was screaming and everyone was screaming and bawling when giorgia meloni got elected. she's far right. she's hard right, she's populist. so they said , now keir starmer is they said, now keir starmer is over there trying to nick all of our ideas. what do you make to that? and look at this. i feel a bit of a mug quite frankly, because everything i'm wearing, i've paid for myself. if only i knew that all i had to do really, was try and marry a politician and some random person would pay for all my clothes. i'd have saved myself a fortune. i speak, of course, of keir starmer's wife david lammy. he was on the airwaves at the weekend, basically suggesting that, i mean, i'm laughing because it's so absurd , because it's so absurd, basically suggesting that there could be a taxpayer fund created to try and dress the likes of keir starmer and his missus. hang on a minute. i thought we were trying to stop pensioners even keeping themselves warm at the at the winter. it's all about priorities also as well. another apparent assassination attempt on donald trump . what's attempt on donald trump. what's going on? how do we prevent this? as much of the media? well how about you stop vilifying the man in the first place and whipping people up into a frenzy

against him? what do you reckon? all of that and more on a new. a new face on the panel tonight. but first at 6:00. news headunes. headlines. >> good evening from the gb newsroom. it'sjust >> good evening from the gb newsroom. it's just gone 6:00. these are your headlines. the suspected gunman in the apparent assassination attempt of former us president donald trump has appeared before a court in florida . ryan routh is charged florida. ryan routh is charged with federal gun crimes , with federal gun crimes, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm with an obstructed serial number. reports suggest a secret service agent saw a barrel of a rifle sticking out from the bushes on the perimeter of trump's international golf course in west palm beach. according to phone records, routh was in the wooded area near trump's golf course for about 12 hours. the 58 year old was shot and fled the scene , but

was shot and fled the scene, but was shot and fled the scene, but was soon arrested after an urgent alert was put out. us media suggests he's a pro—ukraine activist. trump, who is unharmed, has posted on social media saying it was certainly an interesting day back in the uk. disgraced bbc presenter huw edwards has been spared jail after admitting to accessing indecent images of children. but the judge said his long earned reputation is in tatters. it comes after the 63 year old was sent 41 illegal images by convicted alex williams over whatsapp. the court also heard edwards paid williams hundreds of pounds after receiving the images. at westminster magistrates court this afternoon, edwards was handed six months imprisonment, suspended for two years. it means he won't go to prison but is subject to a probation period. the former newsreader also has to undertake 25 rehabilitation sessions and be placed on the sex offender

treatment programme for 40 days. in a statement, his former employer, the bbc, said edwards had betrayed not just the bbc but audiences who had put their trust in him, adding that the corporation was appalled by his crimes. in other news, the prime minister has reaffirmed his commitment to cracking down on smuggling gangs after high level talks in rome. sir keir starmer met with italian leader giorgia meloni to discuss what he called italy's remarkable progress in halting mediterranean boat crossings. it comes after italy's recent controversial deal with albania to handle asylum claims. in a joint press conference, both leaders underscored their commitment to supporting ukraine against russia and pledged to work together to fight human trafficking. >> the challenge of irregular migration. this is a problem across europe for both of our countries in particular, but across europe as director of pubuc across europe as director of public prosecutions in britain,

some years ago, i saw the important work that can be done across borders on issues like counter—terrorism. and i've never accepted, as we discussed, that we can't do the same with smuggling gangs. and now, of course, italy has shown that we can. you've made remarkable progress working with countries along migration routes as equals to address the drivers of migration at source, and to tackle the gangs and meanwhile, energy supplier ovo has unveiled a new £50 million support scheme to help customers hit by the cut to help customers hit by the cut to winter fuel payments. >> the package, which eligible customers can apply for, includes direct financial aid, temporary reductions in direct debhs temporary reductions in direct debits and home upgrades like insulation and new boilers. it comes as sir keir starmer faces fresh criticism as the government prepares to cut energy support, affecting millions of pensioners. conservative leadership hopeful

james cleverly and liberal democrat spokeswoman wendy chamberlain have condemned the decision, calling it a historic mistake and unbelievably foolish. now house prices in britain have surged nearly £3,000 last month, reaching new highs in august. the average asking price for a home jumped by 0.8% to just over £370,000. that's according to rightmove . that's according to rightmove. experts say the increase, which is double the long term average, is double the long term average, is down to a rebound in the market and easing mortgage rates. despite the boost, there's uncertainty about a potential bank of england rate changes and upcoming budget announcements. now, in other news, the titanic shipyard is going into administration. shipbuilding company harland and wolff has confirmed the business is set to be placed into administration for the second time in five years. its main yard in belfast is best known for building the titanic, with other operations at appledore in

england and metal and arnish in scotland , and tito jackson, an scotland, and tito jackson, an original member of the legendary jackson five, has died at the age of 70. a key part of jackson five's success, tito helped drive hits like abc and i want you back, contributing to over 150 million records sold worldwide. fans and families say his legacy will live on, as it will forever be tito time. those are your latest gb news headlines. more in an hour. >> for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code , or go to the qr code, or go to gbnews.com. forward slash alerts . gbnews.com. forward slash alerts. >> thank you very much for that. sophie reaper michelle dewberry i'm back. i've missed you all at home. how are you? how have you been? have you been following all the twists and turns of the

