h awley. hawley. anderson described reform uk's win in a blackpool council by—election. is he talking sense or nonsense? you tell me. and boris johnson says we need to have a referendum on leaving the echr. do you agree with him? and also then, inspired by the chagos island news yesterday, argentina has vowed to get full sovereignty of the falklands. do you think they should ? also, keir starmer has should? also, keir starmer has pledged £22 billion. where have we heard that figure before? this is for carbon capture and storage. a simple question for you is his approach the right one? and the children of

lockdowns are starting in schools. i can tell you now it doesn't look good. was it all worth it ? all of that and doesn't look good. was it all worth it? all of that and more. but first, at 6:00, news headunes. headlines. >> michelle. thank you. the top stories this evening. sir keir starmer has announced what he calls a game changing £22 billion funding package for projects that capture and store carbon emissions. speaking to workers in liverpool earlier today, he said the investment in so—called carbon capture clusters will create thousands of jobs, bring in investment and help meet climate goals. however, green campaigners warn the move could prolong oil and gas production with the projects not set to begin storing carbon until 2028. following his speech. our political correspondent katherine forster challenge the prime minister over the costs . over the costs. >> with renewable energy, you

get lower energy costs for good, not just for one winter, not, you know , capping for a few you know, capping for a few months in necessary circumstances, but lower energy bills for good because renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. that is really important. you get independence and security by doing renewables here in britain. you're not relying on the international market. and therefore, even if there are international conflicts that affect the price of energy , we would have our own of energy, we would have our own supply, which is independent. and of course , what you get is and of course, what you get is the next generation of jobs . the next generation of jobs. >> the foreign secretary's confirmed a third government chartered flight for british evacuees has left lebanon. it follows a night of blasts in beirut. this is the moment giant explosions were seen near the airport . in explosions were seen near the airport. in the explosions were seen near the airport . in the past 24 hours, airport. in the past 24 hours, at least 45 people have died across lebanon as israel

launched its most intense airstrikes on the lebanese caphal airstrikes on the lebanese capital. israeli forces are also escalating ground operations in the south, targeting hezbollah militants. meanwhile, we're heanng militants. meanwhile, we're hearing reports that iran plans to target israeli energy and gas suppues to target israeli energy and gas supplies if israel conducts retaliatory missile attacks in gaza. airstrikes have pushed the death toll to over 41,000 since the conflict began . downing the conflict began. downing street insists its deal to return the chagos islands to mauritius does not change the approach to other overseas territories. it comes as argentina is now pledging to gain full sovereignty over the falkland islands. however, the government insists its commitment to the falklands is unwavering. former prime minister boris johnson told gb news he thinks the deal is crazy . news he thinks the deal is crazy. >> the chagos islands being given back to mauritius. your reaction? >> crazy. i mean, do i urge viewers of gb news to get out your maps, get out your atlases, check out the chagos islands , check out the chagos islands, see where they are, and see

where mauritius is a long way away. yes. what is this claim? it's nonsense. it's total nonsense. why are we doing this? sheer political correctness. >> a metropolitan police officer has been charged over the death of a woman who was hit by a motorcycle escorting the duchess of edinburgh through london. the independent office for police conduct said it had authorised a charge of causing death by careless driving against 67 year old christopher harrison. 81 year old helen holland suffered serious injuries in that collision in earls court on the 10th of may, and she died in hospital two weeks later. meanwhile , two former met police meanwhile, two former met police officers have been reinstated after being sacked for allegedly lying about smelling cannabis dunng lying about smelling cannabis during a stop and search. jonathan clapham and sam franks franks stopped athlete bianca williams and her partner ricardo dos santos in 2020. the police appeals tribunal overturned their dismissal, calling the original ruling irrational and inconsistent. williams and dos

santos say the decision is disappointing and that they plan to challenge it in court. the officers will return to the force with back pay . gb news has force with back pay. gb news has won permission to bring a legal challenge against ofcom's decision to fine the show people's forum. the prime minister, in breach of their impartiality rules. a judge at london's high court today also made clear the broadcasting regulator should amend language used in the statements about their decision. following an investigation into the show shown in february featuring the then prime minister, rishi sunak.the then prime minister, rishi sunak. the legal challenge to the ruling, in the form of a judicial review will now go to a full hearing. ofcom were told that they could now reach a decision on whether to impose a sanction on gb news. however, they were told any sanction would be subject to the eventual outcome of the judicial review and the health secretary is calling on gps to help make the nhs fit for the future, calling for an end to the ongoing protests which he says is only

punishing patients. it comes as new figures from august reveal that 1 in 20 gp new figures from august reveal that1 in 20 gp appointments that 1 in 20 gp appointments were either online or via video, sparking debate over whether it increases access or compromises patient care. speaking in liverpool, wes streeting told the royal college of gps conference that collaboration and a collective ethos are vital to rebuilding the health service. >> the three shifts that underpin this government's reform agenda , from hospital to reform agenda, from hospital to community, analogue to digital sickness to prevention, those shifts are not new ideas and they are not radical. but delivering them really would be. i can't do it on my own. i need every part of the nhs to pull together as one team, with one purpose, to be the generation that took the nhs from the worst crisis in its history, got its, got it back on its feet and made it fit for the future. >> and those are the latest gb news headlines for now. i'm tatiana sanchez. now it's over to jeeps for the very latest gb

