gb news. >> good morning and welcome to the camilla tominey show. lovely to have your company this sunday morning. has the government turned its back on the elderly this winter.7 as nearly 800,000 pensioners will lose out on winter fuel payments, i'm going to be joined by the paymaster general, nick thomas—symonds, to discuss that. kevin hollinrake, the shadow business and trade secretary, will be here. i'm going to be asking him why he is backing kemi badenoch to be the next tory leader. i'll also be joined by her rival, leadership hopeful tom tugendhat, who has edged out mel stride from the competition. can he jump ahead of his rivals and surprise the polls to clinch the tory leadership? the former chair of

the 1922 committee, lord graham brady, who has been making headunes brady, who has been making headlines particularly in the telegraph, serialising his book where he shares the secrets behind his discussions with prime ministers, often before they've been forced to resign. it's fascinating stuff. he's going to be here in the studio with me. and as starmer and biden brush off the threat of a war from putin will be speaking to sir simon mayall, the former defence chief of staff, we've got 90 minutes of punchy politics ahead, so don't go anywhere . anywhere. let's go through the newspapers now with jake wallis simons, the editor of the jewish chronicle. jake, lovely to see you this morning. it's a bit of a worrying headline, this axis of evil. i'm talking it because we've got these jul stories currently sort of populating the front of the sunday papers. we've got the issue over whether we are going to sort of allow ukraine to use these storm

shadow missiles and have the full capability that they need to defeat russia. and we've also got a story in the sunday telegraph and other papers talking about this alliance between russia and iran on sharing nuclear secrets, which strikes me as pretty worrying. >> yeah, i mean, that that part of the world and that developing axis, axis of evil is the biggest threat to global security. and as time goes by, it becomes clearer and clearer that there's this building alliance between russia, china and iran. and this story on the front, on the page 13 of the sunday telegraph, describes how there's been a sort of nukes for missiles deal, apparently, or fears of that between between moscow and tehran whereby iran provides the missiles. russia provides the missiles. russia provides nuclear secrets the other way. and this comes on the back of the news last week that iran has got enough uranium, apparently, for four bombs. now that uranium still needs to be weaponized. it's not complete. the process isn't complete, but

it places iran very close to nuclearization in terms of four bombs. we previously thought it was only one. it's absolutely horrifying. >> and also, i suppose these two stories are related because , i stories are related because, i mean, are you worried that if the go ahead is given to ukraine to use these storm shadow missiles with their full capability, that it pokes the russian bear and then might lead putin into doing more with iran, which could be even more catastrophic than just the nofion catastrophic than just the notion of a nato alliance enabung notion of a nato alliance enabling ukraine to try and defeat russia. and let's be honest, what this means is missiles being dropped on russian territory. >> yeah. i mean, i think we need to get away from thinking we mustn't poke the russian bear. i mean, the russian bear doesn't need any poking. it's embarked on its own programme with the iranians, with the chinese to try to undermine the democratic free world in israel, in ukraine, potentially in taiwan . ukraine, potentially in taiwan. and then from there forwards. it's not because of what we're doing, it's because of what they are. they want to undermine and

subvert us. we need to get real and get some unity together rather than talking about in the press debating whether we can send storm shadows or not. yeah. the first time the russians should hear of storm shadow missiles being authorised to fall in russian territory should be when they land. they shouldn't. they shouldn't be this perception. why have we got disunity between the americans , disunity between the americans, between the british, the french and all that playing out in the public, making us look disunited? we need to be strategic and united and strong and enforce a deterrent. the west nato is much stronger than russia . even the axis of evil, russia. even the axis of evil, as it were combined, doesn't overshadow the west in terms of our capabilities. if we just have strong leadership from the white house, a strong sense of unity and common purpose, and that's what's lacking at the moment, rather than makes a mockery, doesn't it? >> of the nuclear deal that was struck between the west and iran some years ago. i mean, yeah, i mean, that's been a mockery for some time. >> donald trump pulled out of it, of course. and then biden tried and failed to get back into it by way of appeasement, which may get the whole idea of

keep your friends close and your enemies closer. >> but i think after everything that's been going on in israel, that's been going on in israel, that probably doesn't look like a very prescient approach. let's move on to domestic matters, because there's been a dressing down for keir starmer. what's happened? it involves another man buying frocks for his wife, victoria. >> well, yeah. i mean, you know, we thought that i mean, you know, sir keir starmer has been describing the tory sleaze years, you know, the boris johnson's wallpaper and all the rest of it. well, these are stories which could have come out of that period, only it's attached. they've attached themselves to keir starmer rather than the tories. so it surrounds lord alli, who is worth £200 million. there was a cash for access scandal already, the sunday times revealed last week. i think it was involving him getting a number 10 security pass to entertain donors at downing street when he shouldn't have it, and , jake. so

>> he knows the rules, jake. so that's why he's late with this declaration. we'll have to find out. the other story that we just wanted to touch upon was the observer remarking that city figures and labour insiders have warned starmer less gloom, more optimism. i just thought this was interesting from the observer, because you would expect that newspaper to be on labour's side and actually along with its sister paper, the guardian, they're not quite enjoying what they hoped would be this new era for britain. they're not quite enjoying what labouris they're not quite enjoying what labour is coming outwith, and particularly this scaremongering, jake. i mean, it's not great for business, is

it? it's not great for inward investment to see the prime minister constantly talking down the state of broken britain, the state of the nhs. things can only get worse. yeah. >> i mean, the guardian and the observer appear to have gone from cheerleaders to critical friends. that move has happened over the last, over the last week. and of course, we had last week. and of course, we had last week. andy haldane, the former chief economist at the bank of england, criticising rachel reeves for talking about this 22 billion black hole before she's got a plan to fix it. he should. he thought that it should have been wrapped up into this is what we're going to do about it, because if you want growth as the government constantly says that it does, you need to have confidence and stability. and those two things are undermined if you're constantly talking britain down, as it were, and trailing a dastardly autumn budget that's going to. and how much pain it's going to cause and so forth with with fears of, you know, tax rises and capital gains tax increases and all that sort of stuff. so, so, so yeah, labour does seem to be challenging its own policy in some ways. >> again, i'll be asking thomas symonds about all of that and this idea that the treasury

won't give the figures on the £22 billion black hole. for some reason he's the paymaster general, so he should be able to answer some probing questions on all of those issues, particularly with regard to britain's finances. labour's on a suicide mission , though in a a suicide mission, though in a literal way. in a way, jake, because it wants to push through the assisted dying bill. according to the mail on sunday. pretty controversial. look, we knew that he supported it as director of public prosecutions. historically, he has always been on the side of assisted dying. and to be fair, i've interviewed esther rantzen. i know you know her too. she makes a really compelling case for this when it comes to people who are terminally ill. the trouble is, in countries like canada, they've brought in assisted dying, and it's been used by people who have been suffering from depression, which i find quite troubling. >> yeah, i mean , it's a very, >> yeah, i mean, it's a very, very grave matter. this obviously there couldn't be anything graver in 2015. that was the last time there was a vote, a free vote on it, and the motion was defeated by 332 to 118. sir keir wants to bring it back.look 118. sir keir wants to bring it back. look at it again. and i

totally understand why people with terminally ill loved ones who are suffering hugely, want to bring it to an end in a way that they could choose, rather than leave it until it gets worse. but yes, you're right. i mean, there are examples in canada where it's legal that are quite hair raising. there's that one in march of a 27, 27 year old woman with autism and adhd who grant, who was granted the right to end her own life, despite her father saying that she wasn't in her right mind and it wasn't in her best interest. and of course , in 2022, there and of course, in 2022, there was a paralympic paralympian, canadian paralympian, former army veteran who requested a stair lift in her home and received a letter saying, have you considered assisted dying? so this sort of stuff. i mean, look, you know, the labour's proposal is only restricted to terminally ill adults who have six months life expectancy. i mean , sometimes those mean, sometimes those expectancies are frustrated and they go on longer and longer or are wrong rather. and so, you know , so there isn't an know, so there isn't an immediate danger of that happening. but the worry is that once you've opened the door to assisted dying, it might creep over the years to encompass

