n0 return to austerity. rachel reeves says there, at the opening of the labour party conference, her speech there. do you believe that or not.7 and also, apparently she's saying that if the problem is growth, the solution is investment. that sounds fabulous. but why then are all of these rumours abound about capital gains tax.7 do you think that the best days for this country lie ahead or not.7 also, let's face it, this could have been a very humiliating debate and it's all about the winter fuel cuts that has been delayed. that vote will not take place now until wednesday. the unions are not happy about that. and also speaking about unions, get this. rachel reeves says

she's proud to deliver above inflation, public sector pay rises. but right on cue, the nurses rejected theirs. has this government made a rod for their own back .7 and let me ask you own back? and let me ask you this question. when it comes to delays in the nhs, should patients who need an interpreter be prioritised to be seen first? all of that and more, but first at 6:00. news headlines. >> good evening. it's just gone 6:00. these are your top stories from the gb newsroom. rachel reeves has accused the last conservative government of choking off investment and suffocating growth and living standards. in her speech at labour's conference in liverpool today. but not before she faced a protester. we are still selling arms to israel . he

selling arms to israel. he accused her. he accused labour of selling arms to israel before being removed with shouts of free palestine! heard from backstage. getting back on track, the chancellor declared labour as the party that represents working people , not a represents working people, not a party of protest, earning her a standing ovation. she went on to promise to repay the trust of voters and set out what her first budget on the 30th of october, will focus on. >> so it will be a budget with real ambition, a budget to fix the foundations , a budget to the foundations, a budget to deliver the change that we promised. a budget to rebuild britain. and my budget will keep our manifesto commitments. every choice we make will be within a framework of economic and fiscal stability. you'd expect nothing less. we said we would not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, national insurance or vat. additional rates of income tax, national insurance or vat . and national insurance or vat. and we will cap corporation tax at its current level for the duration of this parliament.

>> but shadow chief secretary to the treasury laura trott, says labour have lost the trust of the british public. >> i think what we saw from the chancellor today was a tacit acknowledgement that her political scare mongering is actually having a real world impact on the economy. they promised a government of service. what we've seen is a government of self service. they've broken their promises on protecting pensioners, and we think they're set to break their promises on taxing working people or the upcoming budget. they've lost the british public's trust. it's one rule for them. it's one rule for everyone else. >> meanwhile, hundreds of pensioners are staging a protest outside the conference centre as part of unite's campaign against the cut to winter fuel payments. the union is demanding a u—turn on the policy, which removes payments from 10 million pensioners. unite's andy green called it an outrage, claiming the labour leadership have attempted to take out the debate on the cuts. the government, though, insists the move is necessary to fix a £22 billion

budget shortfall to the middle east. now, where 274 people have been killed and more than 1000 left wounded in the most widespread wave of israeli airstrikes against hezbollah in the last year. residents in southern lebanon reported receiving calls this morning telling them to evacuate, with warnings also broadcast across lebanese media. meanwhile, a security source has told reuters news agency an israeli strike on beirut's southern suburbs was targeting senior hezbollah leader ali karaki, but that it's not clear yet what has happened to him. israel is now believed to him. israel is now believed to be considering a ground incursion with a spokesperson saying they will do whatever is needed to protect israel from further attacks. meanwhile, hezbollah is vowing to fight until a ceasefire in gaza is reached . now back in the uk, reached. now back in the uk, police have said the murder of a 15 year old in south—east london

is a stark and sobering reminder of the danger of zombie style knives. police were called to the attack in woolwich on sunday evening, where the boy was found with a stab wound. he died shortly after. a witness who tried to save him said the boy pleaded i'm 15. don't let me die. as she stemmed the bleeding. the victim's family have been informed, but no arrests have been made and a crime scene remains in place. chief superintendent trevor lowry of the met police spoke at a press conference a short while ago. >> i'm very sad to say that we've launched a murder investigation following the stabbing of a teenager last night , stabbing of a teenager last night, sunday, stabbing of a teenager last night , sunday, the 22nd of night, sunday, the 22nd of september, in greenwich . his september, in greenwich. his family have been informed and are being supported by specialist officers. once again, we've had to tell a childs family that their loved one has been killed in an act of violence, using knives . our violence, using knives. our thoughts are with them as they struggle to comprehend what has happened.the struggle to comprehend what has happened. the fact a 15 year old

teenager who had his whole life ahead of him, had been taken from his family in this way is a stark and sobering reminder of the danger of zombie style knives . knives. >> and in the us. the suspect in the second assassination attempt on donald trump wrote a note detailing plans to kill the former president. prosecutors have revealed today. ryan routh was arrested near trump's west palm beach golf course, where he'd been tracking trump's movements for nearly a month. or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts for nearly a month. the 58 year old is expected to movements for nearly a month. the 58 year old is expected to appear at a federal court later appear at a federal court later today, and could face further today, and could face further charges . those are the latest gb charges . those are the latest gb charges. those are the latest gb news headlines for now. now it's charges. those are the latest gb news headlines for now. now it's back to michelle for the very back to michelle for the very latest gb news direct to your latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . slash alerts .