news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code , or go to scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . gbnews.com forward slash alerts. >> thank you very much for that, tatiana. my name is michelle dewberry and i'm with you until 7:00 tonight. we made it. everyone together . it is friday everyone together. it is friday haha. it's almost the weekend alongside me. tonight i've got my panel. ben habib, the former deputy leader of reform uk, and jonathan lis, the political commentator. good evening, gents, to both of you. you're very welcome tonight, as are each and every single one of you. what's on your mind tonight and get in touch with me all the usual ways. you can email me gbviews@gbnews.com. you can tweet or x me or of course you can go to the website gbnews.com/yoursay. lots that i want to discuss with you tonight. my first email comes from gareth. there's no messing around with you gareth . seconds around with you gareth. seconds after we went to air, you've got

in touch and said, michelle, do you think keir starmer needs a common sense minister? that's a very good question. i think it was esther mcvey, wasn't it, that it was the tories won. is that it was the tories won. is that what's needed? >> well, a to common have a common sense minister is to admit that there isn't common sense in government. and i think it was an own goal of the conservatives to invite esther to fill that role. i but of course, looking at the way the country's been governed, one could legitimately make the case. there is a complete absence of common sense in government. jonathan. >> no common sense. the whole post of common sense minister was designed to perpetuate a culture war by the conservative government, where they were trying to package their quite sort of hard, right ideas as common sense. and i'm glad that labour hasn't continued it. >> i do, ijust want labour hasn't continued it. >> i do, i just want to respond to the culture wars and hard. right. and you know, i can't be bothered. it's friday, i'll move on. gareth, you never told me whether or not you think keir starmer needs a common sense.

minister, get in touch and tell me your answer to your own question. look, i can tell you now, lee anderson, he's been speaking out. he says using words like political tsunami. he says the path to success in 2029 is now on track. what's he talking about? well, he's talking about? well, he's talking about? well, he's talking about the fact that reform uk , they gained a council reform uk, they gained a council seat in blackpool actually from labour last night. they got 38.8% of the vote. reform have tweeted out saying that they are the real opposition . are they the real opposition. are they ben habib? >> absolutely . ideologically, >> absolutely. ideologically, there is no doubt that the conservative party is not the opposition. it is reform because the conservative party, contrary to what jonathan just said, is not far right, nor is he didn't say far right. >> he said he said a hard right. >> he said he said a hard right. >> sorry. what did you say? >> sorry. what did you say? >> i said hard right, hard right hard right hard right. culture warriors. >> hard right. the conservative party are not hard, right? and the culture wars should never be dismissed. by the way, i will

just come back to your question, but before i just to say, the culture war should not be dismissed. having a settled culture is part of the community, part of society, part of indeed of being the nation state that is the united kingdom. and i think we dismiss the importance of culture at our great cost. but reform gets it. reform understands that you need a joined up agenda between the economy, between the constitution, our democratic institutions and our culture to bnng institutions and our culture to bring together the country to a position where it can be governed with its interests at heart and with the prosperity of the british people in mind. arguments delivered both by the conservative party and by the labour party in on steroids of doing things as they see what they see as being in the global good, in governing through international law, international institutions, domestic quangos, which are completely unaccountable. what the conservatives and the labour

party together in government have done is dumbed down. our democracy , turned their back on democracy, turned their back on the british people and adopt this kind of what i would regard as extreme form of liberalism, where you can't even identify where you can't even identify where the prime minister of this country can't even identify what a woman is accurately. we are governed by idiots and that's why i say probably in the case of the labour party , we do need of the labour party, we do need a minister of common sense. >> jonathan's pulling some faces out. the wind doesn't change. what's the matter? what's. what's the matter? what's. what's he saying that's wrong? >> i can't really be bothered to engage with the. with everything that ben has just said. but this is going to be an interesting show, isn't it? ben, is that ben is given a kind of a reform style stump speech , as though style stump speech, as though it's still the election campaign. we've moved on from the election. look, no one is doubting that reform poses a big threat . i would pose, i would threat. i would pose, i would i would argue that reform poses that threat to the conservative party more than the labour party. but obviously the labour party. but obviously the labour party is not immune from that threat. what you find in local election, by elections in

particular is very strange. results all over the board. you see that all you know, often there are specific local circumstances and there are individual candidates who have strong local appeal and whatever. i think if reform thinks that this is, this means it's going to be forming the next government. they might have another thing coming, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the threat from reform. but i would argue that the conservatives have a lot more to fear than labour has. >> i think the conservatives have already experienced the damage reform will do, and to some extent the labour party is was slightly protected during the general election from reform because keir starmer held so many of his cards to his chest . many of his cards to his chest. we didn't really see what the labour party was. the electorate didn't see how damaging the labour party would be. the electorate absolutely get that now. reform came second in 98 seats and this was a safe blackpool council seat that