other cases of mental ill health, depression and cases like in canada. >> yeah. well, indeed. and you mentioned the point about the paralympian, dame tanni grey. thompson has raised concerns about this on behalf of the disabled, saying that it could put them under undue pressure and make them feel like they're and make them feel like they're a burden, which i think is the last thing old people as well. >> yeah, the granny killers. i mean, you can imagine an old person saying, oh, don't mind me. you know, i'm too much of a hassle. i'm quite happy to shuffle off and you can have my inheritance, have your inheritance, have your inheritance now and all that stuff, and we obviously don't want to encourage anything like that. it really goes against the sanctity of human life, >> one for further discussion. no doubt. own goal. the sunday times reports that england risks a ban from its own euros. so we're hosting the euros in 2028. and this is following an intervention, or at least a leaked email that's been seen by the sunday times from the head of uefa to lisa nandy , of uefa to lisa nandy, concerning labour's plan for a football regulator. just break this down for us, jake. >> that's right. so the plan for

a football regulator has been around for a long time. it's mainly a fiscal regulator, but there has been speculation it might bleed over into things like match times and kick off times and that sort of thing. regulation, the uefa is concerned about this in the email from the head of uefa , email from the head of uefa, theodore theodoridis well—pronounced, he said to lisa nandy that that he rejected government interference in football. yes but the real headune football. yes but the real headline grabber is that uefa has threatened to ban england from the from from the from the competition that we are hosting. yeah, that could be a bit embarrassing, a bit awkward in retaliation. so obviously tempers are quite high. >> and also the head of uefa, whose name i will not pronounce because you've done it for us, has written to lisa nandy. he wrote to her on september the second. as yet no response. i would suggest that football fans might want a bit more urgency from the government on this issue. jake. >> well, i suppose they didn't realise that the emails were going to be leaked, but but yeah, it is in a way it's always a risk. it's always a risk either way. yes. let's hope that

football comes home. >> indeed. so amen to that. thank you so much, jake, for joining me this morning. coming up next, as i've said, i'm going to be speaking to paymaster general nick thomas—symonds mp. he's going to be joining us so don't go we'll be back in three.

welcome back to gb news. you're watching the camilla tominey

you are saying about the to what you are saying about the declaration? this is hardly a case of things being hidden. on the contrary , actually, the the contrary, actually, the prime minister was attempting to be transparent. advice was sought on coming to office as to what was appropriate to donate. the advice was followed, but that advice was then doubted. further interrogation took place. that was, i understand it earlier this month, and now that additional declaration will be made. it's not a case of hiding.

>> no, but he's late to he. hang on though, let's be honest, isn't keir starmer very much a man who is a stickler for the rules, as he constantly reminds us that he was the former director of public prosecutions? in fact , during wallpapergate, in fact, during wallpapergate, which is still fresh in the memory in april 2021, he said to minister should know the rules. >> well,ina did minister should know the rules. >> well,in april 2021, said to the then prime minister, boris memory in april 2021, he said to the then prime minister, boris johnson that he should be aware johnson that he should be aware of the rules , that he should of the rules , that he should of the rules, that he should know that he has to declare any of the rules, that he should know that he has to declare any loans or credit arrangements or loans or credit arrangements or any donations to his political any donations to his political activities within 28 days. 28 activities within 28 days. 28 days. prime minister yes, he days. prime minister yes, he will know that any donation must will know that any donation must be recorded in the register of be recorded in the register of ministers interests and that ministers interests and that under any law, any donation of under any law, any donation of over £500 to a political party over £500 to a political party must be registered and declared. must be registered and declared. so the rules are very clear, so the rules are very clear, said keir starmer. so why said keir starmer. so why doesn't keir starmer know the doesn't keir starmer know the rules if he thinks that his rules if he thinks that his predecessors should have known predecessors should have known them? >> well, firstly, there's them? >> well, firstly, there's absolutely no comparison between absolutely no comparison between partygate and what happened partygate and what happened there with boris johnson and there with boris johnson and

wallpapergate donations to wallpapergate donations to wallpaper. >> it's no different than wallpaper. >> it's no different than donations to wardrobes. donations to wardrobes. >> well come on, it wasn't just >> well come on, it wasn't just about wallpaper, was it? i think about wallpaper, was it? i think we can both agree that it was in we can both agree that it was in this case, only scant. that this case, only scant. that isn't the only scandal. isn't the only scandal. >> no, but i'm saying about keir >> no, but i'm saying about keir starmer, referred to starmer, referred to wallpapergate, he said on wallpapergate, he said on wallpapergate, he said on wallpapergate alone the prime wallpapergate, he said on wallpapergate alone the prime minister should know the rules. minister should know the rules. so on wardrobe gate, if we can so on wardrobe gate, if we can call it that, the current prime call it that, the current prime minister should know the rules. minister should know the rules. >> well, he did >> well, he did know the rules about 28 days and that's why when he came to office, he sought advice immediately about what to declare, followed that advice , but then doubted it, advice, but then doubted it, subsequently interrogated it again , sought out further again, sought out further advice, and has now made the declaration. but that's twice actively seeking out advice as to what the appropriate declaration should is making declarations. >> why does a former lawyer

earning a six figure salary need lord alli to pay for his glasses and his suits, and his wife's dresses? have you ever allowed another to man buy your wife dresses , dresses, >> no, not not that

to the labour party. but he's someone who's been a member of the house of lords since 1998, has a substantial record of pubuc has a substantial record of public service in that time, over 25 years in the house of dresses, >> ncandt not that 2252, lords and was, as i understand dresses, >> nc and was, that 2252, dresses, >> ncand was, asat egg dresses, >> ncand was, as i 225 dresses, >> ncand was, as i understand lords and was, as i understand it , given a it , given a lords and was, as i understand it, given a pass for a short lords and was, as i understand it, given a pass for a short penod it, given a pass for a short period of a few weeks for the penod it, given a pass for a short period of a few weeks for the transition . but he is somebody transition . but he is somebody transition. but he is somebody who's been in our for parliament transition. but he is somebody who's been in our for parliament over a quarter of a century. over a quarter of a century. >> i mean, i'm somebody who's on >> i mean, i'm somebody who's on television every week. i pay for television every week. i pay for all of my dresses myself. i all of my dresses myself. i don't quite understand this. and don't quite understand this. and i think the public will look at i think the public will look at it and think that it's it and think that it's different . but he's hypocritical because in the same hypocritical because in the same week or two, we've had news that week or two, we've had news that the chancellor, rachel reeves, the chancellor, rachel reeves, who earns £160,000, has claimed who earns £160,000, has claimed

£3,700 back over the last five £3,700 back over the last five years to pay the energy bills at years to pay the energy bills at her constituency home in leeds. her constituency home in leeds. you've got lord alli giving the you've got lord alli giving the starmer's thousands of pounds starmer's thousands of pounds worth of clothes and spectacles worth of clothes and spectacles while you're taking the winter while you're taking the winter fuel payment from almost a fuel payment from almost a million pensioners doesn't seem million pensioners doesn't seem right. right. >> well, on the, the issue about >> well, on the, the issue about when you're talking about the when you're talking about the chancellor, but he applied to chancellor, but he applied to all mps who operate in two all mps who operate in two different places . different places. >> should it should it apply? if you're taking that money away from pensioners ? from pensioners? >> well, hang on, let's let's just take this in stages. there was the expenses scandal 15, 16 years ago. and then independently, it's been looked at. what is appropriate. what are members of parliament need to function obviously where you would live. you obviously wouldn't have fuel payments for where you live, but it's where you have a second property and that's been what's been deemed

independently reasonable for our parliament, our mps, to function. and it's policed independently now. and i think that's really , really important. that's really, really important. but to the winter, but to your point about winter fuel and the means testing of winter fuel payments, that isn't a decision we wanted to make. it isn't a decision we expected to make. it's a decision we've had to make in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. we've got the decision £21.9 billion. if we do not deal with that black hole, and this is not a future theoretical choices in this financial year, this these are choices . are choices. >> these are all choices, aren't they?i >> these are all choices, aren't they? i mean, rishi sunak was right to say to the prime minister, i think in prime minister's questions last week and the week before, you've made and the week before, you've made a choice, you've decided to stop the winter fuel allowance, but you are going to give train drivers who are already on 60 grand a year a pay rise. that's a political choice . a political choice.