slash alerts. >> thank you very much for that. my >> thank you very much for that. my name is michelle dewberry and i'm keeping you company until 7:00 tonight. that story in the headunes 7:00 tonight. that story in the headlines there about another teenage child dying. i don't know if you've followed the story to which extent. apparently he was laid face down on the pavement asking the woman that was helping him,

on the pavement asking the woman that was helping himtonight. like the labour party tonight. it was accidental, i promise. but of course the labour party, they of course their conference is now in full swing. of course we've been hearing from our chancellor, rachel reeves, the we've been hearing from our chancellor, rachel reeves, the first female chancellor in 800 first female chancellor in 800 years, just in case she didn't years, just in case she didn't land that plant. that plant? land that plant. that plant? that's probably what it is. a that's probably what it is. a bit of a plonk and a bit of a bit of a plonk and a bit of a plant at the same time. anyway, plant at the same time. anyway, listen to what she had to say. listen to what she had to say. >> there will be no return to >> there will be no return to austerity . conservative austerity . conservative austerity. conservative austerity. conservative austerity. conservative austerity. conservative austerity was a destructive austerity was a destructive choice for our public services choice for our public services for and investment and growth for and investment and growth too. yes, we must deal with the too. yes, we must deal with the tory legacy and that means tough tory legacy and that means tough decisions. but i won't let that decisions. but i won't let that dim our ambition for britain . dim our ambition for britain . dim our ambition for britain. >> ron's been in touch on the dim our ambition for britain. >> ron's been in touch on the yorkshire he says. when rachel yorkshire he says. when rachel reeves says no austerity, he reeves says no austerity, he says he understands reeves says he understands reeves speech and he thinks that that speech and he thinks that that means absolutely. a return to means absolutely. a return to

austerity is from our austerity is coming our way. many of you are getting in touch and calling her rachel thieves. that's not great, is it? just at this stage of this government. look, did you make this awful choice with austerity? first and foremost, the tories. >> alex, i thought austerity was the right policy at the time that it was introduced. but, you know, the conservative party still had spending going up throughout the period of so—called austerity, public spending that is i mean, if that's austerity, i'd hate to see largesse. and i think under this government, we are getting the signs, not about the words that you hear at the conference, but about the deeds and the acts. when you see the public sector pay deals, the government's cutting. that's where i think you see the real concern, not i wouldn't be worried about them introducing austerity because they ain't going to what they're going to do is keep splurging until the banks say, we're not going to lend to you anymore. >> really? is that fair? >> really? is that fair? >> well, i don't recognise that at all. i mean, i think the problem with austerity was it was a political effort to shrink the state, and it made cuts

across the board without any regard to the impact of those cuts. and she's making it very clear there's no intention to do that , however difficult the that, however difficult the economic circumstances as regards pay settlements , i mean, regards pay settlements, i mean, either you accept pay review bodies or you don't. it's pretty clear that the previous government didn't, and we had an incredible period of unrest. i think on balance, you should accept pay review bodies. that's why they're there. and we'll come on to this peer review thing. >> but on this austerity point, you know, we've just highlighted in the bulletins there yet another kid killed on the streets of brooklyn. and many people will say, actually, that when we had the austerity happening with the tories, etc, so many police officers were cut. and steve says it was with no regard at to all the impact. is that fair? hang on. >> first of all, i made the point that state spending overall continued to go up. there are governments that balance the books by cutting things. overall, our government continues to spend more money year on year through the period

of austerity. but it didn't. >> services like policing of bobbies on the beat. >> you can single out examples. and i think that cutting the number of serving police officers, especially when you claimed that they were being substituted for pcsos, people with fewer powers, less experience and less training. i think that was a real mistake, albeit i think when the conservative party lefti don't

things off the streets. i don't even know who's manufacturing them in the first place and why they're allowed to. but anyway, it's not about just taking the zombie knives off the street. you could do this with a bread knife. some of these crimes. >> yeah, absolutely. i mean, look, any effort to take them off the streets should be welcome. but that in itself is not the answer. i mean, i think we do have to have better stop and search arrangements. we do have to have better, knife check zones. and where there is reason to believe that people may be carrying knives and invariably it is younger people, then we do have to take measures to check . have to take measures to check. >> i'm up for that. i'm up for police having powers based on a reason or basis that can be tested and can be viewed as proportional or not. what i'm not up for is random stop and search, which gives police officers the power to do what they want, whenever they want. and that's a strange shift in the power of the state, which, whilst you and i agree, there's plenty of people who do want the police to have that power, and i

certainly don't. >> let's bring it back then to the public sector pay because of course we had this moment at it was almost like they timed it to within almost a second, because rachel reeves was basically talking about how proud she was of the negotiating stance that this government's got above doesn't have a negotiating stance above inflation pay rises. and right on cue, the rcn basically said its members had declined a 5.5% pay rise in the past, and this wasn't this is not a party political point. >> when steve was in government, when you were negotiating in the home office with charles clarke, when you guys were negotiating with civil servants over their pay, with civil servants over their pay, you tied their pay rises to productivity and to reform in their working practices, in their working practices, in their environment. this government doesn't do any of that. this government just gives the money. you know what you're supposed to do is have, on the one hand, here's more money. and one hand, here's more money. and on the other hand, here's what we get for it. we get increased productivity and we get reforms to your working practices. this government is a one handed government. give give, give. it's other people's money of

