facebook go to prison. is this two tier justice? all of that in just a moment. >> good evening. i'm sophia wenzler with your headlines at 7:00. first to the middle east, where israel has declared a new phase of war as its army turns its attention to the northern front with lebanon. it comes after another wave of explosions have reportedly killed 14 people and wounded hundreds more in beirut. it's understood that walkie talkies have been targeted in the latest attacks, rather than pages. it comes as hezbollah has launched rockets at israel, marking the first cross—border attack since explosions rocked lebanon. the terrorist group have accused israel of what's believed to have been a remote attack, targeting hand—held communication devices. the israeli defence forces say they did strike a hezbollah target last night, but they declined to comment on the explosions. 12

people, including two children, were killed in the blasts and nearly 3000 remain in hospital. 19 iranian revolutionary guards were also killed in syria. that's according to reports on saudi television. now, back in the uk, drivers from the aslef union have overwhelmingly backed a new pay deal from the department for transport, ending a dispute that began in 2022. the deal promises drivers a 15% pay the deal promises drivers a 15% pay rise over three years, with almost 97% of the union's members voting in favour. since july 2022, train drivers have walked out for 18 days, crippling services across england. but with the new agreement, passengers can look forward to some long awaited stability on the rails . now, in stability on the rails. now, in other news, buffer zones will come into force around abortion clinics in england and wales from the 31st of october. it will make it illegal to protest or hand out anti—abortion leaflets within 150 metre

radius, or obstruct anyone using or working at an abortion clinic. those convicted of breaking the new law will face an unlimited fine. a spokesperson for right to life uk said the zone will mean vital practical support provided, which helps to provide a genuine choice and offers help to women who may be undergoing coercion will be removed . and finally, will be removed. and finally, inflation remained above the 2% target, unchanged at 2.2% last month, with new data out today. pficesin month, with new data out today. prices in hospitality , holidays prices in hospitality, holidays and hotels possibly boosted by the final leg of taylor swift's uk tour, are driving inflation, with inflation in the services sector up to 5.6% in august. treasury chief darren jones says years of sky high inflation continues to put a strain on british families , despite the british families, despite the slower rise. he added the government is determined to fix the foundations of the economy to ease the pressure on households. experts believe the

figures point to the bank of england keeping interest rates at 5% tomorrow. those are the latest gb news headlines. now it's back to nigel 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. >> well, when this story broke last night, it was truly extraordinary, wasn't it? pages being used by hezbollah exploding a dozen dead and nearly 3000 in hospital. wow. we all thought. well, it's happened again today. this time it's happening with walkie talkies. don't yet know the full figures . don't yet know the full figures. the initial numbers, we were told, was nine people killed and 300 others injured. so, you know, that is a completely extraordinary. and yet israel have quite a history of this as

long ago as 2000, they managed to kill an activist with a booby trap mobile phone. and in 2020, an iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in iran by a remote controlled machine guns . so when controlled machine guns. so when it comes to this sort of thing, the israelis are very, very clever. and i can tell you that in the last hour or so, the israeli defence minister has said, we have launched a new phase of war, which is them saying, yep, it was us, leaves me asking all sorts of questions if they can blow up pages and walkie talkies, you know, are any of us at any point vulnerable with new batches of phones or even you could go as far as to say, lithium batteries in motor cars, it would appear it would appear that this actually happened with small amounts of explosives that were placed inside the devices , but placed inside the devices, but nobody absolutely as yet knows for certain . what we do know is for certain. what we do know is these batteries were manufactured and came from

taiwan , but i wonder what it all taiwan, but i wonder what it all means for the middle east. iran how are they going to respond? will they respond ? it's will they respond? it's a difficult one. i'm joined by lloyd russell—moyle, former mp for brighton and hove, and kwasi kwarteng, former tory mp and minister lloyd. i mean, quite extraordinary events, but funny, isn't it? israel this very high tech state. and yet on october 7 they were caught with the door open. it seems bizarre , yes, but open. it seems bizarre, yes, but there's been lots of criticisms, haven't there, about the intelligence on october the 7th, i think this, you know, there will be some that are, worry that it's a new phase of war. >> as the, secretary of defence said, i actually, you know, and i'm not a, i'm not the biggest cheerleader for israel out there, but i must say targeted killings of belligerents in this kind of manner seems far better

than bombing. and, and mass captivity, which is what they have done elsewhere. that's a fair point. if it's a more targeted phase of belligerence, killing belligerents and civilians, not i mean, you'll always get some. >> there was a ten year old girl killed. >> you will always get some. yeah, but but 110 year old girl out of 3000 compared to compared to what we're seeing in gaza. actually, i would welcome that. i don't want any war, but i would welcome if we're going to have to have war, something that's more targeted and less without huge civilian collapse or civilian damage. >> i think this i think i agree completely with lloyd on that. i mean, clearly it's much better that people who are belligerents, who are activists, are the ones being targeted as opposed to indiscriminate families, children that you're seeing in gaza. i think the real question mark, i mean, there's still going to be lots and lots of question marks about how they did it. i mean, i haven't quite got my head round. >> i suspect we'll never quite know. >> it's pretty extraordinary. and also, you mentioned the fact that it was a taiwan company, but the taiwan company i read