>> we've made a political choice that we have to fill this black hole and if we don't fill this black hole, then the economy and the stability of the economy will be at risk. that is why , i will be at risk. that is why, i suppose the problem is . and just suppose the problem is. and just to make this clear, there was a different the perspective of the public, though this isn't very labour this this idea of the starmer's taking thousands in clothes and spectacles. >> the chancellor claiming back her fuel bill. i know that all mps can do it while pensioners are stripped of their allowance. i mean, none of this feels like it represents good old fashioned laboun it represents good old fashioned labour. working class values. that's the problem with it. it's the perception of it. mr thomas—symonds . thomas—symonds. >> well, no, i think that we came into office, we had the independent pay review bodies had been set up on public sector pay- had been set up on public sector pay. that process put in train by the last government, they had

done absolutely nothing in terms of having funds available to actually meet what was recommended. the independent recommendation was 5.5% and we met it. i would suggest that was highly reasonable thing to do and very much about labour values . but also let me just say values. but also let me just say about this black caucus is so important. if we do not take action in terms of filling this black hole, and we put the stability of the economy at risk, it will happen again. as with liz truss, it's working. people that pay the price and we will not allow that

people that pay the price and we will not althem. at people that pay the price and we will not althem. and i am sure places for them. and i am sure you can appreciate the extraordinary risk to public safety that would have presented if people would have known going to prison, they wouldn't be sent there. we were left with with an absolute shambles of a position. frankly where the prisons were bursting at the seams . again, bursting at the seams. again, we've had to introduce the situation where prisoners are released at 40% of their sentence . we're excluding from sentence. we're excluding from that people sentenced for violent offences for four years

or more. those sexual offenders, domestic abuse offenders . but domestic abuse offenders. but you know, you've just mentioned the individual case. anyone who is released is still on licence and can be recalled to prison . and can be recalled to prison. but again, camilla, this is not a decision. we wanted to be in a position to make. we'd like to have actually, you know, and i shadowed various justice roles over the years. i can remember the government promising you know, to build 20,000 more prison places back in 2021. they had the money to do it. their own ineptitude. they didn't build the places. had they done so, we wouldn't be in the position we are today. >> okay , nick thomas—symonds, we >> okay, nick thomas—symonds, we have to leave it there. but thank you very much indeed for your time this morning. lovely to speak to you. interestingly there was a story in the sun on sunday today about hms dartmoor being empty. it's got 700 places, but there's some problem with radon gas. can the government deal with that? who knows? coming up next, i'm going to be speaking to shadow business secretary kevin hollinrake. we've also got tom tugendhat coming in and sir graham brady to talk about

book. do move a muscle

welcome back so much more to come. in the next hour i'm going to be joined by the shadow business secretary, i should say kevin hollinrake and tory leadership hopeful tom tugendhat. but first, here's the news with sophie reaper . news with sophie reaper. >> thank you camilla. it's 10:00 >> thank you camilla. it's10:00 and these are your latest gb news headlines . and these are your latest gb news headlines. some breaking news this morning. eight migrants have died overnight whilst trying to cross the channel. french authorities have said it's also been reported that 200 people were rescued in a 24 hour period over friday, and saturday. this news comes less than two weeks after a separate incident where 12 migrants died after a boat sank off the french coastline. we'll

bnng off the french coastline. we'll bring you more on this story as we get it. it's been alleged that sir keir starmer has broken parliamentary rules by failing to declare donations of clothing for his wife, victoria. the sunday times has reported that the gifts came from labour donor lord alli and covered the cost of a personal shopper, clothes and alterations for the pm's wife during the election campaign, sir keir tried to make the declaration earlier this week but as mps are required to register gifts within 28 days, he was too late. speaking earlier, foreign secretary david lammy defended the pm's actions. this is what he had to say. >> this is not a breach of transparency rule. it's the prime minister that's acting positively to make sure that everything is above board and this money comes from a long standing over two decades. lord alli has been in the house of lords. he has been a big supporter of the labour party. he's a self—made man, and i think there is nothing to see

here really . here really. >> and there's more potential trouble for sir keir's government, as it's revealed pensioners could be left £1,000 worse off this winter. this comes on top of suggestions that labour could also axe the single person discount on council tax at next month's budget. the party have thus far refused to rule this out, stating that difficult decisions need to be made in order to fill the so—called £22 billion black hole left by the conservatives and finally, the crew of the first ever private space walk have returned to earth this morning. let's take a look at the moment that the spacex dragon splashed down. >> standing by for splashdown of the polaris dawn crew . and there the polaris dawn crew. and there you can see. masca as you can see on your screen, and by the

cheers behind us, the polaris dawn crew has successfully splashed down. >> how exciting . those are your >> how exciting. those are your latest gb news headlines. for now, i'm sophie reaper more from me in the next hour 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 . slash alerts. >> thanks, sophie. welcome back to the camilla tominey show. lots more still to come in just a minute. i'm going to be joined by the shadow business secretary kevin hollinrake. what does he think will happen in the tory leadership? who will be in the final two? i'll be asking him that. i'm also going to be joined by one man who hopes to be in the final two, but will he, tom tugendhat? and i'll also be speaking to the former chairman of the 1922 committee, lord graham brady. he's here to lift the lid on his new book

about the downfall of five prime ministers on his watch. it's fascinating stuff, so do not go anywhere for that. but first of all, let's bring shadow business secretary and mp for thirsk and malton, kevin hollinrake, into the show. lovely to see you this morning, mr hollinrake. thank you very much for your time. i don't know if you've been able to catch up with sir graham brady's book extracts and my interview in the telegraph over the weekend, but one of the key revelations is this idea that there was only ever ten letters of no confidence in rishi sunak in his safe, which therefore begs the question why on earth did the former prime minister call the early election? can we not reflect on it now as being a catastrophic mistake ? catastrophic mistake? >> well, the easiest job in the world, camilla, is to stand on the sidelines and criticise, isn't it? and so rishi made his judgement with the best of intentions. lots of people will say, well, he should have gone later, so he thought that was the best time to go. i think , the best time to go. i think, you know, for me, i've got the

highest regard for rishi. and i think when he took over and i was very close to him when he took over back in the 2022, he knew that it was an almost impossible task to turn our fortunes around in that kind of what would have been a maximum of two years. you had inflation rate 11%. you had, the economy predicted to go into recession. and where is it now? the economy is growing. the fastest in the g7. inflation is at 2%. he wanted to stabilise things for the country. he didn't do it. it didn't take that job because he thought he had a good chance of winning the next election. he did it because he he wanted to serve the british people. and i have massive respect for him for doing that. >> and i know that you're supporting kemi badenoch. i've got tom tugendhat coming into the studio in just a moment. why kemi, for you ? kemi, for you? >> well, i think all four candidates are very good actually , and they're very actually, and they're very closely, you know, very close , closely, you know, very close, very close race between them. so i don't think there's any one person that's, going to sweep the board like perhaps has happenedin the board like perhaps has happened in previous elections,