last week? there is a lot to discuss, isn't there? alongside me. my panel until 7:00 tonight. michelle donelan, the former culture secretary. and steve mccabe, the former labour mp. good evening to both of you. you're very welcome tonight. we do love a new face on this programme as well. you're very welcome. and you know the drill, don't you? it's not just about us three. it is about you guys at home as well. so what is on your mind tonight? you can tell me all the usual ways you can email me. gb views gb news. com. you can go to the website gbnews.com/yoursay or of course you can tweet or text me, but wherever you are, you're very welcome tonight. now huw edwards you know, if i said that name to you know, if i said that name to you a few years ago, you'd have been, i don't know, thinking he was a fine, upstanding man. someone that you trusted, respected, perhaps. what do you think when i say his name to you today? because, of course, he's disgraced now, isn't he? he's just been given a suspended six month sentence for child abuse images. so what, are we going to jail then ? not like people that jail then? not like people that have chucked a bottle or tweeted something offensively and so on and so forth. but he will be placed on the sex offenders

register for six years. good. he'll also have to complete a sex offender programme. good and rehabilitation sessions really do those things work. you'll also have to pay £3,128 in costs and victim surcharge . what do and victim surcharge. what do you think to this? >> so look, i respect the independence of the courts and the process. >> but personally i think that when we're sentencing , we should when we're sentencing, we should be sentencing them in a harsher fashion and that crimes like this, including his do deserve custodial sentencing. and what we're talking about is heinous, heinous acts , appalling imagery. heinous acts, appalling imagery. when we think about this case in particular, and we look at how young some of these children were, who were victims and being abused to get those images in the first place. and then we think about the fact that what signal does this send to people out there who was basically, in effect, got away with it in terms of going to prison? yes. his life has blown up. yes. he's lost his job. yes. the ramifications of going out in the public, but he hasn't

actually faced time for it. and i think that this is a crime that deserves that. >> what do you think at home? do you think he should be behind bars? do you think it's fair? your thoughts? steve >> well, maybe we shouldn't concentrate too much on who he is because the actual sentence isn't a prize . is because the actual sentence isn't a prize. his co—conspirator, the person who sent him the images, only got a 12 month suspended sentence. so i'm not that surprised he didn't go to jail. what? i'd be interested to know is, is that typical? if you're doing that sort of thing, is it likely that you won't go to jail? and if that's the case, then we shouldn't just be talking about huw edwards. we should be saying, what on earth are we going to do to toughen up the law in this area? >> you mentioned, by the way, i absolutely think that he should be in prison as well. i think that if you knowingly have and i want to make this, i always make this point. i'm like a stuck record. people use the term child. child. there's no such thing as child. children cannot knowingly be actors. when you look at so—called child, you're

looking at child abuse. you're looking at child abuse. you're looking at child abuse. you're looking at a child, a crime scene. it absolutely revolts me so. and why i think it's important to say that he is huw edwards is because we've all been paying his wages, and he knew that he was wrong and he knew that he was wrong and he knew he'd done wrong. and he carried on taking our licence payers money. >> i think the bigger issue as well is that, yes, he should be treated the same as everybody else. you know, everybody should be treated the same under the law. however, this has shone a spotlight on it and people that are bad actors out there that have seen this might be encouraged thinking, well, if he's got away with it , i can he's got away with it, i can flip and get away with it. >> well, where is the deterrent line then? because if i had a pound for every single time i've heard the word oh, we're doing this for a deterrent, deterrent, deterrent when they've been sentencing people that have said, you know, unpleasant things on social media or chucked a bottle, it's all been about we're sending a harsh message. we're going to use these people as deterrents. why don't you want to use this fella then, that everybody knows and use him as a deterrent, his sentence as a deterrent, then?

>> i mean, i think we should just crack down on across the board. and we're talking about people that are exploiting innocent children. and as you say, it's a form of grotesque child abuse. and if that doesn't warrant places in our prisons, then crumbs, what does? >> well, indeed give me your thoughts at home. i have got to say that the bbc, they've issued a statement saying that they are appalled by his crimes. he's betrayed not just the bbc, but all the audiences who put their trust in him. i think they're going to be trying hard now to get some of this money back. i think it was a hundred thousand couple of pounds he took after all of this started coming out also as well. he's got eye—watering pensions as well, paid for by the likes of you and i. give me your thoughts. but look, another story that's caught my eye today. it was only five minutes ago that keir starmer was somewhere in europe. i don't know where now, i can't remember, but he was talking about the populist snake oil. he was going to get tough. apparently with all of these awful far right leaning weirdos. do you remember that? because if you had the audacity to want to