reform took off. the labour party today and reform will be taking many more seats a year ago, just just on the point on by elections a year ago, people used to say, oh well, reform's not performing at bye elections. if it can't do well at by elections, it hasn't got a hope in the general election. now we've got five seats in parliament. people say it's only five seats, but it's a bndgehead five seats, but it's a bridgehead and we're winning by—election seats and we're going to we're going to have a thumping set of results in the local elections next may. and it will be labour and the tories who will be giving up their seats to reform. >> ben, do you seriously think that reform is going to be either forming the next government or the next opposition? >> seriously, i think that reform has it within its grasp to absolutely form the next government. there are many challenges it faces, some from within the party which i've talked about on this show and other channels and some without. and of course, a week is a long time in politics, but reform is

the only party in parliament, the only party in parliament, the only party in parliament, the only political party that is known across this country that actually has a coherent, pro—british set of policies. the labour party is not appropriate . labour party is not appropriate. i say keir starmer is anti—british. this is his preparedness, his completely typical of you. >> it is completely outrageous. every time you say it. someone who disagrees with you, ben, does not make them anti—british. it just means that they disagree with you. it's completely. you have no monopoly over what it means to be british or pro—british. i find it profoundly offensive that you seek to define patriotism in your own image alone. that is actually, ironically enough, anti—british in itself. anti —british in itself. >> anti—british in itself. >> well, let me just tell you, our prime minister wishes this country to be governed from brussels. >> he's prepared to take. >> he's prepared to take. >> he's prepared to take. >> he's not even trying to get us back into the single market, for goodness sake. >> he was caught off camera when he thought he was off camera in montreal in september 2023, saying, if i'm elected prime minister, i will align us completely with the european

union. >> do you think that he would take us back into the european union without the say so of the british people if he got really think it? >> of course he would. >> of course he would. >> if the prime minister got half a chance to do it, he would do it. >> and there won't have there are and there are multiple mechanisms by which he could abuse the democratic. >> you are one step away from calling the british people anti—british. if the british people want to be in the european union, then that we should be in the european union. if they don't, then we shouldn't be. and if enough people say they want a referendum, then we can have a referendum. no one is arguing that. right? >> jonathan, if you have an individual in office who wishes to give up the democratic representation of the people in this country to a third power, can i just finish and take down their borders as he is, as he is flirting with already with this youth scheme and would voluntarily ensure loads of other countries like australia, we have a visa system with australia and canada. the proposal with the european union is for people up to the age of 30 to be able to come and go as they please. that is freedom of movement. that is taking down

your borders to a foreign power would not be freedom of movement. >> if you are exactly the same model that we have with 12 other countries, i don't need to go. >> i can go much further with why i think he's anti—british, but those two steps alone, in my view , constitute an attack on view, constitute an attack on the nation state that is the united kingdom. >> i think it is really sad that we have to smear our opponents in this. >> i'm not smearing our opponent to you on this programme. >> famously enough, a couple of weeks ago , being british or weeks ago, being british or being you can have many, many different views and we can still be pro—british. we can still be patriotic . we just have patriotic. we just have a different vision of what it means, what we want for this country. that's all it is. it's having a different vision. i would never slander my opponents as being anti—british. i don't, i think they i vehemently disagree with their vision for this country. it does not make them anti—british. it just means that we disagree. >> hold on, because i've heard you. you might not slander your words. your opposition has been anti—british or whatever, but i've heard you call your political opponents far right,

hard , right, all those kind of hard, right, all those kind of things. i would say that that is a form of smearing. >> well, if someone is far right, then i say they're far right. i haven't called anyone in this room. i haven't called the conservatives far right . the conservatives far right. hard right is just, you know, i think it's just an accurate description of what some people are in the way that people talk about hard left, soft left, far left. these are these are just descriptions. if you take them as a smear, that's in itself quite interesting because it it makes you wonder, what do you think being right wing is. >> you say hard right or far right in to order discredit. let's just be honest about the debate. you use the language to be to be an extreme, to be on the extreme end of a spectrum is by definition almost wrong . and by definition almost wrong. and that's why you say it. >> ben, do you think that david cameron has the same politics as suella braverman? they are both right wing, but obviously one of them is david cameron is not right wing, david cameron is not right wing, david cameron is not right wing. >> and the debate, the schism in british politics at the moment is not between the left and the right. >> the schism is between those

that would govern us through unaccountable domestic institutions. otherwise known as quangos and international institutions like the european union. w.h.o, the un, etc. embed in place international law, which we're repeatedly told trumps domestic law and trumps domestic interests, and is prepared repeatedly to give away power from the people of this country to , to these country to, to these institutions. and if you stand, as i believe, many in the conservative party do, and certainly the labour party and liberal democrats against the nafion liberal democrats against the nation state of the united kingdom, you are anti—british . kingdom, you are anti—british. it's a matter of fact. you can shake your head, but if you take if you have policies completely outrageous, if you have policies, if you have policies that undermine and reduce the nafion that undermine and reduce the nation state, then you are anti—british and we need to say it impression of what it is. >> there are people. do you not

