government bailout for the tata steel plant at port talbot. but is this really the answer for the british steel industry? i've got a chance today at pmqs to ask about prisoner releases. i'm worried. i'm worried we're letting the wrong people out and maybe putting the wrong people in. and of course, in the middle of the night, our time. it was the trump v harris debate. it seems the harris camp are very happy indeed. we'll debate and discuss all of those things and much more. but first, let's get the news with sophia wenzler . the news with sophia wenzler. >> nigel. thank you. good evening from the gb newsroom. it's just gone. 7:00. your headlines. the foreign secretary has announced over £600 million

worth of support for