course. but if you don't tie your increased cash to productivity and reform, there is no incentive for the unions concerned to do anything more than just keep on demanding more because they're not giving up anything, and the other thing is, we've seen this rampant kind of spiral of strikes because each union sees the other, the government giving in against another union. we've only secured five, seven, eight, 9%. we're not getting our members enough. well, look 22. >> we've seen no rampant spiral of strikes since the labour government came to power. don't be ridiculous. and of course, actually the issue about the rcn is this is part of a negotiation. it isn't welcome. i'm not pretending, but their major argument is not about the 5.5%. it's about the nurses shift pattern. so the idea that these things are not tied to changes in working practices, it may say that in the opposition brief, but it's just nonsense. >> no, hang on a second, because the aslef trade union boss, he himself said, and i can directly quote, that the pay rise that

his members got were and it's his members got were and it's his quote , no strings attached. his quote, no strings attached. so it's not alex is quoting from a random opposition playbook. this is what the union leaders themselves, who have been in the negotiations, accepted the settlements. that's their view. >> well, of course, the aslef deal isn't actually settled by the government itself. it's settled by the train operating companies, isn't it? and that was open at any time to talk to the argument about the train. disputes was that the government was deliberately blocking the previous government, was deliberately blocking negotiations. >> the junior doctors, 22% over. i think it was three years. any strings attached to that one? >> well, as far as i know, there's quite a lot of talks going on, including the redesignation of junior doctors . redesignation of junior doctors. >> so i mean, i believe that is a package that has quite a lot of detail attached to it. and the proof of that is the previous labour government, of course, managed to engineer agenda for change, and there

weren't any strikes during their period. >> well, it was two governments ago. so whilst i was extolling the virtue of tying these things to productivity and reform your point about agenda for change might well be reversed and said, well, shouldn't that be what this government's doing now? and it seems to me they are not of course the nurses are going to go out and of course the nurses are threatening to strike because they see a deal which they previously regarded much more positively now doesn't look so good. 5.5% plus, whatever it was, it was 3 or 4 from last year compared to the 22% that the junior doctors get . now. the the junior doctors get. now. the interesting thing is you compare the salary of these are all people we like, right. these are all people we want in in our country, albeit the nhs staff's gone from 1 million to 1.8 million over a remarkably short penod million over a remarkably short period of time. but we still want people to be working in the nhs and be happy in it. junior doctors very quickly can improve their earnings very significantly by working in the private sector. nurses and porters and so forth. secretaries in the healthcare system don't have anything like

that same kind of ability to boost their pay a few years into their career. >> nurses can go on the bank and they can do different. trusts will have different wages, but it's nothing. >> it's nothing like the same kind of reward that you can get in the private sector whilst wearing two hats. as a successful surgeon or consultant. so my point is that if you were one of these professions within the healthcare system , which is healthcare system, which is frankly less well paid than doctors, and you saw the doctors wildly outscoring you on a pay increase, of course, you're going to say, we've got to go to the mattresses for a better pay increase because we are not. not only is our pay behind them, we don't have the extra earnings outside our system that they do. >> and don't you worry a little bit, that we're perhaps creating open season. then when we're going into further pay negotiations with different sectors and all the rest of it, because like i said, you've got the aslef unions saying that this is a no strings attached thing. and that was negotiated with the labour government, when you've then got we've already just seen in scotland, for example, the nurses there did accept the 5.5%. they'll say that they had a higher starting

point to begin with. but do you worry a little bit , though, that worry a little bit, though, that now what's happening or what's going to happen is that other unions are going to go, i all of this talk of 5% this and 5% that. absolutely not. we're going to push and push because we know that this labour government is going to be very friendly to us, very open and optimistic. or do you worry about that or not? >> well, of course, scotland is a separate system, but the i think it's reasonable to be concerned about what the relationship between the unions and the labour government will be of course, and that will be one of the tests of the labour government. but i think there is very little evidence after such a short period of time, to justify the gloom and doom picture that alex is attempting to paint. the doom and gloom is all from the government on the doom and gloom keir starmer and you know what? keir starmer has been talking about is the difficult economic situation he was left. but the it's the tory opposition's position to try and pretend that there's some sort

of chaos or crisis at the present time. no one else believes that. >> i don't really i don't think the opposition is. it's not the opposition is not landing punches at the moment. you're landing punches on yourself, you know, all of the self—inflicted wounds in the labour party about donations and gifts . and, you donations and gifts. and, you know, i feel embarrassed that i bought my own suit to come on air tonight, but it seems it's very out of fashion. >> well, let's look at that then, after the break, because of course, this has overshadowed a lot of the conference also as well. the winter fuel situation. unions not happy that they didn't get to have a vote on that today. it's been pushed back to wednesday. i'll see you in