accept? do you really not accept that there are people who wanted to be in the european union, who actually believed in britain, who wanted britain to succeed? they just had a different idea of it. are you really so blinkered that you think that anyone who was a remainer was anti—british? is that really what you're saying? >> i didn't i didn't say that. >> i didn't i didn't say that. >> i didn't i didn't say that. >> i think as a remainer in 2016, you were legitimately able to hold that view because for 40 years we'd been part of this organisation. we have now left this organisation and we know precisely what it means to join the institution. and what that means is giving up power from westminster, taking down our borders and, and actually, if we were to join it, we'd have to give up our currency. >> we'd have to give up our. it's a completely we would it's a completely confused argument. no, it's not confused. >> you're saying that a remainer, a remainer wasn't anti—british in 2016, but because we were now, we were part of the european union at that point in time. >> right? we are now enlightened and we also know we also know jonathan, that unlike in 2016,

if we join now , we will be if we join now, we will be giving up control of our monetary policy. and i regard that as fundamentally anti—british, giving it up to brussels, to the ecb. >> so you're pre—empting the terms of negotiation? >> no, there is no negotiation to join. there's no negotiation to join. there's no negotiation to join. there's no negotiation to join. no one wants to. jonathan, you need to you need to join. you need to read up on it. >> if you want to join the eu, you have to join the euro. it's a matter of fact, if we there is no negotiation, if we ever get to the stage of negotiating, there will be a negotiation. >> are you a rejoiner, jonathan? >> are you a rejoiner, jonathan? >> are you a rejoiner, jonathan? >> are you a rejoiner? >> are you a rejoiner? >> it's not on the table right how. >> now. >> are you a rejoiner? >> are you a rejoiner? >> obviously, i think that it's in britain's long term interest in britain's long term interest in on principle to be part of the european union. >> that's why to take down our borders, to give up governance to brussels, to give up our currency. currency. >> currency. >> right, gentlemen , let me >> right, gentlemen, let me finish. i will tell you. >> i will tell you something that there is no negotiation oven that there is no negotiation over. and that is the fact that ineed over. and that is the fact that i need to go to a break. when i come back so much. i want to talk

you about the and lots more. i'll see you in

>> this sunday, join me camilla tominey for an exclusive interview with one of the most controversial , influential and controversial, influential and unique political figures of our time. >> boris johnson will be in studio discussing his new memoir, unleashed, the gripping story of how he dealt with plotting politicians problematic princes and a pandemic. from bofis princes and a pandemic. from boris bikes to brexit and everything else in between . this everything else in between. this sunday at 9:30 am, only on gb news, the people's channel, britain's news channel . hello britain's news channel. hello there, i'm michelle dewberry with you till seven. ben habib and jonathan liz remain alongside me. that was a feisty start to the dewbs& co, wasn't it? that woke you up on your friday evening, i'm sure. look , friday evening, i'm sure. look, we've just been talking about sovereignty and so on and so forth. well, now, hot off the

news, we spoke, didn't we, at length yesterday about the chagos islands. well, now argentina, seemingly inspired by that , they have now promised to that, they have now promised to reclaim their words, the falkland islands, they're going to take concrete action, apparently. what do you think to this, ben habib? >> well, i'm not i'm not surprised at all. i mean, when you if you're a foreign power looking at the united kingdom, you see the political nonsense that's going on in our government. as i mentioned in the earlier segment, a prime minister who can't identify a man from a woman who takes the knee to far left extremist movements like black lives matter , who will promote net matter, who will promote net zero to the massive detriment of the british people and will give up the chagos islands, which is of strategic importance when there was no pressure whatsoever from any direction to give it up. if you're argentina governed now by melaye, who is very pro argentinian, he's like the reform uk version of argentina. he's actually quite an anglophile. i think , but that

anglophile. i think, but that won't interfere with his politics if he sees a weak british government that can't can't, doesn't make sense at any level. a weak set of defences and our and our ability to mount any kind of campaign is massively diminished compared to where it was in 1982. sees us giving up territory, sees us giving up territory, sees us giving up territory, sees us giving up northern ireland to the european union, putting a border down our own country, not being to prepared stand by our own kin across the irish sea. of course, he's going to think i'm going to have a crack at the falklands, and it wouldn't surprise me. i mean, it may not seem probable now, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't give in to the pressure that they'll be emboldened to mount a military campaign. and then i doubt starmer has the political will to stand up to argentina or whether our military is up to mounting a campaign 10,000 miles away. >> go on. jonathan. >> go on. jonathan. >> i mean, it's a total nonsense , >> i mean, it's a total nonsense, every word of it. argentina has said consistently , through every

said consistently, through every single government that it has absolutely no intention of ever mounting a military operation ever again. and britain has military bases on the falklands. it has many personnel there for just in case there is ever any kind of attack on the falklands again, which won't happen. and by the way, the argentine economy is in no state at all to be thinking about any kind of attack on the falklands. look, the point about the falklands is that it seemed improbable. >> it is improbable, as it might seem , when you send out the kind seem, when you send out the kind of signals that our government sends out about the weakness in the united kingdom. it invites foreign powers to take advantage of us. and that is what is happening on the international stage . stage. >> it doesn't actually matter, because it's not going to happen. it's probably it's improbable that the sun won't rise tomorrow, but it probably will. look, the falklands. the falklands is a completely different situation from the chagos islands. the falklands has. there was no indigenous population before the british