are blaming their suppliers in hungary. yeah. so nobody's really. >> well, i tell you what we'll do before we get on to what the implications are regionally going to get carlos perez on down the line, director of his security intelligence work for the government of puerto rico , the government of puerto rico, helping to secure networks. thank you for joining helping to secure networks. thank you forjoining us, thank you for joining us, carlos, on the program . how carlos, on the program. how worried should we be? how worried should we be? how worried should we be? how worried should we be about any modern devices, given what's happened here? >> i would say in terms of explosion, not that much in terms of the devices being used for eavesdropping and for gathering information. i do believe that that would be a higher risk than them being used in a kinetic type of way. >> yeah. although if a lithium battery does explode and we've had a spate in and around london of electric bikes, you know, people leave them in the hallway, the lithium battery explodes, the house burns down. i mean, there is still a risk with lithium batteries on their own, isn't there?

>> yes. there's always a risk with lithium batteries. that's why when you board an aeroplane , why when you board an aeroplane, there's a limit in terms of the weight of the battery and the capacity that you can actually bnng capacity that you can actually bring back to the technicals of what happened . what happened. >> so as i understand it, it was a taiwanese company that got the contract. but obviously these goods have to be shipped. what do you think happened from a technical perspective? >> i believe what we are seeing is a supply chain attack. this is a supply chain attack. this is falls in line with the mo that the israelis have used before, and targeted attacks against hezbollah and hamas, where they have actually modified cell phones with explosives before for specific targeted assassinations. we have even seen hezbollah use this same technique against the israelis when they modified a cell phone with explosives that then was brought over into their unit 8200 for examination and then exploded, injuring several of their personnel, what

happened was that as this was traversing their sigint and human units, human intelligence and signal intelligence got information that this shipment was going on. they decided to intercept that shipment at some point during its process of moving over and then modified the equipment. more than likely, they got an early copy so their technical services could actually learn how to work, how they should be modified , how they should be modified, how they should be modified, how they should be tampered. they're more than likely was some testing of this and this is a process that more than likely took multiple months to pull off. we have even seen the united states do this as the nsa . united states do this as the nsa. when the snowden leaks happen. we saw that the nsa actually intercepted cisco dell equipment as it was being shipped and modified it for eavesdropping and also for remote access . and also for remote access. >> interesting. so this is something that governments and in particular importers are going to have to look out for

more and more as the years go by. >> yes, they're going to have to do this. and i think, israel did a measured approach here when they took this actions. they know that this is a capability that now, in the lingo of intelligence services, is going to be burned. that is something that now we're going to see this organisations are going to be taking a lot more care of. they're going to be dismantling equipment as they get lots of that equipment, they're going to be doing x rays of that . so this be doing x rays of that. so this was a capability that they decided to either send a message or do what we call battlespace preparation. and it is something that more than likely , they that more than likely, they won't be able to leverage as highly in the future. >> carlos perez, thank you very much indeed for coming on and giving us a technical view. that was interesting, lloyd, wasn't it, what he was saying. there's obviously been a lot more of this going on than perhaps we'd realised. >> sure. yes. i mean, clearly, i think we've always known that there's phone bugging, and, and we've always known that israel is one of those countries that leads in this ability to access

your data on your phone. but there are other countries that are as well . but there are other countries that are as well. but this there are other countries that are as well . but this explosion are as well. but this explosion stuff is quite interesting, isn't it, that it has happened on both directions that it has been?i on both directions that it has been? i didn't know that until the extraordinary. no idea. i had no idea about, i suspect what it will do is an end to the bulk purchase of any products. people, people, people instead will source it by just going into random shops. >> but i think the point that was made that carlos made about governments being particularly aware that that's i hadn't thought of that because obviously you think the terrorists are going to be very frightened and they won't be able to turn the switch on without maybe, you know, being slightly paranoid, but actually it's something that could be used offensively in a, in a state to state conflict. and that i think is pretty terrifying for, for governments and people. who are you know, looking after. >> well it is there was no turning back. the clock isn't it. >> that's exactly right. and they're going to have to be much more aware of it. i think in terms of the wider implications, i think iran, because as you mentioned earlier, their nuclear

scientist was, was, was gunned down by a remotely controlled machine gun. yeah, so a lot of this technology i think we're just seeing the start of it. and i think people are going to have to be much, much more careful, particularly, you know, who are waging wars against israel. >> is it is it possible kwasi, you know, it was very interesting to listen to lloyd earlier because, you know, he understatedly said he's not a great fan of israel, but but if they're going to take out combatants. yeah. this hasn't met, has it, as yet with the level of condemnation . level of condemnation. >> no, because people can see who the bad guys are . they can who the bad guys are. they can see that hezbollah is, you know, a violent organisation. and if israel choose to defend themselves against that specific threat, i think broad minded , threat, i think broad minded, fair minded people can see that, that that makes sense . whereas that that makes sense. whereas bombing, you know, schools and hospitals full of women and children who aren't anything to do with can i just put the israeli side of that? not intentionally, i agree, i agree, sorry, i should have been more careful with my words. collateral damage in in