hello there. i'm michelle dewberry keeping you company till 7:00 tonight. alex dean and steve mccabe remain alongside me. alex was making the point

before the break that he pays for his own clothes, one of my viewers has said, what's the matter with the pair of them? can't they afford a tie for themselves? there you go. that's what happens when you have to buy your own clothes. yeah, they do become tight. >> maybe the prime minister can send me one watts or one of the donors. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> well, yeah, the prime minister wouldn't give it to me for one of his donors. would? yeah, okay. >> fair enough. one. the point that you were making before the break was one of the things that's overshadowed this conference massively is the rules about the donors and what they've been getting. >> so i want to you were inviting us to discuss whether the chancellor's approach is broadly working in early days. and to be fair, of course, there are things that she's doing that i agree with. i think she's right not to just splurge on everything. i think she's right about winter fuel allowance, although my support is precisely that which she doesn't want , but that which she doesn't want, but she's really trying to push the stone uphill, i'm afraid, because nobody's listening at the moment . the labour party the moment. the labour party under this leadership was so held itself out as offering such

a moral stance, and criticised the conservative party for alleged corruption in every way you looked. and now the donation scandal hitting labour over the most kind of venal stuff, the tawdry stuff like, you know, events and tickets for stuff and spectacles and clothes and so forth through to the £4 million donation. they, they landed before the election from a cayman islands fund, which, of course, has only just been declared because of the delay in the electoral commission. so right from the most tawdry, venal right from the most tawdry, venal, self—serving stuff through to the largest kind of money in public life debate, it just looks like not only is the labour party at it, they're far better at it than any in the tory party ever was. steve >> well, i don't think the whole issue of the donations and the, the, the help with clothing and things like that has done them any favours. i think everybody would acknowledge that. but to pretend it's remotely on a scale

that could be compared to what was happening over the last penod was happening over the last period of the tory government is utterly absurd. >> why is it because we're talking about small amounts of money compared to people who were being given millions in deals to exploit things like covid? so steve, your your constituents in the two birmingham seats, you represented, have you said to them, you know, the prime minister had 100 grand of gifts from donors, which is the case, he acknowledges. >> you think that would be a small amount to them. >> i said in comparison and we are talking about relatively small sums in comparison to the amount of money that was the focus of the tory sleaze. i'm i'm so that's the that's the instinct to immediately say the tories and sleaze. >> that's the problem. this this debate wouldn't matter. so much if it weren't the default setting of labour having been in opposition to, say, to pretend some kind of moral superiority

and say that the tories were at this all the time, i am absolutely up for the pursuit of any kind of wrong deal that happened under the covid contract, and that's one of the things i think, that the thanks very much. but i wasn't saying, of course, for your approval. i was saying it because i think the chancellor is right to pursue contracts that have been given to businesses in the wrong way. that still doesn't excuse personal venality from the leadership of the labour party, who pretended to have some kind of moral superiority. it's the hypocrisy that them, steve. that's what gets them. >> is that fair? >> is that fair? >> well, i don't think it is fair, because i think the reality is this is known because labour declared that they complied with the rules. they were upfront about it. they didn't try to disguise it and pretend they didn't know who the donors were and say that they didn't have the money. and oh yes, they did. after all, none of that labour was up front. it's been picked up, understandably, by the opposition, and they're trying to exploit it to the best of their ability. who can blame them for doing that? it takes them for doing that? it takes the pressure off them at the moment, it's not the opposition,

it's the public, and it's the media who could not be interested in something. >> it's such a personal thing. someone paid you to give your wife some clothing. why does somebody give your wife money for clothes unless they wanted something? why would someone do that? why would someone give your wife clothes? steve? >> well, i think the point is not that they were giving your wife clothes. >> they were giving money to the leader of the opposition's wife and to the prime minister's wife for clothing she was going to wear at public events. it is rather different, you know that. and i know that. >> and why would they want to give that sort of thing? what's the what's the quid pro quo? >> donors. just like donors for every other political party, donate because they support the party and they want it to do well. that's not unusual. it's not unusual in british political history. to the best of my knowledge, whilst i think you're struggling a bit, you're doing a far better job than the prime minister did, because the prime minister's position is to say, i obeyed the rules, which is one of the things you said. >> and the trouble this is the

trouble. you're a much better politician than the prime minister, who is pretty will get you everywhere. but he may have been. he may have been a perfectly good lawyer, but it's a very lawyerly answer. i've obeyed all of the rules, and that's the end of the matter, is what he said. well, no, actually, for most people, it's the beginning of the matter. you may well have obeyed the letter of the law, but this stinks to me, is what a lot of people will have said. when you're getting 100 grand of money for tickets to events that other people don't get, and being given money for your suits and. >> well, i mean, we will end up at the stage where no politician will go to any event. >> and if that's what people want, this will sound very strange. you can pay for your own tickets. i know that's a very weird idea, but for well—paid people, which we all are discover. >> we didn't discover a couple of months ago that politicians went to events on free tickets. >> it's been happening for as long as i or you can remember if you want to get to a stage where there are to be no free tickets, and i wonder how long before