arrived. 99.9% or 99 plus percent want to be british. they are the only people who matter. it doesn't . it's not about it doesn't. it's not about whether you support the british empire or british or british sovereignty, or argentine sovereignty, or argentine sovereignty or decolonisation or anything. the only thing that matters is self—determination. >> but you're not. >> but you're not. >> it doesn't matter what i think. it doesn't matter what you think it only matters what the falkland islands think. >> absolutely right. >> absolutely right. >> but you're not listening to what i'm saying. the signalling that we're giving out as a country to foreign powers is that we are weak . we don't think that we are weak. we don't think straight. our defences are weak, and we're prepared to give up that which is rightfully ours. >> that is a sign of strength, actually not handing the chagos islands over when there was zero pressure to do it. >> mauritius has no axe to grind in chagos. they have, as boris johnson, in his own inimitable way , pointed out, there's not way, pointed out, there's not even any geographical proximity between mauritius and the chagos islands . and yet we handed it islands. and yet we handed it oven islands. and yet we handed it over. why? >> well , that was what you

>> well, that was what you should. we should probably ask james cleverly. he was the one who started the negotiations a couple of years ago. look, obviously there was a long running dispute between mauritius and the uk over the chagos islands. i think that that sort and that sort of gets lost in the bigger picture, which is that the indigenous population of the chagos islands were forcibly expelled from the islands by britain, 50 years ago to construct the us base. that was you know, you don't hardly that doesn't justify handing the islands over to mauritius. they're the only people who matter in this band. and what they've said is, i bet they don't want to go into mauritius. but what they have said is that they were excluded from the negotiations and they feel very angry about it. so their views are not taken into consideration either way. that i think is a mistake because they have the right to go back to the chagos islands, no matter whose sovereignty it's under. >> one of the people you've just mentioned there is boris johnson. one of the other things boris was saying was that he feels that there needs to be a referendum on whether or not we should exit the echr. would you agree with that?

>> so on the echr, everyone gets, in my view, down a rabbit hole about leaving the convention, what we need to do is to remove the european court of human rights as the supreme arbiter of human rights disputes in this country , and human in this country, and human rights law in this country. in this country, and human rights law in this country . one rights law in this country. one of the first things tony blair did was to introduce them into the fabric of our legal judicial system through the human rights act in 1998, there was no referendum for that, he had no mandate to do it. it's part of the dumbing down of the democracy to which i referred in the earlier segment of this, of this programme. we have no ability to hold or appoint and hold to account those who represent the echr, the european court of human rights. we must remove the court from the legal fabnc remove the court from the legal fabric of the united kingdom. it must go and then it just becomes a body that sits in strasbourg and comes out with the with the odd opinion which we can ignore. and that's the position where

the court should be put . we the court should be put. we don't even need a debate on the we don't need another referendum. i disagree with boris. just get out of its claws and its, you know, the enmeshing of itself into our fabric. >> would you agree with electing supreme court judges in this country , would i? country, would i? >> i'm not going to have a i'm not going to have said that we have no ability to vote them out or to kind of have any say in who they are. >> so presumably that means our supreme, supreme, our supreme court judges are appointed by us. us. >> us. >> they're entirely british. they're part of our legal fabric. these people are sitting in strasbourg making up, for example, whether switzerland is doing enough towards net zero or not and passing judgements that switzerland is actually abusing the human rights of its own people because it hasn't got a strong enough net zero policy. it is absolutely out of control. the european court of human rights, the period between 1946 and 1995, it issued 850

adjudications. since 1995, it has issued 23,500 in areas over which it has no authority. in my opinion, such as net zero, for example, it should be removed from our legal fabric. it's a matter of fact. no one can dispute that. you shouldn't have a foreign court. >> no one can dispute that. >> no one can dispute that. >> but you can't have a foreign court adjudicating british judgements. >> court? yeah, but why? >> court? yeah, but why? >> why, why, why are they part of our domestic legal framework? it's an abuse of the british nation. this is the point, jonathan. you don't understand that in order to protect this country, we have to govern ourselves, not have judgements made for us by some unaccountable court in strasbourg with foreign judges on it. >> okay. >> okay. >> so. right. well, i very much look forward then to leaving nato, leaving the united nations. >> no, nato is the nato to which britain is. >> nato is because that is a pooung >> nato is because that is a pooling of sovereignty. >> and obviously, no, nato is not a pooling of sovereignty. nato is not a pooling of sovereignty of resources, pooung sovereignty of resources, pooling of sovereignty, allowing johnny foreigner any kind of

sort of say over how we run our own affairs is obviously complete anathema. >> and so we should stand on our own proudly having a foreign court adjudicating british disputes is that it's partly set up disputes is that it's partly set ”p by disputes is that it's partly set up by winston churchill. by the way, who cares? >> it's a foreign court. >> it's a foreign court. >> it's a foreign court. >> it's not some it's not some new innovation. it has been absolutely part of the fabric of british law for 70 plus years. >> so it's no it hasn't. it's been part of the fabric of british law since tony blair elevated it to being the supreme judicial body in human rights disputes in this country. 99 it's a labour invention and we need to ditch it. >> echr no, we were not the human rights act. >> no, incorporated it into british law. >> it was an advisory. the majority of nations that are members do not have it in its in their legal fabric. it it is an advisory court. it is not a judicial court in in most people's countries, if the british government were to ignore a ruling of the echr, do