somewhere like gaza, which is very densely populated. i mean, i went there as an mp 12 years ago, very densely populated. yeah, that's going to be obviously a lot more controversial than israel attacking and essentially defending themselves against belligerence. >> now, you've also got, of course, other organisations, hamas, the houthis, similarly funded by iran. what are the iranians do next? lloyd russell—moyle well, do the iranians escalate? >> they have been quite good. so far at trying to stop escalation . far at trying to stop escalation. israel has done a number of attacks now, even into iran and in to and their proxies. and iran has not wanted to escalate, partly because i think iran knows that in a full out war of escalation, they would probably be on the losing side against america, against america, but probably even just against israel, supported by america. it doesn't need to be a direct iran, america at war. so i think that they have held back. the problem is, as casualties stack up, do the iranians feel that

they need to engage or not? and of course, we have now a new president in iran that has pledged a more, within the iranian context, a more open view of the west renegotiating some of the some of some of the, i say within the iranian context, not within our context . context, not within our context. and so i think at the moment we don't quite know where iran sits. and they will be there will be a power struggle in tehran tonight with the hardliners saying we need to hit back and there will be the moderates who did win a recent election who are saying, well, hang on, let's be a bit careful and that is very difficult for us. >> us. >> so even the hardliners, my view is that they will look at this technology. the fact that we're talking about this shows how remarkable this is. i mean, this is extraordinary, taking the morality out of it. >> it is an extraordinary, extraordinary thing. >> and the people in iran, the mullahs in iran, the people running the government in iran, they will be all over this and they'll be trying to figure out more actively than we are how this happened, how to do it. exactly. and but i think it's

scary. but actually, i think it's a deterrent. i think israel knew what they were doing. they're saying to the world, look, we've got this technology. we can get you anywhere, essentially. and i think the mullahs will show restraint. >> that's, well, let's hope you are right, both of you, in a moment. we have been hearing endlessly about the £22 billion black hole that rachel reeves discovered when labour won the election. forget it. that's a tiddler the public sector pension liabilities going forward dwarf any current economic problems we may have. and i wonder what on earth are we actually going to

forget your £22 billion black hole. that is nothing. let's talk about public sector pensions now. over the last ten years, something like £317

billion was effectively paid in, but something like £500 billion was taken out. but the real problem is if we project ahead, we're actually looking at public sector pensions for the next few decades, measured literally in the trillions, without the money coming in or being saved to pay for it. potentially. it is an absolutely massive problem. it's something back in 1997 that the new prime minister, tony blair, said to frank field, could you go away and think about this? and field came back with his conclusions. and blair sacked him because the only answer was to put pension ages up. now, that has progressively been happening. but kwasi you have beenin happening. but kwasi you have been in government, you have been in government, you have been the chancellor. that's right. i mean, isn't it funny? we don't really have this debate in public ever. how serious is this? >> i think it's a huge issue. and, you know, i looked at this in government when i was a pps, when i was chancellor and all of that, and we looked at the

history when the people don't realise this. but when the pension age was introduced in 1909, it was hugely controversial. there was a big budget. the house of lords said they'd vote down a money bill and i looked at it and the actual age, the pension age then was 70 and that was 115 years ago, and actually your life expectancy once you reach that point was quite low. so they knew what they were doing. they sensed, they said, we've got to have a pension. but obviously we've got to be able to afford it over the century. we've we've reduced the pension age. but of course, what's happened is that life expectancy has gone up broadly in that time. and so the liability has got bigger. i think what governments will do, any government of any stripe, they will look at policies to try and increase the pension age, but not immediately. so even you know, i'm 49. i will get a pension when i'm 67 whenever many years time, or it may be higher than that, or it may be higher than that, or it may be higher than that, and it probably will be higher than that. let's see. but but the way in which politically you deal with it is by pushing the date back, as it were. you don't say, look, those of you who are 70, you know, you've got to work

till 70 or 75. you say to people who are 40, you're going to have to work till you're 70. and so it all comes in at, you know, a date in the in the fairly remote future, you know, the 2050s, 2060s. >> yeah. but you say that. but we actually have a very large budget deficit already. it's growing. it grows every year, lloyd. you know , as an mp, i'm lloyd. you know, as an mp, i'm sure you've heard lots of people coming up saying i'm very upset. women, particularly the my pension age was put up, the so—called waspi women. but at some point we've got to be a bit more honest with people, haven't we. >> well, there was a particular problem with the waspi women that a number of them weren't properly informed. and so therefore they made arrangements that relied on one piece of information, not the other piece of information. >> government claim that it did inform everybody, but maybe not. >> that was that was the ombudsman. >> the ombudsperson found that there was maladministration in there was maladministration in the dwp. that's not surprising, is it maladministration in government? no, no, not at all. but but but but only for some people. not for the whole cohort. yeah, but but but i do think there is a bigger problem