that will extend beyond politicians to a whole host of other people. >> and like i say, it wouldn't matter so much if the labour party hadn't held itself out to have had a monopoly on virtue. and it turns out, not only do they not have a monopoly on virtue, i'm not sure they've got any so many people at home will be sitting here thinking and shouting out that this whole thing is just weird , because thing is just weird, because this whole notion that someone that's highly paid, 90 odd grand and upwards when we start looking at prime ministers needs somebody to buy their own clothes. >> it's just weird to most normal people, people will be shouting out, well, hang on, wallpaper, why are people buying wallpaper, why are people buying wallpaper for the likes of boris johnson when he was renovating? wherever he was? number 10. and your notion that we're going to end up in a situation where politicians don't go to events, people at home do not care less whether or not politicians are at taylor swift. it's not benefiting them. they're not there because, they are somehow helping their constituents by watching tv. >> i agree, people at home don't

care at all. i'm simply making the point that if we carry this through to its logical conclusion, then you will not get politicians attending events. there are events that actually try to encourage politicians and celebrities and all sorts of other people to come along. >> they will stop going before we lose the thread too much. i just want to. i'll be the last japanese soldier on my jungle island, defending the late prime minister on the wallpaper thing. so just make that was downing 10 downing street is an absolute hole, as you will know better than me having spent more time there, but it's a dump. and you know, if you've got a stately home or if you had a national asset that was in that kind of state, you would want it to be dispute that. and so the point was, you could either you could either get no, you could either get the state to pay for it because it's a stately home type listed building, or you could secure or yes, you could pay for it yourself, or you could secure a donor to improve something thatis a donor to improve something that is a public asset. it's not the same as a taylor swift

ticket, is it? or going to the arsenal. >> i just i just think moeen ali one rule for so many, a different rule for others. >> to me it's huge disconnection among what i would almost call like the political elite and every other man and person at home, because every other man and person at home, they would just pay for their own wallpaper if they wanted to change the wallpaper, if they wanted to get a dress, if they wanted to go somewhere, whatever, they'd pay for it themselves. >> and that's the ambiguity. >> and that's the ambiguity. >> the ambiguity is that if you're the prime minister number 10, downing street is both your home and a government office, right? so who might pay for that? you can discuss it. keir starmer doesn't live at the arsenal and he doesn't live with taylor swift. unless there's another story going to break that's going to surprise us. all right. so actually the kind of things he's been getting handouts for, paying, getting his specs paid for and so forth, that's the suggestion that's comparable with improving or restoring downing street is ridiculous. >> well, of course, the question of whether or not downing street was improved is a matter of taste. i heard quite a few contrary views, so the challenge is, look, winterfield many people watching this, they will have had their winter fuel

allowance cut 2 or £300, depending on where you are will be lost to you this year. >> so this is the issue. people are going hang on. so i have to lose two £300 and then all of this other stuff is going on. the unions today, they wanted to have a vote about this winter fuel allowance. they wanted it to happen today. it was pushed back to wednesday. they're not happy about that. what do you think, alex? >> well i mean there is at least one pensioner doing better under this government. sue gray has got a nice big pay package. i can't help but notice. but more generally, i actually think i'm quite supportive of the government, which is precisely what they don't want to hear. but the idea we should have been giving more than 11 million people a handout every single yean people a handout every single year, many of whom were wealthier than the average worker in this country. like many people on pensions, are wealthier than the average person working in the uk. the idea that you should just splurge to all of them, because there are some people that the state should already have had the wherewithal to identify who were in need. for me, that was ridiculous. so taking that bill down from 11 million to 1 and a half, which is what the government's doing, seems to me

to be right. have you got the right one and a half? should it be slightly higher than one and a half? sure. but the direction of travel is correct. the trouble for labour is they promised not to do this in ten, 15, 17 and 19. general elections. so, you know, most people in the labour party will have had a firm sense that they would never do this in government. instead, it's one of the first things they do out of the first things they do out of the gate. steve >> well, we agree that it's probably the right thing to do. i don't think there's much argument between alex and i. there i've said before, i think this is the wrong target. i think people should be looking at the standing charge of the energy supply companies, and i hope that might still still feature as regards when the vote takes place. i mean, you know, to be perfectly honest, either you really care about it. so passionately that you want a debate and vote, or you're looking for headlines and you're looking for headlines and you're looking for headlines and you're looking for gimmicks, and therefore you're worried about when it happens and how it happens. i think if you're that bothered about it, you'll be glad that it's on the agenda. and that you're going to get vote. >> they may yet u—turn, you know, i know that the more