but i worked for kemi for 18 months. i have a very high regard for her. i saw her working up close . she is a very working up close. she is a very strong person, very decisive, willing to say what she thinks. and i think that's quite a rare commodity in politics. these days. and, and i think lots of people like that. but also the thing i really liked about her working as one of her ministers was she she picked good people. she makes sure you're on the eamonn for the, for the right objectives, but then lets you get on with it. she trusts people to get on with it. and of course, if you get it wrong, she'll tell you you've got it wrong. but other than that, she's hugely supportive in terms of what you want to do. and that's why i experienced in my time, particularly when we're trying to get justice to postmasters. >> she's to not direct, then. i mean, some people criticised her handung mean, some people criticised her handling of the henry staunton affair, and equally, she is accused of rubbing people up the wrong way. >> well, i thought she was bang on with henry staunton. i mean, that's proven in terms of the evidence he's given since and what else has come out so again, she took decisive action. i

mean, when you are a strong person, you're bound to make, you know, they're bound to you have your opponents and your opponents. that's a reality. so trying to please people, all the people all the time is not a recipe for success, in my view, not in politics. you look at the great leaders of the past. there have been at times, controversial figures willing to take on received wisdom. that's kemi all over. i think she's she's very effective in terms of her policy making. i think she'd be a brilliant leader and a brilliant prime minister one day. >> now the conservatives are trying to make hay with these accusations concerning lord alli. providing money for keir starmer's wardrobe and his wife, lady victoria's wardrobe and all the rest of it. but the tories don't really have a leg to stand on on this, do they? i mean, it's not as if previous administrations weren't up to their neck in similar allegations of sleaze. we all remember wallpapergate so you haven't really got a leg to stand on, have you? >> well, i've made mistakes, no doubt about it, in the past. but

but the huge hypocrisy here, the one rule for one and another for another. here is keir starmer stands up in the house of commons, says oh my god. boris johnson, a few days late with his declaration of interest. this is 72 days late and i had a david lammy on your programme . david lammy on your programme. say nothing to see here. rank hypocrisy from labour were there to hold the government to account. yes, we make mistakes in office. we deserve to lose the last election but we don't deserve a labour government that is making decisions both in terms of things like conflicts of interest, but also in terms of interest, but also in terms of winter fuel payments, which is absolutely disgraceful policy. we'll see hundreds of thousands of people in poverty having their support withdrawn this winter, >> i just correct you on that because it wasn't on my programme. david lammy appeared. i did speak to nick thomas—symonds, however, but let's move on swiftly. mr lammy doesn't seem to want on your news. he's on our news programme. fair enough. yeah. he doesn't seem to want to come in here and get a grilling from me. i can't think why the same can

be said about his boss, sir keir starmer and indeed the chancellor, rachel reeves. but we all hold out hope. there's nothing to be afraid of. it's just some honest questions that you need to answer. but mr hollinrake, let's also look at this idea that obviously you're now shadow business and i appreciate the tories need to restate themselves as the party of business, but it's really hard for you to do that. you're talking about labour being hypocritical, aren't you being hypocritical, aren't you being hypocritical at the end of the day, you sort of talked right and governed less as your proponent for the next prime minister kemi badenoch pointed out in her launch, you're no longer the party of business because you put corporation tax up . up. >> that's a complete nonsense, camilla. i mean , kemi made some camilla. i mean, kemi made some good points in terms of some examples of that, but that wasn't across the board. i mean, you remember people have very short memories, including you had, you know, £500 billion of support for businesses and households going through that covid crisis and cost of living crisis. it said there were 500,000 businesses predicted to go under. that's what we provided whilst in office. and you asked businesses today

whether they prefer a conservative government or a labour government that's going to completely revolutionise the workplace. not in a good way. 60% of firms now are think the uk has become going to become a less attractive place to invest, and the potential tax changes they're going to bring in, which might have very devastating consequences for businesses . consequences for businesses. every business, every business person i speak to is incredibly nervous about the labour government and would , i think, government and would, i think, would welcome a conservative government back in power. >> all right. kevin hollinrake, thank you very much indeed for sparing a sunday morning to speak to gb news. it's been lovely to speak. thank you very much indeed. well, in just a minute, as i just said, i'm going to be speaking to the tory leadership candidate, tom tugendhat. i'll be asking him why thinks he's the best man for the

welcome back to gb news. you're watching the camilla tominey show. i'm joined now by tom tugendhat, a tory leader, candidate and mp for tonbridge. lovely to see you. >> good to see you too. >> before we get into domestic issues and indeed leadership matters, i need to play the clip of trump from the debate against kamala harris , because it's been kamala harris, because it's been a talking point all week. and i know you like commenting on foreign affairs. and you were chair of the foreign affairs select committee. let's just be reminded of that quote. >> i'm not your cooking correspondent. no, i know. >> let's hear it. >> let's hear it. >> in springfield, they're eating the dogs. >> in springfield, they're eating the dogs . the people that eating the dogs. the people that came in, they're eating the cats. >> they're eating the cats. they're eating the dogs. tom. >> look. this to led a moment of. can i just say coldness in the tugendhat household? because dasha the cat. yes. heard me listening to this on on a clip, and all i can say is she didn't stay on my lap after that. >> but it does beg the question. and i think it's legitimate for me to ask you this. who would

you rather won the us election? trump or harris? at this stage? >> well, look, i always avoid this question. >> no. please don't. >> no. please don't. >> camilla, don't do avoidance of questions. >> i am very publicly avoiding this question. >> and the reason i'm very publicly avoiding it is because i trust the american people to get the right answer. the reason i do is because i want to work with whoever the american people choose. >> so you can work with trump, you can work with trump made these comments. i mean, is this man mad? i was talking about haitians eating pets. >> camilla, when i when i led the campaign against china in our own country, standing up, as you know, to the dictatorship that we've seen have such an impact on our universities and here at home, one of the things i was working with his administration on was on banning huawei. you know, that network in our telephone network to make sure that we were properly protected? i will work with whoever the american people choose. you know, i have my you prefer trump? >> i mean, he's more hawkish, don't you think? well, he would be safer. harris hasn't got any foreign affairs experience at all. >> i've got to be honest with you. i have seen trump doing the

abraham accords in the middle east. i've seen him standing up against iran. i've seen him calling out putin in various different ways. i've also, however, seen, you know , biden however, seen, you know, biden letting down afghanistan. i've seen biden letting down various other things. >> so the democrats aren't particularly good on foreign affairs. so you should be supporting the republicans. >> it's a mixed it's a mixed picture because i don't understand why you're reluctant to back the reason he's a writer. >> you're a righty because i stay out of other people's democratic debates. >> and the reason i do is because i want to make sure that whoever they choose, we can work with, because our job is to work with, because our job is to work with whoever's in in the white. >> the world will be safer under trump, even though he's a bit mad and thinks that haitians eat pets. >> look, i've been i've been a huge fan of what trump has done in the abraham accords and what he's done on many areas of foreign policy. and so, you know, let's let's see who the american people choose. what do you make of this new axis of evil? >> russia and iran now sharing nuclear secrets? >> well, this is what i've been warning about for years. and camila, you you wrote about it. it's incredibly worrying. it is incredibly worrying. and you

know, i have been sanctioned by russia, by iran and by china because i've called out all three for the abuses. not only that they're doing abroad, but what they're doing here at home. you know, that the iranians have been threatening and trying to kill journalists here in the uk. we know about, i think, 15 different incidents. >> that doesn't surprise me at all. it's horrific. i mean, the democrats who you're refusing to say that you wouldn't back in favour of trump? i'm refusing to back any cosied up. they cosied up to iran. i mean, it's amazing now, isn't it? the western world cosied up to iran and offered them a nuclear deal, and now iran is trying to cosy up to russia for its own unique nuclear deal that could end, could actually result in world war iii. >> camila and in 20 1516. >> camila and in 201516. i can't remember exactly the year i called out the jcpoa, the so—called deal with iran, because i thought it was a terrible deal. it was an appalling deal, and i wouldn't have done it. and that was a deal have done it. and that was a deal. sadly, that was done. you're right. it was done under a democrat administration. >> so their leadership on foreign affairs has been woeful. >> look, i have been very critical of them. but, you know, nato is also incredibly

important. and what what we need to do is to make sure that we're defending nato and we're standing up for nato, that what's your view on this storm shadows issue? yeah. use it. >> yes. what about fears of escalation? look, we're poking russian bears again . russian bears again. >> sorry, but this is 20 years ago. russia. you know , russia ago. russia. you know, russia threatened to nuke denmark over an argument about 15 years ago. >> nuke everyone. but we say that we're not meant to be taking them seriously, not least when they're in conversations with the iranians. the iranians. jake wallis simons was doing the papers saying that they've now got the capability for nuclear bombs, not just one. >> i'm not going to comment on any of that. forgive me, because i was i was asked to keep the king's secrets when i was security minister, and i will keep them. but the challenge that we've got with russia is how do we dissuade them? and you've got two choices, right? when you're dealing with a bully, do you do you allow yourself to be beaten up and pretend that it'll go away because they don't, you know, or do you stand up and do you punch back? and i think what we've got to do is make sure the ukrainians are able to punch back. if they don't, we know what's happening next.