restrict immigration, i think that's what keir starmer regards you as well. he is in rome now, meeting with giorgia meloni, trying to learn lessons from her approach in italy, which has been relatively successful in stopping people crossing into italy. what do you think to this? >> well, i think so far all we've seen is taglines and pomp and ceremony and lie—ins like smashing the gang still. but no actual substance. and this is the biggest issue, let's face it, that the british public really care about. we saw that in the general election, and it's almost like keir starmer has woken up to the fact that need to get on with actually governing and tackling the issue. but we're still at the listing stage and the absorbing what another country is doing. it's also the hypocrisy that this strikes because there are similarities. it's this strikes because there are similarities . it's not the same similarities. it's not the same as the rwanda scheme. this is about processing offshore, but it is very similar. about processing offshore, but it is very similar . and a lot of it is very similar. and a lot of people that objected to rwanda objected on the principle of sending them off our shores . and sending them off our shores. and labour cancelled that policy. in my mind , just because it was

my mind, just because it was a conservative idea. and now they are reinventing the wheel, they're going to have to spend a fortune if they pursue the same policy as italy has to get it off the ground. i actually think the idea is a good one. it worked in places like australia before, but it does seem very hypocritical and i don't think it will be the panacea that some people think it will, as we've always seen, you need a multitude of different things to tackle this issue. >> steve. >> steve. >> well, i'm in favour of offshore processing. i think that's the smart thing. i advocated that when i was a member of parliament, so i agree with that, and i'm glad he's looking at what the italians are doing there. as michelle says, it is different because rwanda was about sending you to live in rwanda, whether you had any right to stay in britain or not. it was a different scheme. yeah, well it was some people wanted it, but i mean, obviously if you respect the notion that there are any legitimate refugees, then you couldn't go along with that. and it costs 700 million. you say, hang on, why not? >> so if you believe that

there's a legitimate refugee who, let's just say, faces persecution in afghanistan, let's just say let's agree that, yeah. why then do you think that then therefore you couldn't be, supportive of that person then being given safe a safe life in rwanda? >> well, i think people who held british troops in afghanistan, for example, should be allowed to come and live here. that's what they were promised. >> talking about. >> talking about. >> well, they're refugees, but no, no, hold on. >> let's not be disingenuous because we have a separate scheme, don't we? where we have a resettlement scheme for afghanistan, people who have actually worked with us for some, but not for all, but the bulk of the people coming over are not those people. >> they're economic migrants. at the end of the day. so 800 over the end of the day. so 800 over the weekend, i'm saying that britain, like every other country, should take a fair number of legitimate refugees. >> we did it in the second world war. we've done it at other times in history. i don't think that's the problem. the issue is about the gangs and people who are not legitimate refugees. >> and the sheer volume, the volume is completely untenable

now. and the british public have said, quite frankly , we've had said, quite frankly, we've had enough and we can't withstand that. >> which is why offshore processing is a good idea. >> and i said that i think it is a good idea as part of a suite of other measures. the proof will be in the pudding if this is actually done, though. so far all we've heard from this government is a load of words, no actual action. >> well, we've had a few weeks. you've had 14 years. give us a break. you know, he makes a it makes a good point because a lot of my viewers, michelle at home will be saying this was on your watch. >> he's got such a mess on your watch. >> yeah it did. and that's why we were one of the key reasons why we were booted out, quite frankly. and we paid the price, we did have rwanda up ready to get up and running. we'd gone through all the legal processes. it was the labour party that had stopped us at every turn. and i'm not saying that that would have cured everything. it wouldn't, but it would have really helped. so it wasn't for lack of trying and this is a difficult problem. >> but hold on though, because if your party believed in the rwanda plan, as you suggested did, rishi sunak could have

delayed the date of the election if he believed, you know what, i can get this through. i'm going to get people on the plane, i'm going to get them into rwanda andifs going to get them into rwanda and it's going to really work. he could have chosen to delay the date of the election to post some of that happening, and he didn't. >> well, there are many people that were gobsmacked and confused about the date of that election, including myself. so you'd have to ask, rishi sunak why he called it then, and rather than myself. because you're quite right that if he had delayed it, then we could have got that first plane off the ground. would we have solved the ground. would we have solved the problem? no, but we would have put a big dent in it. but what we do need is this government to actually act now, because it's getting worse. that's the issue. >> and keir starmer, he has been doing like a little mini tour of europe. i rememberjust before i went away, he was wherever he was. i can't remember now where he was talking about the snake oil of populism, and he was saying it was all basically quite far right to want to control immigration. he probably would have regarded people like giorgia meloni in that kind of camp. so what's created this kind of about turn then? >> well, i don't recall him

saying those things that you've just suggested there, michelle. no, i don't recall him equating snake oil and controlling immigration. i don't actually, but nothing's changed in the sense that we have always argued in the labour party that you're only going to tackle this if you work in conjunction with other countries and other parties that is obvious. you can't smash the gangs by yourself. the gangs operate offshore in most of the situations, so we have to work with other countries. >> but he has. i mean, i'm getting on a bit, but i'm not losing my marbles just yet. he definitely has repeatedly used the phrase, populism, snake oil, selling easy answers to complicated questions. he's very critical of the likes of the reform party and so on. and so forth. so how then all of a sudden, as he now to me, it does feel like he's completely pivoted. it feels massively hypocritical actually, to have that approach. then all of a sudden then be jetting off to