here that we haven't been honest with people about how pensions are paid for and people at the moment constantly say, i see it on facebook. constituents come in, they say, i've paid in for my pension. this is why i'm. well, i'm afraid you haven't. well, i'm afraid you haven't. well, because they think. >> because they think national insurance goes directly to these things. but it doesn't. >> most public sector pensions are not. and the state pension is not. it is a payment. it's a form of benefit. effectively. yes. both. both of them are forms of benefit that the taxpayer pays out in the now. and what we need to do is transition, like australia did in the 70s. like other countries who made those decisions long ago, where people have to save for their future, and then they can choose how they want to spend that savings. but to do that requires a generation to pay that requires a generation to pay effectively or a few generations to pay effectively twice. >> but we are doing a very bitter pill. you look at, you look at france, you know, they still can't decide whether it's 62 or 60. and so how how can that debate be happening? it's extraordinary. and so we have done some things . i think you done some things. i think you hit on a very important point. i

think people have to know, and you have to telegraph it well in advance. it's no good saying in three years time, okay, we're going to lift the pension age to 70, for example. you've got to say to people repeatedly at this point in the future, in 2040 or 2045 or even 2050, this is what the pension age will be. and once you signal that i think people can absorb that and get their heads around. >> so how much lead time does that need quasi to be politically acceptable? >> i think our rule of thumb was about at least ten years, probably more. so there's no good saying in 2030, actually, this is what we're going to do. i think you've got to give people time to plan and get used to it. and actually, what will happenis to it. and actually, what will happen is that it'll move up incrementally. it won't be a case of going from 65. >> there's no point in just doing the pension age if we're not also sorting out the underlying problems of how pensions are paid, which is contributions, and that needs to be contribution based much more. >> you see the problem with that and it needs to you need to have and it needs to you need to have a pension that's based on your contributions rather than where would the money, where would the

money go? >> who would manage the money. exactly. >> that's the issue. >> that's the issue. >> i mean, that is an issue. i mean, that issue right now, and it's a form of tax right now. >> but in the private sector, so, so, so in the private sector, you have trustees that manage the money in some of the state sector you have that, but in some pension funds of the state sector, you don't have that. and in the and in the national state pension you don't have that at all. it is just paid for. >> but if you went to your system, there would be a huge issue in terms of where the money was going, who was managing. >> that's what worries me. >> that's what worries me. >> that's what worries me. >> that's the terrifying thing you have to invest it in mutual funds. the tracker funds tracker funds. the tracker funds tracker funds or other forms of mutual funds or other forms of mutual funds where you can be assured that people aren't. >> it's like a mechanic saying huge amounts off, but you still have to pay the fund manager fees. you still have to do that. yeah, yeah. and i think, i think that's and some people and some people would get very rich out of it. >> but can we just spare can we just spare a thought though, just spare a thought though, just for a moment. we talked about public sector pensions,

private sector pensions. sure. i mean it's almost like pensions, apartheid between the two. well, yeah. >> i mean, that's the defenders of the public sector would say that's part of the deal, is that if you're in private enterprise you can get massive upside, whereas if you want to be have a secure job, then the public sector and the pensions as part of the perk. so but but actually you're right. because actually often it's the case that people in the private sector pay less than people. >> this is the big change isn't it. that's this is the big change. i mean, i mean, under blair's time, suddenly public sector salaries went up considerably . i sector salaries went up considerably. i mean, sector salaries went up considerably . i mean, the poor considerably. i mean, the poor old private sector. what about them? >> well, the private if you're at the top of the game in the private sector, you're paid. you're paid well, well in advance. and part of the thing with the private sector is the opportunity, you know, kind of it's the opportunity to potentially be paid and that's the pay off. that's the argument. that's the pay off that you get. but we do have a problem at the moment that there's no problem. i think in having a more generous pension scheme for if you're going to

work for the state, but that pension scheme needs to be funded, it needs to be honest about where the funding is coming from, how you would be reserved. >> so the issue i have with your solution is that effectively you would compel people to set aside more of their income, current income for their pension. and to me, that's another word for taxation. you're essentially putting up a levy. >> well, which raises which which raises which raises the very interesting point. >> the treasury and what is going to happen in the budget because my feeling in the budget is that public sector pensions won't get touched . won't get touched. >> perhaps not, but the private saving provisions. >> so the difficulty there is that there's a huge amount of money actually, in public sector pension pots. so you're not going to if you want to raise money, which is what they want to do. i mean, that's of course that they can't rape, but they can't raid the public sector, can't raid the public sector, can they, let's see, let's see. i mean, you know, it'd be very interesting. well, see, you do governments do things like lower the lifetime contribution in terms of how much you can put into the pension pot? there are ways in which you caused us huge problems with consultants and

judges. it did because they all left. they all left. they all left. >> well, the doctors all packed up. yeah because it wasn't worth it. >> but that's the sort of thing they could do. there are some professions in this world that are very mobile, and consultants are very mobile, and consultants are one of those ones where you can go to almost any country in the world and get a highly paid. >> i think it would be very difficult just by buying an aeroplane ticket effectively, yes, but i think it's very difficult, nigel, for the government to distinguish, discriminate, which is what it would be between between private sector pensions. >> well, in the public sector, well, if on the 30th of october well, if on the 30th of october we will find out in a moment, we will talk about the big story in the sun today that who in some cases have been consuming vast amounts of seriously underage child walk free, whilst those that say nasty things on facebook go to prison. >> is this two tier