>> the russians mish missile landing on russian soil. >> well, there's already british ammunition landing on russian soil in terms of high explosives and so on. so this is this is russia trying to make a difference out of something that isn't desperately different. >> let's bring ourselves back to domestic matters. so how are you? why are you why are you fourth in this? why did you just narrowly beat mel stride? >> i didn't just narrowly beat mel stride. well, i'm. >> you haven't got as many votes as badenoch or jenrick or cleverly. >> that's not true. i've got exactly the same number as as as cleverly. >> yeah. all right. okay. so you're tying with cleverly. but why do you think this is. why are the mps not convinced by you? i'm the one. >> i'm the one who's gaining momentum. and the reason i'm gaining momentum. >> apparently mel was gaining momentum. and we all know how that ended. >> i mel's a dear friend, you know. and he's got he's got a fantastic voice in the conservative future. but the but you know i'm gaining momentum in this and the reason i am is because people can see that this is a chance that we have to reset the party. look, look at what's your centrist candidate, aren't you? >> you're the one nation, the

conservative candidate. >> i'm the one people want. >> i'm the one people want. >> people say, look, we've got to be more right wing. we've got nigel farage. i think, kemi badenoch said, eating our lunch. camilla, you've got reform. are you a bit too wet to camilla? do you a bit too wet to camilla? do you remember to say it? >> do you remember? do you remember during covid? >> but is that the case, camilla? >> do you remember during covid you were very key in talking about things like vaccine passports. who's the only one who voted against them? >> i didn't talk about vaccine passports. i was very anti—lockdown. i was lockdown exactly right. >> and you were against vaccine. >> and you were against vaccine. >> vaccine passports weren't a good idea. exactly right. who? remember. >> and who's the one who voted against them. me okay. >> so you okay. so you're strident on covid but you are quite one nation. you know, you voted for remain. now you're talking about slightly eurosceptic. i know i asked him this question. do you regret voting for remain what i don't what i don't regret is standing up for british interests. and look, do you regret voting for remain? >> no, no, i don't. it was a decision that was taken at the time and ever since then, what i have done is i have consistently supported the democratic will of the british people. we voted to leave. i have consistently voted to leave. yes. what i'm now

doing is i'm setting out a vision for a different future, and that's why i'm building on the work that i've done in the past. now, in 2013, i was highlighting the problem of the echr in the battlefield. >> you were very compelling on this at your leadership launch, because you gave a very good argument as to why we should not at least be in some parts of the echr. that's right. and what the public, i think can't understand is we moved away from the position of the echr on things like prisoner voting. that's right. why can't we do the same now? why does it have to be a kind of lock, stock and barrel department? >> exactly right, camilla, but you're asking exactly the right question. and that, by the way, it makes a change. the french don't apply the echr on the battlefield. the polls don't apply it in certain areas. the germans have kicked out 28 afghans who committed rape and murder and kicked them back to afghanistan. so, you know, if other german, if other european countries who are signatories to the echr can do it, why aren't we? >> but then when you ask the straight question in 2022, would you leave the echr you gave a straight answer of no. >> well, have you changed? no. the question was, do i want to? no, i don't want to. i want to

reform it. i want to change it, and i want to make it work for the british people. now, if that doesn't work, am i prepared to leave? yes, absolutely. >> it isn't just you throwing red meat to the tories like you've been on a journey like robert jenrick camilla from remain to eurosceptic echr ditcher. >> i'm completely straight on this, camilla. and since 2013 i've been writing about this. >> i to be fair, you have been consistent on it. i have and it is and it is. >> absolutely it is. the reason i see the problem is because i what i see is i see an attempt to undermine the security of the british people. and i will never allow that to happen. >> i'm going to ask you for a nuts and bolts answer to a straight question, not opining the state of things, please. just a solution. how would you reduce legal migration ? reduce legal migration? >> you've got to change the visa numbers and the next thing you've got to do is you've got to change the way you do benefits, so that you change the economy. because the truth is, this isn't just about visas. it's also about businesses. every time the government said, we're going to bring down the visa numbers, somebody in the business department, somebody in the treasury, somebody in the foreign office, somebody in the

education department, somebody in each of the departments. no, no, i agree with the principle. but my demand is for it to go up. my businesses need them to go up. up. my businesses need them to 9° up. my up. my businesses need them to go up. my universities need to go up. my universities need to go up. my universities need to go up. you've got to stop that. and the way you stop that is you change the economy. you go to a high wage economy and the way you. >> are you saying cutting down completely on low skilled workers? the office of budget responsibility found last week that low skilled migrants actually end up costing the treasury £150,000 over the course of their lifetime. because you get all of these treasury types and indeed economists on the side of mass migration arguing that it's always an overwhelmingly good thing for the economy. >> camilla, do you remember dunng >> camilla, do you remember during brexit, there was that that guy who was interviewed in sheffield and somebody said, this is bad for the gdp of the country. and he said, maybe your gdp, but not mine. and that's the truth. the treasury is constantly looking at gdp for the country and they're right. you bring in more people, you get more work. and the gdp of the country rises. but your gdp, gdp per capita per person actually has flatlined . and if actually has flatlined. and if you look at it over 30 years, gdp per head , adjusted for gdp per head, adjusted for inflation, has gone up a tiny

bit. >> why don't we assess whether we should have migrants on the bafis we should have migrants on the basis of productivity per hour worked? well, it's i mean, an economist has suggested that just in terms of, well, how do we work out whether people actually add value, we have this points based system, but again, it comes back to that. badenoch sorry, to quote your rival point about talking right and governing left at the end of the day, successive conservative governments over overlooked oversaw mass migration on sort of tony blair and gordon brown levels. >> but this is this is my point. this is my point that most of the migration that we've seen in the migration that we've seen in the last five years or so is a choice. if you look at the tier two visas. so the skilled worker visa before december 2020, how many were issued? 20,700 since december 2020. how many were issued in the points based system? tens and tens and tens of thousands now. >> so that's an abrogation of responsibility. and that was the conservatives. right. >> but that was a decision by, you know, those who were in cabinet at the time and the decisions that they made. and look, i understand why they made it because it boosted gdp, but

it because it boosted gdp, but it didn't boost gdp per capita. >> remind the gb news audience, are you in favour of a migration cap? legal migration? >> yes, i've set it a very strict legal migration cap at 100,000. and, you know, you can argue that does you honour that? >> definitely. i mean, these people have heard this promise time and again. camilla, the days of david cameron, you're right. >> but the reason i'm setting it now is because we've got four years of opposition to set out the policies and the changes in the policies and the changes in the economy that we need to see, because you're absolutely right. i can i can make promises till the cows come home. and it doesn't matter what i want to do is i want to change the economy, change the way we pay benefits, change the way we pay benefits, change the way we pay benefits, change the way we incentivise business. so that we actually see people getting into work, getting that opportunity. and, you know, this is all about things like apprenticeships, about withdrawing benefits from people who can work but choose not to, and how would you do that? >> because that's been very, very difficult. mel stride funnily enough, talked about it on this show. you know, when he was secretary of state for the department of work and pensions, he faced many, many obstacles in trying to grasp this nettle. >> yeah, it's really difficult,