try and learn lessons from the people that you've just been critical of. >> well, i think he's been critical of right wing populism in some of the consequences of it. that's that's a fair enough comment. i don't recall him linking that specifically to illegal immigration. and i think labour did see before the election. >> how can you i mean, i don't know about missing something because i've been on holiday. i've had a bit of a rest, but how can you honestly think that when he talks about far right and populism and all the rest of it, that he's not specifically talking about people wanting immigration control? >> well, because i think he was talking about a wave of people who were using the situation in the many riots we saw in this country, which clearly had nothing breaking into shops and stealing trainers has got nothing to do with tackling immigration. some of the behaviour we saw was out of order. >> he was in europe talking about this concern about uncontrolled immigration being a shared issue that was spread across europe. he wasn't i mean, don't get me wrong, he did start immediately using that phrase

when people express their concerns about what happened in southport, i don't deny that. but he was in europe specifically saying that we as a collective share the same issues about the concerns of uncontrolled immigration. and it was that that he was referring to as being people coming in, being bused in essentially, and using snake oil populism as the answer. he's repeatedly referred to this repeatedly. i mean, let's have a little look. let's have a clip from keir was talking about. >> i am worried about the far right. i'm worried about populism and nationalism and the politics of the easy answer, the snake oil. if you like. and i think it's very important that we have a debate about how we confront that. my own personal view is that, through delivery , view is that, through delivery, through showing that there are progressive, democratic answers to the many challenges we face, is the way forward that was him in france. >> i think it was after well, i didn't think that an extremely wild or irate statement, he just made there. >> i didn't say it was wild or

irate. what i said was he is very, dismissive, insulting, critical of people who have the audacity to want controlled immigration, have the audacity to not want their communities changing at a rate of knots , and changing at a rate of knots, and have actually got anger because they've specifically voted against that. he is critical. i think that's how you interpret what he says. >> i just have to say i don't share that view. i don't think that's what i hear. >> my marbles, everyone at home. i am getting on a bit though, but i don't think i was that bad. what do you think? do you interpret him when he talks about snake oil salesmen and all the rest of it? do you interpret that as being criticism to anyone, quite frankly, who wants to control immigration in this country? tell me what you think. there's lots i want to cover on the programme with you tonight. who buys your clothes ? have you who buys your clothes? have you got a spouse? if you've got a wife and some random fella was buying her clothes, would you be cool with that? i want to cover that and lots more. i'll see you

hi there. i'm michelle dewberry. i'm with you till 7:00 tonight. alongside me, there's two of us. two michelle's. what a treat for the nation. michelle donelan, the nation. michelle donelan, the former culture secretary, and steve mccabe, the former labour mp. welcome back everybody. there's a lot of people getting in touch suggesting two tier policing. i've heard that a lot recently when it comes to the likes of huw edwards, he is having admitted receiving grotesque images of children. but of course, many of you pointing out that people that have tweeted things and all the rest of it are indeed behind bars. suggestion from you at home that that is some kind of two tier justice, keep your thoughts on that one coming in. lots of people are criticising the fact that labour came straight in and scrapped rwanda. you'll remember, perhaps you'll remember the conversation about

germany, perhaps looking at the rwanda programme, all the money that we'd laid, the foundations for germany were exploring, perhaps using that. sure, it was germany. what do you make to that? was it germany, before i went away, was talking about using rwanda. there's been some suggestion. >> the germans. well, everyone is looking at some version of offshore processing or something else, and that's been suggested. labour said before the election they were going to scrap the rwanda scheme. so it wasn't really a shock to anyone. and as i said earlier, i mean, 700 million is searching for volunteers, isn't exactly what most of us call value for money. yeah, but hang on a second. >> it was all about i mean, i probably don't even need to open this can of worms again. i'll spend my whole programme ranting about this. you can tell that. certainly not to cancel it. but look, it was supposed to be a deterrent, wasn't it? many would argue it was already starting to become one, but anyway, look, should we move on? keir starmer, he is under fire again. have you seen this one? i mean, this world honestly gets more bizarre

by the minute. and who knew? i thought as a professional grown woman, you're able to buy your own clothes. but little did i realise that he actually you marry someone who then goes on to be the prime minister. potentially someone else will step in and buy your clothes for you.the step in and buy your clothes for you. the same someone else that has just been buying keir starmer glasses, clothes and so on and so forth. this is very weird . it is weird. weird. it is weird. >> you can't really make it up, could you? so you've got to remember keir starmer is the individual who held the last government to the highest standard, who slammed boris johnson for using donors for personal use , who really made a personal use, who really made a big thing of the importance of transparency and openness . and transparency and openness. and now we see a failure to be transparent and to retrospectively try and correct the record. and there was some commentary from david lammy over the weekend saying, well, all prime ministers have done this well, that's not actually true. if you look at carrie johnson , if you look at carrie johnson, she rented her her dresses and outfits for important international events. so did sarah brown. i think cherie