political capital you spend on this stuff, the more you feel like you can't. but ultimately, in politics, people will sometimes say, this is good money after bad. we've got to stop the bleeding. they, you know, they're losing so much support in their own. i don't just mean the fringe protesters that you saw at their conference that you saw at their conference that happens at political parties. and that's not that's not going to change the weather. but up and down the country, millions of people have been really switched off from the labour party because of this decision. no matter how much steve or i think it's right or wrong, they still might u—turn. >> yeah, i mean, i, i speak to viewers every single day and there is a huge, sense of fury. that's how i would put it. i'm not exaggerating. people are furious about this, and even people actually, that are relatively well off their perspective will be, hang on a second, i wear it all of my life. i was a huge contributor to the tax system. so what if i get 200 or £300? i don't get anything else . leave me alone. anything else. leave me alone. >> you do. you get a pension and your argument might be for a fairer and more equitable, more significant pension. but the idea that we just splurge to

everybody for winter fuel, for many millions of people who don't need it, it's daft is there? >> well, i think it's always difficult when you take away any kind of benefit from people, you know, and governments of all complexions have experienced that problem. i'm not sure the winter fuel allowance was ever intended to be a universal benefit. so i do think there is a very valid argument. and funnily enough, if we'd been having this conversation several months ago, i would have been able to tell you about the pensioners i'd met who said i don't need it, i never use it to pay don't need it, i never use it to pay for fuel. it's just an extra because those people existed, but they appear to have disappeared. >> could they have opted out? it was. >> yes, i actually it's never had 100% take up. people have opted out , had 100% take up. people have opted out, but had 100% take up. people have opted out , but not had 100% take up. people have opted out, but not in had 100% take up. people have opted out , but not in large numbers. >> and if you get money that you don't want and it is inadvertently finding its way into your bank account, you can of course always cut a check to hmrc. you know what they'll do, they'll cash it. >> i'm always just fascinated about the optics of this. i

think you've come into government. you reckon there's a £22 billion hole? why would your first priority be domestic pensioners when you're spending so much money? people talk about £100 million or whatever it was, helping fight climate change. was it £100 million? is that the figure that i hear bandied around to overseas governments to help climate change, to stop upstream issues when it comes to migration ? people will say, migration? people will say, well, why can we still afford to do things like that? why can we still afford to fund ukraine? why can we afford to do all the other things? why is it british pensioners that have come straight in the line of fire, straight in the line of fire, straight from the off? you'll have very strong opinions all of this at home. there's

hello there. i'm michelle dewberry with you till 7:00. steve mccabe and alex dean remain alongside me. i'll tell you earlier on, just before the break, about £100 million that

we're spending sending to overseas countries to help with climate change. and as i was saying, i was thinking if i just made this figure up because it seems like an awful lot of money, but no, i have not. £100 million of funding will be allocated to the mitigation action facility, which is all about supporting developing countries in reducing emissions and so on and so forth . and so on and so forth. apparently it's upstream where to try and stop migration, but these are the kind of questions that people will have. well, hang on a second. so we can't afford to heat my home now in this country, but we can afford to do all of that. what do you make to it all? there's a lot of people getting in touch that don't buy, what rachel reeves was saying about austerity not coming our way, but one of my viewers, margaret, she's got in touch and said, hang on a minute, michelle. how come then when we talk about means testing essentially winter fuel? on the other hand, you call her rachel. freeze your word, not mine . how freeze your word, not mine. how come she's able to provide a free breakfast every day to all primary school children? what do you think? to that? is that the

right policy? >> well, i don't think that's what the in fairness, i think that's what the chancellor said. i think she said she's going to have a trial policy in which £7 million is at the first instance, spent on a number of schools that apply for or volunteer for, or are they ianed volunteer for, or are they invited to. so it's a subset of schools, not not all school children. look, i have a very unfashionable first question, which is, is it the role of the state to feed all people all the time? i mean, for most people, i think at least once upon a time, the traditional view would have been that it's for parents to feed their children breakfast. and if we're failing to do that, we're failing as a society rather than saying that schools should do it. but if we are going to pursue this route, then i'm old enough to remember that under the last labour government, when breakfast clubs were explored, they got them sponsored. and it's one doesn't normally mention a business, but it's so obvious that it was it was kellogg's. right. so a business in that, in that sector took on the burden rather than the taxpayer doing it seemed a rather neat solution to me. and they do like some corporate money, don't they. so maybe that's the right answer. >> obviously all the other breakfast clubs, other providers are available.

>> so just to be clear on this scheme, then i'm just looking at the government's website now. the government is committed to offering a free breakfast club in every single primary school in every single primary school in england. this new thing that was talked about today, as you as you say, 750 state schools and it will be a so—called early adopter scheme just to tweak it and look at how do we best roll this out en masse, steve? >> well, of course, there have been umpteen recent reports about child poverty, and i certainly know from a number of schools i've gone into just how many children are turning up without breakfast. and it's virtually impossible for teachers to teach these youngsters in these circumstances. so as a policy, i think it's a good idea. i support it, i'm in favour of it. whether or not you do it in partnership and get some donors to support it as well, that's no problem for me. i mean, i'm in favour of partnership, but if you don't want, if you guys don't think that i don't know, a millionaire pensioner should get £200 to heat their home. >> why would you then think that the child of a potential millionaire or very wealthy people should get breakfast paid for by all taxpayers?