you think that there would be some kind of military consequences? >> nothing in effect would happen.the >> nothing in effect would happen. the uk government, it's still de facto an advisory. >> no, it isn't de facto it is literally the supreme arbiter of human rights laws. >> and that's why we can't do what we need to in order, for example, that i'm not a great fan of it, to deport people to rwanda. >> well, well, that was the main court that stopped all that was our own supreme court. it's a complete distraction by the plane. >> the plane was stopped by the european court. >> there are only two countries that have left the echr russia and belarus. and they are not. i would suggest, models for us to follow. >> yeah, but the us isn't a member. canada isn't. australia isn't new zealand isn't because they're not in europe. >> yeah, exactly. >> yeah, exactly. >> and they have perfectly adequate human rights. we do not need the european court of human rights to be telling us what to do. we need it out of our fabric. >> well, the british people did not seem to agree with that proposition. >> so by all means, why do you

say the british people don't agree with that proposition? >> because they didn't vote for any. they didn't vote in majority for any party that wanted that to happen. >> but no, no party with the exception of reform uk has put that forward. the two main parties, as i mentioned, you regard the conservative party as being further right than than laboun being further right than than labour. actually, as i was saying, the schism in british politics is those who would govern through international principles and international bodies. and this is a very good example of one of them and those that would govern for the british national interest. reform is the only party in parliament that actually has that view. >> are you so arrogant that you think that only you know what is in britain's national interest, that no other person could possibly have a different, legitimate vision? >> i am so arrogant. >> i am so arrogant. >> i am so arrogant to suggest as to suggest that brussels, when it makes regulations, is not thinking of british national interests . echr not thinking of british national interests. echr i am so arrogant to suggest that when the court adjudicates in strasbourg, it is not thinking of british national interest. yes, i am that arrogant and i am absolutely

right. when foreign bodies adjudicate national policy and national positions, they are not thinking of what is right for the british people. and that's what we've got to get back to. we've got to yank power away from all these international institutions, international laws and unelected domestic bodies and unelected domestic bodies and quangos and vest it back in our political representatives in parliament. >> i'm going to yank you both away from this debate, because i want to take a break. lots. i want to take a break. lots. i want to take a break. lots. i want to talk to you about carbon capture projects. are these the future? £22 billion committed to that. i also want to ask you about this. take a look at this picture. if you take yourself off to a carvery this weekend and you overfill your plates , and you overfill your plates, ladies and gents, and you don't eat it, should you be charged a penalty for taking too much food and basically being see you in two.

hello everyone. happy friday. welcome back to dewbs& co with me michelle dewberry. i've got ben habib and jonathan lewis alongside me. it is friday so i normally just before the end of the programme open dewberry tavern. but you know what? i'm opening it early tonight for obvious reasons. cheers, everyone. cheers at home. cheers to my panel members. cheers. okay, i'll let you work out why i've opened it early tonight. i think you'll be able to. look, i want to talk to you about £22 billion. when i say that figure , billion. when i say that figure, you probably think the so—called black hole will now we need to focus our minds. because £22 billion is the amount of money that's been now projected. and pledged, all about carbon capture and storage. of course, this is all to do with our quest for net zero. let's listen to what keir starmer has to say about it. >> but lower energy bills for good because renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, that is really important. you get independence and security by doing renewables here in

britain. you're not relying on the international market. and therefore, even if there were international conflicts that affect the price of energy, we would have our own supply, which is independent. and of course, what you get is the next generation of jobs. and that's why this investment is so important. >> do you agree with them, ben habib well, i think he completely misaddressed the issue, the issue that at hand is carbon capture, which has got nothing to do with renewables. >> renewables is the mechanism by which you generate energy and avoid , in his view, carbon avoid, in his view, carbon emissions, carbon capture is extremely expensive way of decarbonising the atmosphere. for reasons which people like him are ideologically wed. >> jonathan, i think that it's a tried and tested scientific method. i think it's really important that we should be investing in decarbonisation and investing in decarbonisation and in renewable energies, going forward. and there was actually

some fear that labour wouldn't be as committed to investing in this kind of green infrastructure. and we saw obviously , reeves backtracking obviously, reeves backtracking before the election on the amount of money that was going to be invested. so i'm really happy to see that they're following through with this. i think that we actually need to see a lot more investment in infrastructure generally, not just green infrastructure, because we get it, we get locked into systems. whether left or right. the treasury is just focused on day to day spending and fiscal rules, and actually we miss out on long term investment, do we? >> well, i mean, you know, we heard earlier today the labour party talking about rachel reeves, talking about how she's going to redefine national debt in order to allow investment to take place. but my big gripe with the government, i'm moving on a bit from net zero, is that the investment that we need being made has to come from the private sector. we've got to get the private sector back up and running. i mean, let's go back to renewables. we've levied a