blair funded her own, it is very odd that we have somebody that has suddenly become such a hypocrite on this issue, and my problem is not his use of a donor at all. my problem is the fact that he failed to declare it and then he was really hypocritical in this fashion of how he treated the opposition compared to his own actions. >> but he would argue his camp would argue that actually he didn't fail to declare it. he didn't fail to declare it. he didn't realise that he needed to declare it. and then actually, he then voluntarily went back and gave that information over. but if you if you. >> yeah, but if you, if you didn't realise you needed to declare it when the rules are there, that's a bit of a convenient line to now use steve who buys your clothes. >> well, i hate to admit this, but mostly i buy my own. occasionally people buy me the odd item which stands out. >> do they? do they now? so tell me then, what do you make of all this? >> well, first of all, you're quite right. >> this is a story because keir starmer's people gave it to the press in order to be open about it. it's not that new. i mean,

there is something quite interesting about this idea about whether the prime minister's wife has to dress in a particular way at all. i mean, we spend a lot of time talking about women are being people in their own right. and then we talk about the prime minister's wife as if she's an attachment. so there is something interesting in that. but frankly, you know, i'm old enough much older than either of you, to remember the carry on about michael foot and the alleged donkey jacket at the cenotaph. so this obsession with labour people and their clothes is something that i just don't get. i think , i do not offered get. i think, i do not offered to pay for some of her jacket because in case you're wondering, his viewers do know what i'm talking about. you know, there was a big fuss about that. apparently, he was wearing the wrong clothes. somebody should have bought him a different coat. the issue about keir starmer's wife is a donor. paid for some of her outfits, and now it's been declared in

his people. gave the story to the press. what is the story? >> well, i think the story is the fact that it's quite hypocritical of him because of the way that he acted and responded to the use of donors in the previous government administration, and also , does administration, and also, does this not the issue about pretending they didn't know who the donors were? >> that was it was always the thing that made it was the thing that made the headlines. >> but isn't the bigger story here as well? is this a prime minister that's distracted and hasn't got his priorities in the right order? >> because i think you're doing your best to distract him by talking about this. >> we've just seen a government do undertake a vote on the winter fuel allowance, which will leave so many pensioners in poverty this winter, and yet he's there focusing on making sure his wife is in the right looking dresses, etc. i mean that to me makes me think the priorities you were saying he wasn't focusing on it. >> you were complaining that someone else was focusing on it and shouldn't be. >> but there was a lack of transparency originally, but

that's different to the fact that's different to the fact that he's obviously made a conscious decision. my wife has to have very expensive designer clothes. we have to make sure that she looks the part. but at the same time not understanding the same time not understanding the fact that pensioners, not people. >> why i mention michael foot? >> why i mention michael foot? >> because if he didn't look the part who do you think would be complaining? who would be jumping up and down and denouncing her? >> look, i've got no problem with him using a donor to fund clothing. i think that is the, the issue. the issue is the hypocrisy here and also but and also the fact that has he really got his priorities sorted, if he really has to do this and think this is really important now of all times, can we just rewind second? >> why do both of you think it's normal and, okay, permissible or whatever for a donor to buy your clothes. >> so i don't think it's normal and i don't think he needs to do it, given his independent wealth. but i think if he wants to make that decision and justify that, it's not up to me to justify it, then he needs to be really transparent and do it. my be really transparent and do it. my questioning would be more

around why does he think that's around why does he think that's a priority? why does he think his wife has to be in these expensive designer clothes? but he thinks it's okay for pensioners not to have enough money for heating. to me, that smacks of somebody that doesn't understand what's going on in modern britain. >> but taxpayers, we taxpayers fund our public servants to quite a generous amount of money. i mean, the average wage in this country is about, i don't know, say £36,000 or something. if you're an mp , something. if you're an mp, you're on 90 odd if you're a pm. obviously much , much more. and obviously much, much more. and so on. the average taxpayer will be shouting at their screens now going, hang on a second, these people who we're paying for and enough money to buy their own clothes, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. if some random fella wants to buy your wife, or indeed you some clothes, they're not doing that from the goodness of their heart because they're looking at you going, oh, you look a bit of a scruff bag. let me step in. there's a reason why people are doing that. do you not think, well, the donor in this case is a long standing labour party

donon >>i donon >> i don't think there's any great surprise who he is. >> well, what i'm questioning , >> well, what i'm questioning, i'm pushing back on this kind of accepted notion that high earning public servants is now become normalised, that people will pay for their clothing. and david lammy, you mentioned him at the weekend. i was flabbergasted because he was on the airwaves seemingly trying to defend this. and one of the things that he was suggesting, i couldn't believe my own ears. he was suggesting that he'd just come back from the us and there they have some kind of allowance orfund they have some kind of allowance or fund for their, president or whatever. and the first lady to receive clothing. it was almost like he was suggesting that we taxpayers should create a similar fund for our public officials here. >> well, i saw that interview. i thought he was pointing out that that was a difference in america. but look, the bottom line here is that, people in the pubuc line here is that, people in the public eye get all sorts of support for, clothing, makeup,