justice? great. well, following the huw edwards story, the sun today did a really massive front page piece saying that who'd hoarded as many as 1 million images, some of them involving children of extremely young ages, are given zero days in jail , as given zero days in jail, as those that commit relatively minor offences like stealing a bike, get short custodial sentences. but in particular, you know those who've said horrid things and they are horrid things and they are horrid things and they are horrid things in the heat of the moment. anger, drink . who knows moment. anger, drink. who knows quite why, and they've been going to prison getting sentences of a couple of years, maybe up to three years. there is a growing perception in this country that we have two tier policing, that we have a two tier judicial system policing, that we have a two tierjudicial system . it's tierjudicial system. it's a point i did actually raise in prime minister's questions a couple of weeks ago. whenever i make this point that there is a strong growing perception of this, it appears the government

gets very angry. so lloyd russell—moyle many people , many russell—moyle many people, many a growing number of people think there is a two tier system in operation. what say you ? operation. what say you? >> well, it depends what you mean by two tier. when two tier was first rolled out, my understanding was that it was a kind of about a semi racial differential between white rioters versus black rioters. i don't think that's necessarily true. i dispute that. do we have a system of justice at the moment that doesn't work? that means some people that the pubuc means some people that the public think should get harsher sentence irrespective of their race now. race how. >> race now. >> so moving the race, we've moved on. >> yeah, compared to other people that that get more lenient sentences. we talked about this previously, then i think you're right that the pubuc think you're right that the public does think that there is a problem. and part of the problem is that we have not really been honest with the pubuc really been honest with the public for about a lot of sentences. so we give these elongated sentences and people come out halfway through their

time, and we give them elongated to make the public feel better. and then we kind of do the dirty behind their back. it would be much better to the public. and i actually do think there is space for a total review of sentencing guidelines. to say, what do you want? what crimes do you think are the most serious? bearing in mind rioting will always be serious because it's very serious because it's very serious to the state. not not for individuals in the same sense, but ignoring riots, ignonng sense, but ignoring riots, ignoring rioting is a crime. so would this be things like paedophilia? i think the public think are extremely serious and they should be treated, and that's why the sun's put it on the front page. >> so i think that where would you debate this discussion? would this be would this be a big parliamentary debate? how would we do it? >> look, i mean, i'm i'm not usually a great fan of people's assemblies when the euro europhiles talked about it to try and sort out brexit, i thought it was a rubbish. but i actually do think that tricky social issues like sentencing and social issues , actually and social issues, actually a set of people's assemblies , set of people's assemblies, consultations going around the

country where people could feed in hugely bureaucratic. yes. but i think this is well, okay. i think this is a piece of work, but it is a proposal so bureaucratic. >> it does seem to me that what i think is happening is that society's tolerance of these crimes has has disappeared. yeah 20 years ago. yeah. these were serious crimes. but people thought, well, you know, it's the privacy of their own home. they haven't actually that's changed. that's changed. and when the perception changes, i think that judges and the law can be quite slow in catching up to that. and clearly i think today there is a huge mismatch between what the public think of paedophilia and these non—custodial sentences that are being handed out . there's being handed out. there's clearly a mismatch. >> so the hundred thousand. >> so the hundred thousand. >> so the hundred thousand. >> so how do we bridge that. how do we bridge that? i mean what lloyd was saying was he's proposing people's assemblies. the trouble is who gets appointed onto them. but but but but but quasi if there is i mean look, if we don't have confidence in the judicial system, that's a bad place for

us to be. i think it's a government issue. >> i think it is a parliamentary quasi parliamentary government executive issue, and clearly there's a mismatch. and similarly with the social media, because whatever the tolerance of racism and agitation and all of racism and agitation and all of that stuff within the establishment, for want of a better phrase is, is, is zero, they go after, people who are, you know, they've had a night in the pub and they've said silly things on, on twitter. now, i don't want to demean or diminish that, but you can see how there is that difference. now, i don't think it's wilful. i don't think they say, look, we're going to have a two tier system and we're going to bang up the people we don't like and let off the people we like. but i think over time it's evolved and we need and we need to have confidence in the system. >> i said to you, i'm going to draw stumps on that one, because how do you know you're getting old when you find out it's ten years to the day that we had the scottish independence, so—called separation was the word that i used. referendum. and nicola sturgeon has been speaking in

pubuc sturgeon has been speaking in public today saying that scotland will leave the united kingdom and that there will be a unhed kingdom and that there will be a united ireland . she didn't united ireland. she didn't predict we'd rejoin the eu, which surprised me because she generally is against the result of every single referendum and thinks they should be overturned, which is true . funny overturned, which is true. funny isn't it? you know, labour, the dominant party in scotland forever. it seemed suddenly the impression that labour was really quite corrupt in scotland. the snp then dominating totally, but losing the separation vote is scottish independence dead now? >> i think whilst you have a labour government in westminster, it is much harder to see a scotland becoming independent because the snp don't really have something to kick back against. they're their whole raison d'etre. was kicking back against a right wing government that didn't reflect the views of scotland and no one seriously can. i mean, i think that the labour party is more right wing than i would like it,