but you've got to be clear and you've got to be clear. and the only way you can do that is by being absolutely clear from the beginning that as a business, you will not be able to rely on a high migration, low skilled alternative to employing british people. that's why i'm setting the target now. that's why i'm putting the cap to jobs that only foreigners seem willing to do. >> i'm talking about care. i'm talking about cleaning. i'm talking about cleaning. i'm talking about cleaning. i'm talking about low skilled, low wage jobs. we've got this issue with 9 million people who could work on benefits, okay? some of them may indeed have health problems that prevent them. but this idea that they are of working age , that number has working age, that number has gone up since covid. we've got a problem that yeah, we do that british people don't want to do these jobs. >> well, we've got a problem that what we've done is we've created a system over 30 years that has allowed people effectively to not just to be parked, but to be forgotten. and that's wrong. it's actually it's immoral. camilla. you know, you and i believe in the dignity of individuals, right? people have an innate dignity, an innate agency in controlling their lives. that's why we believe that, you know, citizens should

have the sovereign right to decide their future because they have in themselves their own dignity and parking them on benefits, pretending that they don't matter and they don't count, and just throwing money at them. it's just immoral. and actually it leaves people feeling left behind and left out. and if you want people engagedin out. and if you want people engaged in the future of your country, and i do, i want to make sure that we're offering the leadership that makes sure that people feel that they have a place, because for me, you know, being a conservative is all about patriotism and purpose, the patriotism of believing in the country and the purpose that we all have. then you need to change the way you're supporting people so that they are brought back into the work system, not because you want their labour, although we do, but because it's about human dignity. it's the best thing for people. >> are you in favour of people keeping more of their money? yes. having been part of an administration that put taxes up to historic levels. >> well, that's exactly why i did not support the rise in national insurance. >> okay, so let me put this straight question to you. if you were in charge, which tax would you cut first? >> well, the first one you've got to look at is corporation

tax because it's risen so much over recent years under the tories. >> what would you put it back down to. >> well i'm not going to give you an exact figure because it needs to be more competitive with ireland. so there's a whole range of countries. >> it's gone up 6%. how much would you bring it down? >> i'm not i'm not going to give you i'm not going to give you a number because number begin with a one or a two. come on, work with me. you're being naughty. but this is why 20. sorry. in 2022, i set out the plan for full expensing. because that again is a tax. right. >> so corporation tax comes down. and then any personal taxes that you'd like to cut. >> you've got to be looking at moving up the thresholds because this is something we've also got wrong. >> so unfreeze the threshold. >> so unfreeze the threshold. >> exactly right. so you allow people to keep more of their money because it can't be right. that what you're doing is effectively what they call fiscal drag, which just means that, you know, you may get a bit more pay, but actually the rates of pay aren't going up with inflation. >> tom tugendhat i think we need to leave it there because we've run out of time. but i think you've given us a very good impression of how you would lead

the tory party, and we wish you all the very best of luck. you go to conference next, don't you? yes. bit of a beauty parade, a bit of a beauty parade and another mp vote. do you think you're going to be in that final two? >> i'm certain i am, because we've got to return. >> we've got it here on gb news. you're certain you're going to be in the final two? >> we've got to return this party. >> you'll be in the final two with. >> well, i couldn't tell you that. come on. no, camilla. i'm not. i'm not going to go there. >> i've got three. >> i've got three. >> i've got three. >> i've got three very good friends. well, you know what? >> kelly is a really very well with her. she's she's a really good friend. and cheese nights at her house. >> she's great fun. no, she's really good fun. she's a great friend. >> thank you very much for coming in to the studio today. good luck with the rest of the leadership contest. contest even now. coming up next, one of tom tugendhat's colleagues or former colleagues, former chairman of the 1922 committee, sir graham brady, is here to discuss his book, it's sensational. it's full of of claims about prime ministers, and we're going to be

welcome back to gb news. you're

watching the camilla tominey show i'm delighted to be joined now by the former conservative mp and former chair of the 1922 committee, lord brady, also known as sir graham brady. for the purposes of this , let's just the purposes of this, let's just call you lord brady as it's more straightforward. so kingmaker, my goodness me, you decided i mean, what's interesting about this, sir graham, is that at the end of the day, you were always resolutely silent journalists like me would be begging you to tell us how many letters were in the safe at any given time, and you couldn't tell us. now you're laying it all bare. why were you a bit worried about breaking a few of these secrets? >> no, i think that there are important things to put on the record for history. i think that i had a unique perspective over a very long period of time , 14 a very long period of time, 14 years. and there are some things which clear up misinterpretations or, you know , misinterpretations or, you know, misunderstandings and, you know, example in the serialisation, yesterday's telegraph, the point about the very small number of letters calling for a confidence

facing rishi sunak. letters calling for a confidence facing rishi sunak . yes. and facing rishi sunak. yes. and obviously that's something you've been pursuing. >> amazing. just ten letters in the safe. and so at the time , i the safe. and so at the time, i think in the weeks leading up to him calling that early election, we had the likes of former tory mp simon clarke suggesting there were around 50. everyone's running around going, oh my goodness, he's going to face a challenge. he never faced any challenge. he never faced any challenge and yet he called that early election. i mean, lord brady, do we reflect on that as being the most catastrophic decision he ever made? >> well , first of all, we just >> well, first of all, we just say it's the great oddity of the system because as i make clear in the book, i came to the conclusion very early on that the only thing you can say about the only thing you can say about the number of letters is nothing. so if simon clarke had said he's got 50 letters, and i'd then responded saying, this is complete nonsense, there's nothing like that, then people quite rightly say, well, how many are there? yes. so you've got to keep quiet about it. and the suggestion that rishi was three away from the threshold of 53 was obviously completely untrue. but it gained some, some

traction. >> but the calling of the early election, maybe he didn't know that. maybe that was a part of his thinking. >> maybe it was. but, you know, i'd given no reason to think that no . that no. >> and although you do note in the book that penny mordaunt is sniffing around around the time of the local elections in may, things aren't looking very good. she comes to you and basically says, have we got a succession plan? what did you interpret that as well? >> she asked , would it be >> she asked, would it be possible to have a smooth transition to me if the prime minister had walked away , i minister had walked away, i assume that she thought that she would be the smooth transition, but i took it all with a pinch of salt, because, again, i say in the book, my experience is there's always seems to be a surfeit of candidates when there's a conservative leader that isn't. >> it also , we had dame andrea >> it also, we had dame andrea leadsom when he called that early election lobbying you. >> well, not not not lobbying me. it was a question asked in the committee meeting on 22, but waving a letter in the air and saying, if enough of us write

letters to you, can we stop rishi sunak from doing this? so it was a it was a remarkable day. but of course , the prime day. but of course, the prime minister had already been to see the king and had secured the dissolution of parliament. so also imagine going to the polls if they had tried to unseat rishi sunak at that point . well, rishi sunak at that point. well, that was my response, of course. and i said that for those colleagues who were seeking re—election, it wouldn't be the best way of starting the campaign. >> from the book, i get the impression that you liked working with rishi sunak. i mean, he has this reputation for being a sort of former head boyish. he's married to a billionaire. he's a bit out of touch compared to the other prime ministers, though. how did you find him ? you find him? >> i always found him very easy company , i think. i do comment company, i think. i do comment he was always very complimentary about the quality of my advice, but then he didn't always ask for it. yes, but as an individual i found him very easy to work with and very charming, very likeable person and also out of all of the prime ministers, he wasn't prime minister at the time, but he