other accoutrements. it's not unusual. it's not unique to senior politicians talking about people in the public eye. >> we're not talking about a random z—list celebrity getting free clothes so they can, put themselves on whatever magazine we're talking about. someone who has political influence in this country receiving basic items for free from donors. these are not essential items. if he can't, if keir starmer cannot afford to clothe himself and or his wife , he needs to have his wife, he needs to have a serious look in the mirror and ask whether or not he's the right person to be leading this country. and we talk about david lammy, but actually at the weekend we had an mp on our show camilla tominey. i don't know if any of you actually saw this, but take a listen to what he had to say around the world. >> if you go to different countries in america, for example, there's a specific budget that is made available there to the president and the first lady. and this is hardly a case of things being hidden on 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 nick thomas—symonds, that was again justifying this decision. >> people at home, pensioners in particular, they are getting squeezed this winter fuel allowance, which i think is disgraceful, the way that the government's operated about that, by the way. but you can't on the one hand tell these pensioners that have got fixed incomes that are struggling that you can't heat your home. this winter, but this fella, the prime minister of the country, was on an absolute fortune, apparently can't afford to dress himself. do you not see the hypocrisy on why people would have an issue with that? >> well, i simply make the observation that when people in senior positions in politics are not seen to dress appropriately, there's plenty of criticism. >> and if you expect people , >> and if you expect people, what if you are the prime minister of this country or someone in high public office? >> you need to get used to

criticism. and if you can't handle being criticised, go and do it behind the scenes desk job. >> i also think you can't go down the road that i want to follow to that point, because i don't buy this notion that you'll get criticised and therefore that's why we need it. >> you should have. >> you should have. >> you're if you do and if you don't. >> if she goes and buys a frock from primark and wears that, what do you think the newspaper headunes what do you think the newspaper headlines are going to be? >> so what? but but but also well hang on, she is the prime minister's wife, right? >> he's the prime minister criticism directed at him is justifiable. why should she be justified in castigated for simply being married to the guy ? simply being married to the guy? >> but she's not being, is she? she's being criticised for taking the money of somebody who then got a pass to number 10. >> so a long standing donor that is giving us about attacking her as an individual, it's the principle. >> and to suggest that they couldn't afford clothes is a bit of a stretch, which is kind of where you suggest that at all, because they are independently

well off. and the people that we're talking about that are feeling the, the brunt of this government's action are not all independently well—off. you know, there are pensioners that may very well freeze to death this winter because of the actions of this government . and actions of this government. and we're talking about a prime minister who's distracted and thinks that it's really important about what type of dress his wife is wearing . and i dress his wife is wearing. and i think that's that's odd. >> no, i think you're trying to make that a story. >> i think that is the story. it's not me. it's in all the papers. yeah, and you can't stop talking about it because there are plenty of other things we could be discussing. >> but it's a really good issue to pick on labour people and what they were and what's being paid for it. >> i think you're monumentally missing the point. yeah, i agree, because i and most of my viewers could not care less what people were that are married or politicians or whatever. the point here is that pensioners. i saw 91 year old lady, a story of her lives alone, crying her eyes out, apparently cannot heat her home. this year. that's what the

people in this country are having to endure . having to endure. simultaneously, the leaders of the country are getting themselves decked out on everyone else's dime. it's the hypocrisy. it's the message it's sending out. it's wrong. >> i'm not sure. i'm not sure that the leaders are , because we that the leaders are, because we only know this one. we haven't got any proof that any of the others have to be honest. >> what do you make to it all? my >> what do you make to it all? my old mum would tell me there's no such thing as a free lunch. if someone is buying you or your missus or vice versa. clothes? do you think they're doing that out of the goodness of their heart, or perhaps, are there other strings attached? give me your thoughts. lots of discourse, and i'll in

hello there. michelle dewberry with you till seven. steve mccabe and michelle donelan rahman alongside me. lots of you

on the email are calling out the double standards in this. gary from bristol. i'd like to know where you're all from. he says. that starmer the labour party, were absolutely rinsing boris johnson when he had his wallpaper and stuff like that. do you remember that? so what's good for one should be good for the other, who is this? lots of you. very angry as well about this winter fuel allowance. what did you make to that vote that happened? i was off on holidays. i didn't get to discuss that with everybody, what did you get to the weather? what did you think to the way that that went? >> so i think that what has happenedis >> so i think that what has happened is a great tragedy because there will be so many pensioners this winter that will really struggle now, and that many of them will choose not to put their heating on. well, not really a choice, is it? they just genuinely won't be able to afford it and that could lead to them freezing or becoming very ill and sick. and we saw many labour mps still support it. despite that , and seem to have despite that, and seem to have their ears closed to this argument of fairness and

standing up for these people that some of which are the most vulnerable in society, they don't have the choice of going and getting a job. they're too elderly or frail, you know, a proportion of them don't have private pensions or any other source of income. there was no such thing as auto enrolment then, as well. we've got to remember all of that. and a government should be treating its vulnerable and its elderly. >> i would say priority to you, michelle, but hang on a second. >> it's because we inherited a mess from your lot. >> yeah. i mean, they inherited something that they also reinvented and they swiftly created a black hole. and they've made active decisions to go and support the unions, especially within healthcare. and that's created a big chunk of that black hole. and that's their decisions. they've made that decision. they've chosen to spend it in that way and to deny the pensioners of the winter fuel allowance and not look at other options that, you know, that would have been multitude of options on the table that they would have picked from. why did they have to go after the vulnerable pensioners, >> and i noticed as well there was a number of mps that didn't even vote on the issue. what did