75% tax on fossil fuel companies about to go up to 78%. >> that's about to increase about to go up to 78%. >> and they and they can only offset some of that tax if they're investing in new fossil fuel fuel infrastructure. of course, they're doing none of that.in course, they're doing none of that. in fact, they just ramping back all their activities in the nonh back all their activities in the north sea, making life much more difficult for us. we're being shunned by fossil fuel companies. and actually, to the extent that renewables could be delivered in this country, fossil fuel companies would play a very significant part because they're the they're the you know, they're the companies who have the ability, the wherewithal to build these offshore wind farms, etc, but they're withdrawing from the uk. the pursuit of this ideological pursuit of net zero, which is not the same by the way, criticising net zero is not the same as being a climate change denier. it is a government policy , again adopted through policy, again adopted through international set by international set by international organisations, which is particularly punitive

for a country like the united kingdom , because there are kingdom, because there are hurdles that we have to reach before we get to 2050, when we're meant to be. net zero. and those hurdles require proportionate reduction in the in the amount of carbon emissions you had as a country. as you go through that process, we started as a relatively clean country. so for to us decarbonise and meet the hurdles under the paris accord requires much more work, much more expense than it does if you're, for example, the united states of america. so we've taken another international policy and made it a noose around our own neck. >> do you agree with that? >> do you agree with that? >> look, i think that fundamentally the oil in around the north sea belongs to the british people, not to fossil fuel companies. so i absolutely support taxing them. and they have made paris is not going to extract it themselves. no, but they have made record profits, michel. and i think it's right that that should be recognised in the tax and the tax system, particularly when people are struggling with their energy

bills, they're shutting up shop. a lot of people don't understand how we could have such high energy bills in this country. while we have we have so many resources of oil and energy. >> if we're saying now we're going to fan ourselves at about just shy of 80%, what tax rate do you think would then become a disincentive to these organisations to continue their operations? >> i think that when you have the ideas of incentives and disincentives, if there is, if there is oil in the sea or gas and there is money to be made, then there is always going to be someone who will try and make that money. no one's saying that they shouldn't be able to make a profit at all. they're just the conversation is about how we tax them fairly in a way that recognises the fact that they belong to the british people, 70 odd percent. >> is that fair? >> is that fair? >> is that fair? >> i think that it depends on the circumstances, michel, and obviously we've had massive energy bill increase in the last couple of years. we've had a cost of living crisis while those companies have seen record profits. so it's fair to recognise that in the tax system, should it be 78, 80% forever? probably not very quick.

>> one of my viewers guy says jonathan just said carbon capture is tried and tested. can you tell us one place where it's operated commercially? >> well, i think it's operated in norway for about 30 years, isn't it? >> is it commercially? ross is asking. i don't know, ross. that's why i'm putting the question you've asked. >> i can't see how you make money out of carbon capture. capture? it's just an expense. >> well, that's what ross is asking. he's asking. can anyone point out anywhere where this operation is done as a commercial success? have you got the answer? you can write it on the answer? you can write it on the back of a postcard . we've the back of a postcard. we've got about 15 minutes. you can get that answer in. look after the break, i want to talk to you a couple of different things. actually. children starting school, the lockdown kids. was all of this worth it? because i can tell you what, there's problems there. see you

hello there. michelle dewberry. jonathan lewis and ben habib with you till seven. in the break. lisa, one of my viewers.

you've most upset jonathan. what was the comment you received? jonathan. >> i think i think she said. i think she said. i didn't think it was possible. but, jonathan, this is an even bigger melon than matthew stadlen. >> oh, he said some things in his time. he says, but that one takes the biscuit, it takes the biscuit . lisa, look who's this biscuit. lisa, look who's this george says ben habib's not far right or hard right. he's just saying. there you go. well, funny. george and andrew's been in touch as well, saying he's been enjoying the robust debate tonight. but look , we all know tonight. but look, we all know lockdown what happened there. but now these children that were born in lockdown are now arriving at school. and apparently when it looks, when you look at their readiness for school, some of them are still in nappies. they're not able to communicate very well and so on and so forth. they're not school ready. i'll start with you on this, jonathan, what do you make to this? >> it's a really disturbing story, michelle. and i think that there aren't any right or wrong answers when you can't, you know, you can't go in a time

machine at that time, which feels like a very distant memory in lots of ways. now, there was obviously an immediate public health crisis, and we faced hundreds of thousands of more people dying, potentially . and people dying, potentially. and so clearly, the government needs to take robust action. now, obviously, that would have had an effect on children. no one's denying that. and it's very difficult to say. was it right? was it wrong because many, many more people would have died if we hadn't been in lockdown? >> but obviously, is that right? >> but obviously, is that right? >> i think most scientists, most scientists, most doctors agree that lockdown was the right thing to do and that that doesn't mean that everything was done correctly and scientists are given airtime. >> it doesn't mean people with alternate views like that doesn't mean that everything it doesn't mean that everything it doesn't mean that everything it doesn't mean everything was done correctly. >> and i was very, very critical of a lot of the lockdown measures, actually, in terms of personal freedom and the rest of it. but when it came to children, obviously there are a lot of children who did suffer and we just have to do more to support those kids to make sure they catch up. >> i always find it fascinating