>> well, of course , if the >> well, of course, if the child's parents don't want the child's parents don't want the child to have it, they don't have to have it. just as you don't have to accept the winter fuel allowance. i mean, it is possible to opt out . i would say possible to opt out. i would say that this has been targeted on children who do need it. and actually the evidence seems to be targeted. >> it's a blanket for all primary school children. there's no targeting, there's no means testing. >> and as i said, there is the provision for opting out of people choose to do so. >> but you know, the question is about these youngsters and about their ability to learn and about what we can do to support them . what we can do to support them. and as i say, there's been plenty of recent reports on child poverty. >> of course, children should be able to learn and they're going to need to have food in their belly to learn. no, i don't obviously, i don't think anyone disputes that. but out of absolute poverty in this country is vanishingly small, relative poverty, which the left likes to talk about, will always be with us because, of course, as people earn more, relative poverty will continue to exist. but the most

important thing here is that almost all families will prioritise their children above all things. and not feeding your child isn't a question for resource. for the vast majority of people in this country, it's a question of benign or wilful neglect. >> well, we're living in the age of the food bank. >> i don't know how you can say that. so glibly. >> i'm not saying it glibly. i'm saying it. i think it's quite profound that the first duty of parents is to feed their children. and if your suggestion is, oh, it's glib to say that, you know, families that have disposable income or have any kind of resource should prioritise feeding their children first, then i'm not sure it's me that's being glib. >> i do think there's something a bit odd about this whole kind of notion that is often said very nonchalantly, that people don't feed their children. we've got child benefits in this system, sorry. in this country, we've got a welfare state, you know, there's lots of help and support. there's also the voluntary sector that do things like you describe, you know, food banks and so on. and so forth. so how is it, do you think that a parent honestly would say, i can't give my child a slice of bread or i can't give

it some cereal or whatever? i mean, do you think , honestly, mean, do you think, honestly, people really are that poor that they can't get a loaf of bread for their child? >> well, i think there are some people who actually can't make the money last from week to week. i think we do know that is the case. i wouldn't want to quantify that. and i'm not saying there aren't people who could do better, but i think we definitely know that is the case. >> but we all do agree, though, that whatever money you have, you must surely choose to prioritise. >> and that was my very point. and just to make the point, there are very poor families in this country who manage to feed their children and feed them well, and there are wealthy. they're going to be wealthy couples and wealthy parents who neglect their children and don't feed them well because they're bad parents. it's not about money, it's about parenting. and neglect. >> what do you think? at home, you have strong opinions. i am sure. after the break. nhs delays popping up all over the place. do you think it's right then, that someone who requires an interpreter would be prioritised over an english speaker when it comes to priority? when faced with delays? see you in

hi there michelle dewberry steve mccabe and alex dean until 7:00. look, nhs is in a pickle. we all know this. we've got delays popping up know this. we've got delays popping up all over the place. we'll get this an nhs trust in nonh we'll get this an nhs trust in north london. this has kind of come under a little bit of scrutiny because long story short, when people are delayed, it turns out that the patients that have interpreters, they are being prioritised to be seen as quick as possible because the nhs is pushing back, saying it doesn't want to incur extra costs from these interpreters, so they would be prioritised over english speaking patients to be seen quickly . to be seen quickly. >> alex, when i was a barrister, i would see that people that one was prosecuting or defending who had interpreters might sometimes be called on for a case before one's own, or i might be called one's own, or i might be called on sooner because i had a client

with an interpreter, because the interpreter was needed somewhere else as well, and you were going to have a knock on effect, delaying trials. so this isn't unique to the healthcare system. however, the example i give people were being prioritised in order to ensure a more efficient use of the system, not about saving cash. in my view, in this example, people should be seen prioritised in the order of medical need and nothing else. and so for me, whilst i understand what they're seeking to do in preserving public funds, i think this is wrong. >> steve. well, i was pretty stunned when i saw the story, to be perfectly honest. it's pretty hard to accept. look, i absolutely agree that people should be seen in terms of their health needs. that should be the priority. i think what the story does raise is an issue about the interpreters, how they're contracted, what they cost. if it is genuinely the case that this trust is having so much difficulty in terms of recruitment of interpreters and paying recruitment of interpreters and paying for them that it's impacting on healthcare, then

it's impacting on healthcare, then wsfime impacting on healthcare, then it's time somebody took a long, hard look at that. >> isn't it going to be the case that some interpreters are used by the hour, because it's a relatively no offence to whatever community it is obscure language in the british scheme of things, and they're only going to be used for an hour or two. and so you want to get them in and get that done rather than delaying it. >> but if it was a one off situation like that or very occasional situations, surely it wouldn't lead to a it wouldn't cost this much. >> yeah, it's all very, very odd because this is not this will often be happening when you've got, you know, when you've got those tickets, you take a ticket and then you're supposed to go in order of the number. it's also happening when those schemes are present as well. i have got to say, that actually the nhs trust are involved. we've obviously got a statement from them and they say as follows. it's the imperial college healthcare nhs trust. they say we're committed to responding to the specific needs raised by any of our patients. and every patient has the right to a professional interpreter. given my accent, some might say that i could do with a professional interpreter. that