you think to that? >> well, i think if you haven't got a legitimate excuse for not being there, then you should turn up and vote. >> and certainly what's the legitimate excuse? because, for example, people were saying, oh, i'm at the dentist. >> well, it's not my job to judge what is a legitimate excuse. excuse. >> excuse. >> what would you regard? >> what would you regard? >> well, if someone has a genuine need to be at the dentist, that is a legitimate excuse, it depends what they're going to the dentist for. i'm saying if there is a reasonable explanation for not turning up fair enough. personally, i think if you were able to turn out and vote, you should have done. and had i been there, i would have done.i had i been there, i would have done. i have no problem with that. but look, the issue here is if you want to look for alternatives, why aren't you going after the standing charge? that's what the energy supply companies are making. they're exploiting pensioners, they're exploiting pensioners, they're exploiting everyone. and in fact, the amount they are taking in the standing charge for nothing , exceeds the winter fuel nothing, exceeds the winter fuel allowance , which, after all, is allowance, which, after all, is taxpayers money. >> and many people will agree

with you on that standing charge situation. why hasn't it been tackled? >> well, look, i think that is slightly deflecting from the issue of the day that the government actively made this decision to take away this money from pensioners, that they were expecting that they'd budgeted for. we can look at other things , for. we can look at other things, and i agree we should look at things like standing charges, but it doesn't take away from the fact that this government has actively taken the money off pensioners standing charges , pensioners standing charges, because that's not new. >> viewers have been in my inbox for ages saying about standing charges, so why didn't you look at that then? >> well, look, i'm sure that it's been looked at many times and there are many reasons why it's never actually progressed. but, you know, it's something that could be pursued. but what we're talking about is a government that almost created and fabricated a black hole. then because of their decisions and also the way that they wanted to market this new government, and then made a decision to go after the most vulnerable group , well, one of vulnerable group, well, one of the most vulnerable groups in society and take their money away before what's predicted to be one of the harshest winters. >> yeah. why? why do it now as

we're coming into the cold snap of weather, why now ? why didn't of weather, why now? why didn't people have a chance to plan or anything? why not say if that's what route you're going down? i don't agree with the route anyway, but if that was the route that the government is going down, why not next winter, >> well, because the huge deficit that we're inheriting is going to affect what comes in the current year. that's the whole point about the black hole. yeah, that's the figures that the previous government covered up. >> yeah. but rachel reeves has been asked to break down. >> i think it was the financial times or something that did an foi request into the government asking for more clarity on that £22 billion black hole and didn't receive it. they wouldn't provide that clarity as to what is making up that 22 billion. so well, the office for budget responsibility says there's a black hole in the spending . black hole in the spending. >> they're independent. >> they're independent. >> well, why wouldn't you then provide the details? when asked then if it's as easy as you're suggesting and it's valid and the information is there, then it can't be that difficult to handit it can't be that difficult to hand it over then, can it? it almost. you could almost be

justified in wondering if indeed that's because something is being covered up. what do you make to it? look, another, what are you laughing at? >> well, it's a touch of the conspiracy fantasies there, isn't it? >> it's not really a conspiracy. if you say there's a £22 billion black hole, which is apparently well documented by independent, said the office of budget responsibility , recognised to responsibility, recognised to provide the detail on that. and you refuse to you're not like, in whatever jones land or whatever it is, if you worry that there is a reason why that information is not being disclosed to you, what do you think at home? tell me. look, after the break, donald trump, an assassination attempt on him again. what do you make

hello there. michelle dewberry with you till seven michelle donelan and steve mccabe remain alongside me. jacqueline. foster, baroness foster, she's watching. she says your guest tonight are trying to defend the indefensible. michelle, we

earned salaries. there should be no allowances for clothes. one of my viewers on twitter, eleanor, she's got in touch saying , michelle, i'm a nurse. saying, michelle, i'm a nurse. if i accepted a gift from a patient, she could potentially be fired. she's asking why the double standards in public office? someone else has got in touch and said, michelle, can you imagine if it was richard tice that had been given free clothes and then gave access to a donor? what people would have to say about that? lots of you are pointing out the priorities of the government. why? many of you are asking , are they you are asking, are they restricting the winter fuel allowance from pensioners here while simultaneously having a magic money tree to fund lots of other things elsewhere in the world? million dollar question , world? million dollar question, everyone. look, the former us president donald trump , he, you president donald trump, he, you will have seen this story, i'm sure survived an apparent assassination attempt again. there was shots fired. i think it was by the fbi. actually, the special branch or whatever they called. i think it was them that were doing the firing anyway. so someone's been arrested. he's now been charged. everyone with

two gun crimes. i've got to say, very odd, crimes. one is basically along the lines of possessing, a fire alarm, a firearm with a defaced serial number. something else is to do with, possessing a firearm improperly. anyway, where are you on this? >> so i think it's terrifying for that in any democracy that this can happen repeatedly , and this can happen repeatedly, and especially as we are still a number of weeks out before that election in the united states , election in the united states, and we need to ensure that politicians or prospective politicians, are in a position where they're not, potentially facing this kind of brutality. we've seen some mps in this country, actually be murdered andifs country, actually be murdered and it's atrocious that that's happened. and we've seen our own security increase and intensify. look, donald trump is a divisive character, but there's nothing wrong with divisive characters when it comes to politics. you do have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. let's face it.