seems to have been the only one that actually consulted you. >> it was after he was fined for partygate and said should i go? >> yeah , again, i mean, i think >> yeah, again, i mean, i think that was an indication of somebody who had a real sort of sense of conscience and it didn't feel right to him. but i don't think i gave advice. i ended up setting out what the dilemma was, and really, he couldn't win either way . he couldn't win either way. he would either be attacked for bringing down the government if he'd walked away and boris johnson didn't. yes or he'd be attacked for saying yes. >> and he was in a bit of a kind of no win situation there. and let's speak about boris johnson. you two did come to blows a lot because you were very lockdown sceptic. he obviously was orchestrating all of the covid measures that you found . measures that you found. draconian two draconian that description by dominic cummings, his former special adviser of him being like a shopping trolley is borne out in the book. i mean , on one hand, he's book. i mean, on one hand, he's like effing and blinding at the

two metre wall and the scientists and on the other, he's making you feel guilty, saying, how many people would you let die? graham, what happened to the prime minister dunng happened to the prime minister during this whole period? >> i mean, it was such a strange time . and, you know, i'd say on time. and, you know, i'd say on on the counter side, of course, it was an extraordinarily difficult situation to be in, extraordinarily difficult to be prime minister. and then add to that the fact that he was so very ill, and i think that clearly knocked him and knocked him. do you think that impaired his judgement a bit? i don't know whether it impaired his judgement, but i think certainly he took a hit and a knock, and i think probably his confidence was less than it usually is, although his confidence was brimming even the night before he resigned. >> so obviously he's been dogged by a series of scandals partygate, the pincher resignation. you speak to him the night before and tell us about that conversation, because he's basically i mean, he is on a precipice and yet he's digging his heels in. >> yes. and, you know, i think also he made an assumption right

at the start of the meeting. he said, so you've changed the rules. well, we never changed the rules. >> so with regard to no confidence, with regard to no confidence, with regard to no confidence and things, because you had loads of mps and half of his cabinet had resigned by this point. people are wanting to oust him. really. he needs a friendly tap on the back. come on now. well, the time is up . on now. well, the time is up. you tried to do that. >> i tried to do that . and >> i tried to do that. and largely because i knew , i think largely because i knew, i think i knew what was going to happen . i knew what was going to happen. we had decided to bring forward the election for the 1922 executive, which is the body that was going to make a decision as to whether the rules could be changed to allow another confidence vote, and that was going to happen on the monday. i think this was the thursday. no, it was the wednesday evening , thursday. no, it was the wednesday evening, on thursday. no, it was the wednesday evening , on the monday wednesday evening, on the monday we were going to elect a new committee . and given the mood in committee. and given the mood in the party, it was obviously going to be a new executive that was going to change the rules, and there would have been a confidence vote on the following tuesday. so i thought it was pretty clear what was going to happen. i thought it was obviously better for everybody

for boris himself, for the party, for the country to have things done in a more dignified and deliberate way than that. >> he didn't agree, though. >> he didn't agree, though. >> he didn't agree, though. >> he didn't agree, as i say again, he was very polite, but he was quite bullish. >> he was like , i've done a lot >> he was like, i've done a lot to this party. absolutely. i've been the most successful prime minister. i won the majority. >> and of course that was true. but he'd also dug himself into a very, very difficult situation . very, very difficult situation. >> i get the impression from the book, correct me if i'm wrong, lord brady, good grammar school educated man from greater manchester that you found david cameron and george osborne to be a little bit snooty. is that fair? >> i think a little bit snooty , >> i think a little bit snooty, perhaps snobby. >> i mean, did they look down their nose at people like you, graham? i'm saying, i suppose i what i say is, i think they found it a bit difficult to understand people like me, and they certainly found it very difficult to understand how very important to somebody like me the grammar schools are. >> and for me, that was how i

got on in life. it was the obvious successful route to social mobility , and it was for social mobility, and it was for them something that could be treated quite casually . yes, and treated quite casually. yes, and well, with the benefit of a high fee paying public school education for both of them one at eton, one at saint paul's. >> that's probably why we're running out of time. so i do want to speak about theresa may. you found a wooden, not very sociable. wanting to take credit for other people's work. is that fair? >> well, that's something that goes back to when a long time ago , when we were in opposition, ago, when we were in opposition, i was on her shadow team, and it was just a fact. there were opportunities that came in media bids. she thought she should do them all interesting. and of course, she was very ambitious . course, she was very ambitious. yes. and there's nothing wrong with that. >> no. and then you reveal that liz truss through kwasi kwarteng under the bus, told you that it was his fault that the mini—budget had backfired. she, of course, ends up having to resign several days later after kwasi has gone . and you have

kwasi has gone. and you have this strange episode where you go to just explain this before we go, you go to see her at number 10, you go to advise her to resign. but by the time you arrive, she pretty much knows what she's doing. but then you have to stay in number 10 because there is a press pack behaving like vultures outside. >> i didn't have to stay, but i offered to stay and again, the odd experience that i had of doing this on more than one occasion, i was very much aware that if i walked out of the front door of number 10, there would be 200 journalists there. and cameras. yes. and asking you , and cameras. yes. and asking you, what have you discussed? >> what have you said? yes, yes. >> what have you said? yes, yes. >> so i said it would be much easier if i can either have a car to take me back to the palace of westminster, which of course is very close by, but it's the only way you can get there without being in public. yes, or if you prefer, i'm happy to stay in the building until you've made the statement . you've made the statement. >> and you did. and you had a tuna sandwich. so when you saw her, let's do that. let's let's do hostage because people were then saying, oh, brady's been in there for hours. actually, you were just biding your time while

she made a statement. comparatively, though, theresa may was quite tearful when you talked about resignation by that morning when you saw liz truss , morning when you saw liz truss, because she had previously been blaming chancellors and all the rest of it . when you actually rest of it. when you actually saw her, it was a short meeting. why did she just knew that the time was up? >> i think she realised the time was up. i had the sense that she was up. i had the sense that she was quite relieved. obviously she'd been under intense pressure for some compared to a lettuce, some some weeks for 47 days. and i mean, i commented that the previous prime minister's questions that she'd been through, and i saw her immediately after that as well, it was i congratulated her on on simply getting through it because it was torrid . because it was torrid. >> lord brady, thank you very much for coming in and discussing your book, kingmaker. it's actually published on september 26th. all right. and it'll be available from all good bookshops, interesting. no back. no, no back chat or backlash from david cameron or anything. at this stage, you haven't had any angry phone calls? no. all right. there's still time. but

good stuff. we've got that on the screen now and you can get kingmaker from september the 26th. thank you very much . well, 26th. thank you very much. well, up next i'm going to be joined by the former defence chief of staff, sir simon mayall. he's going to be discussing ukraine, russia and about his book, which is all about the middle east. so we'll be discussing that in just a moment. back in three. don't go

welcome back to the camilla tominey show. we're going to discuss books now with the former deputy chief of defence staff, sir simon mayall, who has got this new book out. house of war the struggle between christendom and caliphate, which is very relevant, actually, as we are still concerned about what is going on in the middle east. and i suppose you are looking at the history of this from the seventh century to the great war begs the question, is this where it all started? or at

least in world war i, the balfour declaration. declaration can we trace everything that's been going on in gaza now to that, i think you've got to go back a lot further than that. i thought you might say inevitably and actually, a lot of it is, of course, the significance of jerusalem for all the three great religions, obviously for judaism for millennia, christianity, obviously, from the death of christ 2000 years ago. >> and then really when it became the third most holy site for islam in the seventh century, where the prophet muhammad went to jerusalem and left his left his footprint there. so if all three religions are to an extent have looked on this iconic, iconic thing. so the story, there is a good narrative history. i think it's epic, epic battles between the forces of islam and christendom. although the backdrop is, of course a lot of infighting within the muslim world and the christian world. but it's what i also might call applied history that if you read it, you begin to understand how people build narratives of entitlement ,