but no one seriously can say that the labour party is a right wing government that people do. >> i mean people you know, some of your former friends, but we can't really corbynista wing of the party, but not the majority, is it? >> so i think on that sense, for the time being, it is dead. but if we end up with a right wing conservative, conservative, reform party kind of government in the future, i can see how that same rhetoric could be whipped up. i think on the island, unless the politics of scotland change. >> of course i think which is possible. >> scotland has not always been a left wing bastion. now, now , a left wing bastion. now, now, which is a myth that the snp like to pretend that they were somehow the victims of empire, despite the fact that most of the scots dominated the empire . the scots dominated the empire. >> full stop. i mean, david livingstone , he's completely livingstone, he's completely they've completely rebranded and it was always a progressive thing. >> it's all done, isn't it? >> it's all done, isn't it? >> so look, i think, i think they're done for the this generation. i mean, it was interesting when they said when

they had the referendum in 2014, they had the referendum in 2014, they said this will be this will decide it for a generation. then they lost. so they wanted a rerun. and then the same people i remember in parliament were arguing for the same people. they lost the same people. from the tory backbenchers to nil against the snp . and i think against the snp. and i think it's that i think it's a last thought here is we learned that sue gray is paid more than the prime minister, but actually this is not a huge surprise. >> and hey, it's the civil service that run the country anyway lloyd isn't it? >> well, i think that we should have more political appointments and spads effectively at the very top levels of government. and i wrote a report with the pubuc and i wrote a report with the public administration and constitutional affairs committee that not an american system, but there are hybrid systems in germany. you have, for example, where you do have that balance and i do think that we have a problem sometimes at the moment where there aren't enough people with political minds in the civil service. so so a reform of it would make sense. and you are having to pay people decent

salaries because they are permanent and they are the experts. >> so my issue with the experts are they should beware with this. and i know it's very controversial and very unpopular view, but i think the prime minister of this country has paid too little. you look at every g7 country, you know, the president of united states, $400,000. the chancellor of germany, i think, is about ,350,000. all these people who are heads government. are heads of government. and then people say, well, have then people say, well, they have grace and favour homes, but if you go to them, they're not in terribly good shape. >> but we underpay all of our elected representatives. i think we underpay mps. we definitely underpay councillors, all of those people. we kind of dismiss. >> that is a i tell you what that is. >> i think the pm is that is a case that is a debate. >> and i can tell at home you're sitting there, you're shaking your head saying, i'm not saying wrong. i know they are. >> i know they are the prime minister, the prime minister. >> i think the pm, because, i mean, i mean, when the pm can't afford to buy his own glasses, i mean, it's very, very, it's very, very, very serious situation. the funny thing about

this is that when we were members of the european union, there were 10,000 people working for the european union in brussels who's take home pay was higher than the british prime ministers. so if our if you think our bureaucrats are paid too much . well, brussels, they too much. well, brussels, they paid a lot more. now, in a moment , a paid a lot more. now, in a moment, a more paid a lot more. now, in a moment , a more controversial moment, a more controversial subject, i think peter mandelson , subject, i think peter mandelson, lord mandelson speaking in hong kong earlier this week, saying we are going to have closer relations with china under a labour government. is it right that he said that in a territory like hong

lord mandelson, speaking on monday, said that this labour government would be a much closer, much better relationship with china, feeling that the last government was actually

relatively aggressive. i have to say our china policy has been all over the place for years. i've been pretty sceptical about china myself, but somebody who is a sign of file is, of course, stanley johnson , stanley johnson, conservationist, former mep and has just retraced marco polo's 4000 mile journey along the silk road and you're back fit and with a book. >> well , i always like to have a >> well, i always like to have a booki >> well, i always like to have a book i would like to produce. this is my 26th book. it's one of the one of the larger books. and nigel, it gives me great pleasure. it's called in the footsteps of marco polo. it's the story of the trip which i have just completed with my fourth son, max. and we indeed, you say we went all along the silk road . it started 60 years silk road. it started 60 years ago when i was at oxford, and we got as far as the chinese border and couldn't get in. and then i've got to say, we had now a wonderful, wonderful experience going from the high himalayas down into xinjiang , gansu, inner down into xinjiang, gansu, inner mongolia. kublai khan territory

altogether, because we actually were in kublai khan itself. fantastic. chengdu. and we go on. i'm going to sign this to you, nigel. >> very good. >> very good. >> now, there is there is a theory that if you sign a book, you, you you lower it. is it value? of course . value? of course. >> so would you prefer me? not know? i'd love you to sign it. >> now, stanley, while you're signing this , and i know you signing this, and i know you are, as i say, a great cinephile, but but you know, lord mandelson was there in hong kong earlier on this week saying the government will forge closer relations with china. and yet china is big. many thanks indeed. many thanks indeed. there you are . a bit of bedtime, there you are. a bit of bedtime, i'm sure. i'm sure. no i'm sure, yeah. >> by the way, no, it'll be great, i'm sure. >> book of the week in the daily mail. i'm not surprised. >> not surprised at all. now, stanley, how appropriate is it for peter mandelson to say these words in hong kong, given that