that the lockdown, it was all supposed to be about protecting, for example, the elderly. well, why all of a sudden now they've got rid of all this fuel allowance? no one seems hilarious. well, no one seems to care. it's unbelievable. pensioners are going to freeze to death this winter. it's all very odd. >> anyway, ben, you know, i just want to develop that, you know, we locked the country down to protect the elderly, which cost us 500 billion. and now we're allowing them to freeze during the winter at potential saving of 1.5 billion. it just doesn't make any sense at all. >> while sending undisclosed amounts of to money mauritius to make us feel better about our past and so on and so forth. all very, very odd priorities. but these kids, what do you what do you think? >> well, i it clearly this seems to be some link with lockdown. i'm surprised that the age at which these children were during lockdown would have had an effect on them, because they were all pre—school and they were all pre—school and they were at home. >> now these are children, so like my son is a lock. my son was born during lockdowns. yeah, but i mean, typically you're just in the bosom of your parents at that sort of age, aren't you? >> yeah. you're not you're not being denied any social

interaction. so how did it affect their development? >> you were so like when my son was born, every single thing was closed down. so there were no groups to attend. there were no activities to attend. there was nowhere really to take your child. so it was you and your child. so it was you and your child in four walls, which i don't really think is healthy for anybody when it's all day, every day. so they're absolutely was a knock on. >> i think it's really interesting. >> but i have got to say, i mean, parents i mean, i do think you need to step up though, because if you're sending your child to school and they're a healthy child, let me be clear, because some children are not healthy. but if you've got a healthy. but if you've got a healthy child and you're sending them to school in nappies, i think it needs to have a look in the mirror and ask yourself why he's so bone idle. because i do think that is a massive parenting fail. but anyway, some of you might disagree, but look very quickly. the weekend is upon us. the end of the show is almost upon us. a pub landlord has gone viral sunday carveries, who does not like one of them. we all know the way to get as much on your plate as possible. but anyway, this fella, this landlord, he's not having any of it now. people are stacking

their plates too high, wasting a load of food, and now he's started charging people if they put too much on and waste, it is, well, not named. but he's shamed these two customers. he stuck their plates on there. he's added a bit of money to their bill and customers are apparently outraged. is it fair, ben? >>i ben? >> i think good on him, you know. why the hell waste good food? good on him? >> no, of course not. they've they've bought it. they they can do what they like with it. >> oh, look, i can tell you what that story. >> i thought we might agree on that. >> that's me. but i speak as someone who's never left a morsel of food on their plates since i've been alive, hungry. >> i think sometimes when presented with a carvery or a buffet or whatever, you've got eyes bigger than your belly sometimes. aren't you? anyway, look, it is the weekend. enjoy your carvery. if you're having one, gents. thank you for your company. thank you for yours. i'll see you monday night. >> we'll see a cold snap which will quickly develop into a warm front. boxt boiler repairs sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello, good evening and welcome to your gb news weather

update brought to you by the met office. well, as we head into the weekend, we can expect to see lots of fine weather to start, but it is gradually turning more unsettled from the west so we can expect to see some wet and windy weather over the weekend. and that's because this area of high pressure, which has brought us that fine to weather end the working week, is generally being replaced by low pressure as it moves in from the west. and we'll start to see this this evening as outbreaks of rain continue to push into the north—west. this a little bit heavy at times, particularly towards dawn and turning quite blustery under those cloudy skies too. but elsewhere across much of england and wales there'll be plenty of clear skies overnight. so turning quite chilly may even see some pockets of mist and fog by the morning. so quite a different start in the north—west to start the weekend. plenty of cloud around and some outbreaks of rain and it is going to be turning rather heavy at times, particularly in western parts similar across northern ireland. a fairly cloudy start with those outbreaks of rain just starting to push into the west . outbreaks of rain just starting to push into the west. but elsewhere there should be plenty of bright skies to start the weekend. as i say, some pockets

of mist and fog around and it will be a fairly chilly start. and then generally there is still plenty of fine and dry weather across the country. plenty of sunny spells and feeling warm where you catch the sunshine. but that rain will gradually move in more and more across scotland. northern ireland with those outbreaks of rain and still fairly blustery under those cloudier skies. and nofice under those cloudier skies. and notice these brighter colours here so some heavy rain moving its way into parts of the far southwest later into saturday. but as i say, where you catch the sunshine with highs of 18 degrees, it should still feel rather pleasant for the time of year heading into sunday, a fairly unsettled day, plenty of cloud across the country with some outbreaks of rain this too could be heavy at times, particularly across the south—west southern parts of wales later into the day, and that generally leads us into an unsettled week next week. generally, temperatures turning more towards average, so make sure you enjoy the sunshine while it's here. bye for now . while it's here. bye for now. >> a nice bright morning will generate a lovely warm day right

through to the evening. solar sponsors of weather on gb

well . >> welcome to lee anderson's real world tonight on the show, we've got political commentator chloe dobbs. she's going to be joined with our left in the corner benjamin butterworth. we've got the leader of the climate party, ed gemmell, eastenders legend don altman is nasty nick. and we've also got billy gunn. he's the director and owner of imperial heating. but first let's go to the news.

>> good evening. the top