has been said to me. yeah andrew, actually, sorry. you were going to come in. >> you may well have the right to an interpreter. the question that's not asked properly in our system is, do you have the right to be treated because the national health service is not an international health service. and whilst, of course, there will be many people in this country in this day and age who can't speak english well enough to interact with the authorities. a separate question and a separate challenge. there are visitors to our country who use our healthcare system and are then not chart their countries are not charged for it. under the systems we have set up, they absolutely ought to be. it's not actually a language point. it's a nationality point. is that fair? >> well, if you've got to the stage where you're in the queue waiting to be seen, one assumes that whatever sort of processes in place has taken place, i don't think we should be expecting the doctors to be immigration officers, and i'm afraid it doesn't. >> people are not. >> people are not. >> are you seriously saying that as well as treating people and deaung as well as treating people and dealing with all the other things doctors and nurses should be required to get people to

fill in a form to decide their eligibility? surely, to goodness , eligibility? surely, to goodness, that should be done before they get to the stage of waiting in a queue. >> i am saying or not, i am saying that the hospital should. >> that's ridiculous. >> that's ridiculous. >> i am saying the hospital should do it. and pretending you think the surgeon should do it before he operates hospitals is avoiding that. no, that's the point. well, they don't do it very effectively when you actually look at the bills incurred versus the bills that are actually paid. >> and of course, many people will, point to services like maternity services because there seems to be quite a lot of people that will come to this country when they are literally just about to pop. if you excuse me, being so crude, they'll have their babies on the nhs and then off they go again. >> yeah, well, every measures to stop health tourism should be taken nationally . an awful lot taken nationally. an awful lot of people who come to this country have to take out health insurance before they're allowed to step into this country, and that also happens. i'm not saying people don't evade it, but you know , there's quite a but you know, there's quite a rigorous system for requiring

people to take out health insurance. >> some people are saying that the nhs shouldn't even provide interpreters. goodness me. what do you think to that, it's quite a tough one, isn't it? it's very rare. i'm on the fence, i can tell you now, but i can kind of see both sides when it comes to interpreters. but this whole nofion interpreters. but this whole notion that you should be leapfrogged, get priority in the queue. really? i don't really support that. i've got to say. and i definitely think we need to be doing much, much more to get people that shouldn't be using the nhs to actually pay for the service that they receive. look, gents, that's all we've got time for. thank you. thanks to each and every one of you at home. but don't go anywhere and i'll see you tomorrow night . tomorrow night. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar, sponsors of weather on gb news . news. >> thanks for joining news. >> thanks forjoining me news. >> thanks for joining me for your latest weather updates from the met office here on gb news. it's been another very wet day, but the rain will at least be easing for many areas overnight

and generally much drier day tomorrow. although there will still be some rain across scotland, scotland, northern ireland been largely dry today. it's been across england and wales where we've had the heavy and persistent rain from this area of low pressure. still, the met office yellow weather warning remains in place as that rain does start to ease from central parts, but staying pretty soggy across eastern england well into the night. dher england well into the night. drier elsewhere, but we will see some rain just creeping into northern scotland. temperatures in scotland, with some clearer skies dipping to single figures, but most staying in double digits. on to tuesday. overall a much, much drier day . hinckley much, much drier day. hinckley where we've seen the heavy and persistent rain today over the central areas. it will be a wetter day though, in northern scotland and with the wind coming in from the north—east scotland and with the wind coming in from the north—east feeling pretty cool as that rain feeling pretty cool as that rain sets in across the moray firth sets in across the moray firth in particular. a few scattered in particular. a few scattered showers coming into northern showers coming into northern ireland during the morning, and ireland during the morning, and the odd one over northern the odd one over northern england too, and the remnants of england too, and the remnants of today's rain still clinging to today's rain still clinging to the coasts around to east anglia the coasts around to east anglia and kent. but generally and kent. but generally

speaking, across england and speaking, across england and wales, a much, the wind wales, a much, much drier day, thankfully, compared to today, the rain will keep going across northeastern scotland . if you northeastern scotland. if you see a few more showers coming into southeast scotland and across northern england and north wales too, across the midlands, southern england quite a bit of cloud, but some bright spells coming through a bit of sunshine in northern ireland is possible. also on the cool side, temperatures struggling up into the low teens across the north, maybe high teens further south. a chilly start to wednesday, by and large a dry start , but we and large a dry start, but we will see more rain creeping in

>>a >> a very, very good evening to you. i'm martin daubney and this is gb tonight. rachel reeves gave her first speech as chancellor today and used the opportunity to defend her decision to cut the winter fuel allowance. and this is despite a £10 billion injection into pubuc £10 billion injection into public sector pay rises and the bank of england's £10 million to the government. we'll be speaking to a labour mp. live from the labour party conference in just a short moments time . in just a short moments time. and is call of duty the perfect training ground for our future combatants? well, today the defence secretary called on gamers to put down their controllers and sign up to the armed forces, an idea which may have merit, and it could see gamers utilise their skills they have gained playing games like call of duty to save their country, and the gb news exclusive for you this evening,

as it's