all the promises that were made in that treaty between us and the chinese government have been breached? >> i don't think manfred was totally fair in sense of the headline. i've seen the headline , headline. i've seen the headline, lord mandelson slams tory boycott of china. >> there was no boycott. >> there was no boycott. >> well , that's what i'm saying. >> well, that's what i'm saying. i think that actually the conservative government, yes it doesn't it wasn't the it wasn't the golden age of , you know, the golden age of, you know, drinking in the pub in chequers with, with president xi and so on and so forth that, that , that on and so forth that, that, that was perhaps not it, but nonetheless , nonetheless, if you nonetheless, nonetheless, if you look at the actual considered position of the conservative government, i'm not talking about necessarily, ian duncan—smith, i'm not necessarily talking about tom tugendhat or whatever. i, i looked it up . i looked up the looked it up. i looked up the fantastic speech, which james cleverly as foreign secretary, gave at the end of april.

>> but stanley, i'm going to return to my point, okay? the promises, the solemn promises in a treaty that were made about the autonomy of hong kong, have they not been completely breached? >> well , i know chris patten's, >> well, i know chris patten's, chris patten, chris patten, we signed a treaty with china. >> they said autonomy until 2047 and that has completely disappeared. >> can we look at other aspects of the relationship? no no no no i don't think you can focus, stanley. >> i am saying i feel that for mandelson to say that in hong kong, of all places was inappropriate . inappropriate. >> i don't think you can judge the whole of our relationship with china on the hong kong, on the hong issue. i just don't think you can. >> but okay. well let's broaden it out. yeah. how can we how can we trust them ? we trust them? >> well, i have had a very, very close working relationship with china for the last 3 or 4 years

when i've been planning this. marco polo trip. and i can tell you i have had an exemplary relationship with the chinese embassy here. and then in china itself, we had fantastic collaboration and cooperation at every level. are you representative? >> no, in a sense, because you sound like it. >> well, it's only it's only worries me. i see that you've got some foreign registration act out there. you mean i might have to sign a sign? a very complete. no, you shouldn't. you shouldn't put it this way. what this book was about was building bridges. and i still think that building bridges site is absolutely vital. we cannot. and by the way, he said some very important things cleverly. i mean, he he was speaking as foreign secretary. he said, actually, of course, we have to take a firm line when we see an authoritarian regime doing things, we don't want. and that includes hong kong. it included, obviously, the uyghurs, it included other things. but he also made it absolutely clear there are some key issues where we have to work with china climate change, energy, energy policy , health, health data, for policy, health, health data, for example. crucial. look at all the things which they have of

climate change. >> so what are they building? is it is it 80 new coal fired stations every year? no no no no no china china are burning more coal today than they've ever burnt. >> china's progress in terms of moving on renewables is absolutely extraordinary. we wouldn't be anywhere in the climate change treaty if we hadnt climate change treaty if we hadn't now had this revolution in china. so the chinese build a few wind turbines. it's not more than a few. it's more than a few, i can tell you. >> but they fine. but you've got there a population that want to have fridges and want to have all the things we have in the west. the truth is they're burning more coal today than they've ever burnt. >> yeah, but you look at it and they are bringing, bringing down they are bringing, bringing down the peak of the year of peak peak emissions , something i peak emissions, something i think they bring it down from, from 2035 to 2030 or something like that. so it's a huge a huge impact. you can see the wind turbines everywhere you can go. we have seen if you see the film we've made of this trip, incredible solar panel farms all over the place. >> gosh, that's going to be our

future if we're not careful. i tell you . tell you. >> and the other things i deal with, okay, i dealt with them on the on the cop26 biodiversity . the on the cop26 biodiversity. they china, you. you may say i sound like a mouthpiece for china. no, because i work on these things and i for see example, the biodiversity treaty which got delivered in, in, in montreal last, last december. it was chaired co—chaired by china. and it was a fantastic job. it's called the kunming montreal biodiversity treaty. do you think china should become an ally? china is an ally. i mean, i thought this absolute nonsense of i've got to say, this is where i do disagree with the tories. the idea that you could lump china, as we did in our manifesto with russia and iran and put them in a kind of special category as foreign agents, foreign enemies. big mistake. all right, quick comment , lloyd, mistake. all right, quick comment, lloyd, on that. >> what should our relationship with china be henceforth? >> well, our relationship should be probably closer than it has been actually in the past. so

you agree with mandelson, basically, broadly agree with mandelson what we must do is ensure that there's individual hong kongers who feel like they have a responsibility. we have a responsibility to are still given the support that we need, and we need to prevent china trying to interfere, which they are doing in universities and think tanks in britain. so there are some things that we need to be careful about, but there are lots of states that we cooperate with that we have big disagreements with, with india. we have huge disagreements around kashmir and other areas, but we don't suddenly cut off the whole of india. >> nobody was saying we should cut them off. >> should we trust them? >> should we trust them? >> i think we've got to tread very carefully with them, but at the same time we've got to engage with them. the idea that you could just somehow forget about china and say goodbye, we're not going to do anything with you. we're not going to because they're just too big. they're too big, they're too powerful, they're too big, and they're too economically significant. and we've got to have a dialogue with them in the way that stanley is doing now. i remember as a backbencher, we