narratives of entitlement, inspiration and grievance. yes and everybody does it. you know, putin's doing it in russia at the moment, osama bin laden, the book opens really with osama bin laden's fatwas, which talk about the forces of zionism and the crusaders. yes back in the land of the land of the prophet. >> yeah. the historical context to everything that's going on. i mean, it's so complex. it's not particularly closely studied. i note that this book, i mean, from the seventh century to the great war, is a huge period of time, although i note that you leave it at the great war because there is so much to be said about that region, even from world war i to now. >> well, that was well, that was a plug for my previous book, soldier in the sand . that's soldier in the sand. that's right. really went from the great war forward. this is a prequel. exactly. i just felt if people understand the significance of jerusalem, the fall of constantinople, the fight for malta with the knights of saint john, you know, it's epic. lepanto don john of austria, suleiman the magnificent, the fight for vienna, which still influences austrian politics today. when it

comes to issues of immigration. yes. and of course, behind it you've got inevitably sunni arabs and sunni turks fighting iranian shia. yes. well, that still there. we had the catholics against the orthodox. we had catholics against the protestants, we had the french in alliance with the ottomans, against the habsburgs and the and the holy roman empire. you've got elizabeth the first. >> nobody's ever got along well in any of these. >> this is the thing. in any of these. >> this is the thing . so the >> this is the thing. so the headunes >> this is the thing. so the headlines are muslims. christians clash, but actually the context is interesting . why the context is interesting. why then there and the individuals. >> although when you take this back to the seventh century, it does beg the question, how on earth does anything get resolved? we've got 101 hostages still in captivity. we've got gaza almost torn to pieces . gaza almost torn to pieces. >> well, there's a degree of empathy which requires you to reverse the gaze, to see an issue through other people's eyes. and then there's a question also not empathy doesn't require sympathy to understand why certain people are so hard line about certain issues . you know, take it back.

issues. you know, take it back. did i say on our own doorstep to northern ireland? yes. you know, to understand the deep why people would support a terrorist organisation like the ira, you did need to understand a very troubled history between britain and the irish descent. and almost any way you look at the balkans , all the areas i've been balkans, all the areas i've been 90, 9°, 9° balkans, all the areas i've been go, go, go to iraq when we were there and a lot of people and i would say one of the weaknesses sometimes for our american friends is, of course, they're less beholden to history. yes. and that's a great strength. >> they've got a shorter history. >> they've got a shorter history. >> they've got a shorter history. >> they do. they don't have a seventh century. they don't have i mean, great respect. obviously, the native americans. yes. but for the american establishment, many of the issues covered in this book, america as a modern state, as we understand it didn't exist. yes. so they haven't got that reference point. and, you know, when you're looking for important reference points for cultural identity for and motivations, particularly when people are dispossessed or angry or feeling aggrieved, the osama bin laden used to mine very

assiduously the history of the islamic world and exactly what putin is doing in russia. yes, he's mining russian history for grievance, inspiration, entitlement. >> well, let's just as we're fast running out of time, which is always the case on this show, let's just bring it up to modern day. what's your reaction to these stories today about russia and iran in this sort of strange, secretive nuclear pact? >> it's very worrying because both regimes are under real pressure. iran is crumbling, it's brittle. and you might say the same about putin. they're thrashing around for allies. they feel quite isolated in many ways. and their friends, you know, when putin was launched, his war on ukraine, he was in a sort of equilibrium with with china. you could argue with that. but now he's so much the weaker partner and they've both become pariah states in many ways. but the nuclear dimension is what, of course, when we have the debate about storm shadow, i know where are you in that debate advocating their full use? yes, i think i think it is, to be honest. now you've got

iranian weapons being used. you know, with putin in ukraine, you think, well , friends of ukraine think, well, friends of ukraine can go the other way, but the dangeris can go the other way, but the danger is , you know, ukraine. danger is, you know, ukraine. putin is a very interesting psychological study. yes. he's had a lot of red lines and he's said and they've been crossed. >> he keeps on saying this weak, strong men . tom tugendhat was strong men. tom tugendhat was mentioning him threatening to sort of nuke denmark. i mean, this whole poking of the russian bean this whole poking of the russian bear, the russian bear has been sort of been poked for for, decades now. and they don't like it. >> no. they feel real humiliation and again, that feeds that sense of grievance and entitlement and there's always a danger that a weak strongman who's actually a weak psychological case, suddenly thinks, i can't give on this one. i keep sending out these red lines. i keep being pushed. i'll do something. i'll do something stupid. and that's the that's the worry to my mind with putin's russia. >> final thought trump and harris, you'll be familiar with the debate . got one minute left. the debate. got one minute left. who do you think would be safer for the western world to be the next president? i know it's a hard one. >> all my all my all my instincts are with i mean, i think the democrats have been

appalling guardians. yes. i would like to think trump would be. he was certainly a stronger candidate before biden. a lot of disaster since biden. but gosh , disaster since biden. but gosh, those were my instincts would lie. but the individual involved at the centre of it, it really doesn't give me huge confidence. indeed >> so that's the problem. i think the choices are both quite bad . thank you very much indeed, bad. thank you very much indeed, sir. simon mayall forjoining me this morning as i said, his book, the house of war, is available now , should you want available now, should you want to catch up basically on the history of one of the most sort of disrupted parts of the world, basically. coming up next, it's going to be michael portillo. i'm going to be back next week from the labour party conference. so do tune in from 930. apart from that, though, have a brilliant sunday. thank you for joining have a brilliant sunday. thank you forjoining us have a brilliant sunday. thank you for joining us today. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on .

solar sponsors of weather on. gb. news >> hello. good morning and welcome to your gb news weather update brought to you by the met office. well we've got quite a mix in the weather for the second half of the weekend. some sunny spells and showers, but also some cloud and some outbreaks of rain. but there will also be plenty of fine and dry settled weather across the south of the country today. so after a cold start, things will be warming up across the south and southeast, and plenty of dry weather and some sunny spells across northern parts of wales and northern england, though a cloudier day with some outbreaks of rain and drizzle, and across scotland. plenty of sunny spells , scotland. plenty of sunny spells, but also blustery showers too, and these could be heavy with some hail and thunder mixed in there too. now as we head into there too. now as we head into the evening, that band of cloud and rain will still continue to slowly sink its way towards the southeast of the country. but across scotland, where we'll see those showers during the day, they will eventually ease away and become mainly confined to coastal areas across northern ireland, the scottish borders and parts of northern england will see some late evening sunny

spells before the sun does go down, but plenty of cloud still across wales. moving into the midlands. with still those outbreaks of rain and drizzle and fairly cloudy to the south and fairly cloudy to the south and southeast too. now through into sunday evening, we will eventually see that rain and drizzle to the south ease away, but there'll be plenty of cloud here. but across the northern areas, parts of scotland, northern ireland, we'll see a few more clear spells. much lighter winds too. so it is going to be turning quite cold here. may even see some isolated patches of mist and fog, particularly in rural areas , but particularly in rural areas, but to the south that's where it's going to feel a little bit milder under those cloudier skies. now for monday, high pressure will begin to build across the country , which means across the country, which means plenty of fine, dry, settled conditions across the country. and where you catch the sunshine. it is going to be feeling rather pleasant and warm, particularly in those lighter winds. so generally highs of around 21 celsius down in the southeast. but to the north highs of 17, possibly 18 degrees. >> looks like things are heating

up boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> good morning and welcome to sunday with michael portillo. it is the 15th of september, which is the 15th of september, which is known as battle of britain day, since on this day in 1940, the luftwaffe launched a massive attack against our islands and suffered heavy casualties. it's a good day to recall the bravery and sacrifice of those to whom we owe our freedom. today, ukraine is fighting off an aggressor and our prime minister has been to washington already to urge that it should be allowed to use long—range missiles supplied by the united states and europe to hit targets inside russia. i'll discuss that with my political panel. a new book argues that forces on the left are trying to make us ashamed of our history. the book's title speaks for itself

the war against the past. why the war against the past. why the west must fight for its history. the author , professor history. the author, professor frank furedi, will join me to explain. we'll be previewing the tetbury music festival, founded in 2003. it's a renowned chamber music event in the cotswolds, and his majesty king charles the third is its patron. the festival's director, caswell knight, will unveil this year's musical programme and stefan kyriazis, the emotionally sensitive arts