and whilst my natural politics is not in line with with donald trump, this is a decision for the american public. and there's a way in which they can choose or not choose him. and that is at the ballot box. steve. >> well, i think broadly, michelle and i would agree on that. i mean, what i actually think it reveals is the real pressing need for better gun control in america. i'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to carry arms, but they've got to carry arms, but they've got to limit and control that. we see all these school shootings, we see all these terrible crimes committed, and now you can't run an election without the risk of the candidates being assassinated. >> that's doing it. it's the person. so even if you had, better gun control or whatever you're advocating for , how would you're advocating for, how would that stop then? the ones that do legitimately have the guns doing bad things? >> well, it wouldn't stop, but it would reduce the volume of weapons that are available. and when we see 12 and 14 year olds shooting their classmates , those shooting their classmates, those aren't their weapons. those are weapons that are taken out of the house. >> and it did make a massive

difference in the uk when after dunblane, we altered our gun legislation. so i do i do agree, i think it would make a big difference. the debate is obviously very different in the united states when it comes to guns than it is here, and that's a decision for the american people. but it does strike to me as the definition of insanity, that every time we see a horrendous massacre in a school or a mall, etc, that everybody is up in arms like, well, pardon the pun, but everybody is, outraged. and then it's back to business and, and everything just carries on the same. and then it repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats. >> one of the things i found massively absurd is how many media outlets have been covering this story with shock and sorrow, and how do we stop all this happening again? well, maybe if you stop vilifying people just because you politically disagree with them and whipping people up into a frenzy and getting people all kind of het up in their own bedrooms and stuff, then maybe people might stop acting in such horrendous ways. what about that one? look, there's lots of you getting in touch saying that starmer earns so much money he doesn't need people to buy his

clothes. but would you be would you be okay with it if he earned less money? oh, i don't think so. anyway, look, that's all we've got time for. thank you both for your company and for you at home. don't go anywhere, though. but i will see you tomorrow night . tomorrow night. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar, sponsors of weather on gb news . news. >> hi there and welcome to the latest forecast from the met office for gb news. it was missing throughout much of the summer, but higher pressure has now arrived. there will be some cloud in places but for most it's clear spells through the night and during the next few days under this high pressure that's centred over the uk, that's centred over the uk, that's pushed a cold front south. but another weak front will move into the far northwest overnight. that's going to bring some thicker and lower clouds. so fairly murky and damp in places. louis harris sky as well as shetland seeing some light and patchy outbreaks of rain elsewhere. clear skies under

those clear skies . temperatures those clear skies. temperatures falling 2 to 4 celsius in some sheltered spots across central and southern uk . a few mist and and southern uk. a few mist and fog patches. first thing they're not going to last soon enough. clear skies and sunshine return across the uk , that is, except across the uk, that is, except for the northern isles and the far north and northwest of scotland, where it will be a grey, misty and damp start in places. the best of the sunshine across scotland will be through the central belt, eastern scotland and northern ireland, seeing some decent sunny spells. but for much of southern scotland, england and wales it's blue skies from the word go . and blue skies from the word go. and that's how it remains effectively throughout much of the day. some patchy cloud, most likely across east anglia and the south east kent seeing a fair amount of cloud moving in. but for the north and northwest of scotland, the cloud actually thins and it turns brighter into the afternoon and warmer as a result. northeast scotland low to mid 20s, low to mid 20s. further south in places as well. and it's another fine start to

wednesday. the best of the sunshine on wednesday morning will be in the far north and west , whilst central and eastern west, whilst central and eastern england sees quite a lot of cloud during the morning that disappears back to the coast dunng disappears back to the coast during the afternoon, leading to another warm and fine day for many thursdays. very similar but on friday some showers will return by. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> a very good evening to you. i'm martin daubney and this is gbn. tonight on tonight's show today, the prime minister met with his italian counterpart, giorgia meloni in rome to discuss ways of tackling irregular migration . illegal irregular migration. illegal migration? to me and you. can he learn some valuable lessons from

the italians? and next story. the 45th president of the united states, donald trump, has escaped his second assassination attempt in as many months. who is to blame? and how does america move forward? and israel was blamed for the october 7th attacks at a fringe event at a liberal democrat party conference. does ed davey, the party leader, now need to take . party leader, now need to take. action? so we've got an action packed show. sir keir starmer is on his charm offensive. he's been to germany, he's been to france, now he's in italy. will any of it rub off when an italian job turn up on our shores, or will once again, sir keir starmer bottle it? all of that to come. so get in touch with your thoughts on tonight's topics by going to gbnews.com forward slash yourself. but first here's your news headlines with sophia wenzler.

>> martin thank