were high fiving them and she came to that pub in chequers i know had a part of that, and he had to pretend that he liked bitzer, which he obviously don't. you can see one of his children behind a different part. and we changed, you know, we, you know, once the uyghurs, you know, human rights, hong kong, we took a different view. and there was always a balance within the government as to who, you know, how we should we should engage with them. and that's a healthy discussion. but we can't just simply say you're an ally, we love you. you can do whatever you want, but we simply we also can't say, you know, go away. we'll pretend that you don't exist. >> you see, there's another hugely important treaty coming up international treaty. and that's the global plastics convention. you know, this is going to come up now with any luck in galapagos, we absolutely need china to be 100% onside with this one. >> well, stanley, if they're onside and they play by the rules and they tell the truth, i might become a little bit less sceptical. but i want to say thank you for coming on the program. it's always a pleasure to have you on. thank you to my regular panel, who always give us such intelligent debate. what

is reasonably intelligent. you know, talking of intelligent, coming up next on state of the nafion coming up next on state of the nation is jacob rees—mogg, who joins me down the line from next door studio. jacob, what is your big debate this evening? >> well, the big debates on freedom of speech that this lady, bernadette spofforth, was held by the police for 36 hours for making a mistake. held by the police for 36 hours for making a mistake . she got for making a mistake. she got something wrong. she admitted it, but this was such a heavy handed approach. don't seem to go to jail. but you say something the state doesn't like on twitter, and you get held in a prison cell for 36 hours, searched and treated in a way that no decent person should expect to be treated. so we're going to be talking about that with toby young. and then more on the frog gate scandal. >> right. well jacob, jacob taking a very similar view to me that it does appear to be somewhat like two tiered justice. therefore, we need to have a proper open debate and think about this. but that's it. i'm done for the evening. let's have a look what the weather holds in store with for us us,

with annie shuttleworth , it with annie shuttleworth, it looks like things are heating up. >> boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello. good evening. welcome to your latest gb news weather update. a lot of cloud to come in overnight tonight across eastern areas. that will make for a fairly dull start to thursday with the best of any brighter weather across western areas. so we do have an easterly wind at the moment. that's because high pressure is set over to the north and east of the uk, bringing in that easterly wind, and that's what's going to drag in the cloud overnight. once again tonight, i think the cloud is going to be more extensive tonight compared to previous nights. and it'll probably linger a little longer into tomorrow morning. we could see some drizzly rain over any high ground as well, but with the strength of the breeze and fairly extensive cloud, it's going to be another mild night away from the clearer skies across the further north and west parts of northern ireland and western scotland in

particular, seeing a very fine start to the day and with a fairly brisk breeze across more southern areas, the cloud should start to break up quite quickly across more southern areas of england, but across more northeastern areas, parts of central england. it will linger through a lot of the morning, even across parts of eastern scotland, aberdeenshire in particular, seeing some fairly extensive cloud , possibly some extensive cloud, possibly some sea fog as well. first thing. and across eastern coasts of scotland, northeastern england, it will probably stay quite cloudy through a lot of the day, and cloudy and cooler day here to come compared to today. but elsewhere that cloud should clear away quite nicely after lunchtime to leave another dry and fine day for many areas. but nofice and fine day for many areas. but notice there'll still be a fairly brisk easterly breeze as well, particularly across the parts of the channel coast . but parts of the channel coast. but despite the breeze, it's still going to be feeling pretty warm for september. temperatures climbing as high as 26 degrees. another fairly dull start to come on friday, and that's when we see a real switch in our weather, as once that cloud does clear, we could see some fairly heavy and thundery showers

developing across a lot of england and wales, and it's going to stay quite unsettled for more southern areas all the way through the weekend until sunday. in fact, we could see some surface water issues by sunday, but by a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> well . >> well. >> well. >> hello. good evening. it's me, jacob rees—mogg on state of the nafion jacob rees—mogg on state of the nation tonight, as a woman reveals her arrest and jailing for making a mistake on southport , we'll be showing how southport, we'll be showing how labouris southport, we'll be showing how labour is hoping to hammer the final nail into the free speech coffin. the former conservative prime minister, john major, has claimed rwanda was non—conservative policy. is he an expert in being an un—conservative? the true scale of deansgate has emerged, with reverend starmer's freebies

being worth more than anyone else in the last parliament, with his total freeloading now above £100,000 plus, the ostriches of the bank of england ought to remove their heads from the sand tomorrow for the interest rate decision. but will they get it right this time? find out shortly. state of the nafion find out shortly. state of the nation starts now . nation starts now. i'll also be joined by my most formidable panel, the former conservative cabinet minister, sir john redwood, and the sirjohn redwood, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop. as ever, it's a crucial part of the programme. let me know your views. mail @gbnews. com but now it's your favourite time of the day. the news bulletin with sophia wenzler. >> jacob thank you. good evening. here are your headlines at just after 8:00. first to the

middle east, where israel has declared a new