>> good morning and welcome to the camilla tominey show with me tom harwood putting the tom in, tommy. yes, i'm standing in for camilla, but coming up on today's show, transport secretary louise hay will join me to discuss the government's £1 billion funding boost for bus services across england. although i'll also ask her some more juicy questions. i'll be asking the shadow home secretary, chris philp, what he makes of the non—crime hate incidents in the wake of the investigation into telegraph journalist allison pearson this week, and the conservative mp for north west hampshire, kit malthouse, will be with me to discuss the controversial assisted dying bill. also, the award winning journalist and broadcaster hadley gamble, who's interviewed vladimir putin, as well as leaders like olaf scholz, will bring me her take on world affairs. and of course, yesterday we saw farmers protest outside the welsh labour

conference against the government's changes to that family farm tax. farmer douglas turner will join me ahead of the national farmers union event in westminster on tuesday. well, we've got 90 minutes of punchy politics ahead. don't go anywhere . anywhere. well, before all of that, and what a juicy show it will be today. there's time to go through today's front pages. delighted to be joined by the former bbc broadcaster nicholas owen. nicholas, thanks so much for joining us here. i mean, forjoining us here. i mean, it's a it's a broad smorgasbord of stories. this morning. what have you picked out.7 it is. >> well, i think we should go straight to the. >> let's start with the sunday times. their story about the immigration yet again coming up. here we are with. we know what's happenedin here we are with. we know what's happened in america. we have donald trump in and saying he's

going to do all sorts of things, send people in all sorts of different directions. if he can. and now we hear that the home secretary here is, as the headune secretary here is, as the headline here says, sent to pay millions to vietnam and kurdistan to try to beat the trafficking gangs. now the difference, let's be clear about what's what's sort of they're thinking about here. yes. maloney style migrant deals. that's a reference, of course, to the italian leader who's been very robust on this. >> so the south has got into a bit of trouble with the european courts over her policies. so, i mean, it does raise some questions. >> it raises enormous number of questions, of course. the first thing to say, though , it's not thing to say, though, it's not a rwanda thing. now, the fascination to me about rwanda is that donald trump is now a convert to the idea of sending illegal immigrants who've got into the united states, sending them to rwanda. this is not that. this is talking to countries to try to prevent people from coming in the first place, which i don't know about you, tom, but i've always thought that's really the root of this thing. surely if there was a some sort of incentive for

people to stay where they are or close to where they are, they can't stay in a country like syria for example, or something like that, with its terrible conditions. but but to prevent them leaving countries, vietnam is a very, very good example of this. i mean, that's a country which has done quite well in the economically and everything else. so why are there still an awful lot of vietnamese refugees on the move? so that's the idea. but this is this is , can i say, but this is this is, can i say, labour thrashing around a bit, looking for or looking for some solutions? they came in saying they were going to tackle the boats and all this sort of thing. here we are, having what seemed to me to be almost exactly the same discussions as, as, as we're having with when the tories were in, you know, a year or two ago or 4 or 5 years ago, ten years ago. >> and the other thing about this plan is it seems really rather expensive. it's not sort of the magic bullet of, you know, we'll just prosecute these people and everything will go away and everything will be nice. the same politicians who were bemoaning the cost of the rwanda scheme will now be spending an equivalent amount of money on lots of other

countries. >> absolutely, absolutely, yes. i mean, i would have thought . i mean, i would have thought. you're going begging, aren't you? you're doing the pleading and they're going to be in the driving seat if indeed it bites. i always think all these things are unrealistic, tom, to be honest, i've sat here in this chair and said before i was a right back, i thought rwanda was daft. i know a lot of people perhaps on this channel thought it was a good idea. i've never thought it was a good idea, and i don't think this one is ehhen >> well goodness me. shall we? on that note, move to on another concerning issue involving the home office once more, as always involving the home office, isn't it? this is the telegraph , it? this is the telegraph, because it's not just telegraph columnist allison pearson who has been getting these non—crime hate incidents. >> we've got this new julie bindel, the writer , a writer who bindel, the writer, a writer who is very strong on sort of trans matters and so on. she says she was actually one thing that fascinates me. if the police are coming to arrest you, tom, on some sort of charge, they tend to come very early in the morning. they bang on the door and you're half asleep. they didn't do that. in the case of

this lady, julie bindel, she says she has been having a had a problem. two policemen turned up on her door and said they wanted to discuss something that she'd tweeted a long time ago. and again , she's absolutely again, she's absolutely mystified. first of all, the police don't seem to say what it is that the policeman sent to your door. do not have any details of what they're what the complaint is. details of what they're what the complaint is . just basically complaint is. just basically saying, would you like to come down to the station sometime and have a chat about this? and she's written a piece inside the sunday telegraph saying, you know, again , it's the old story. know, again, it's the old story. i'm so i'm sure almost everybody will say the same. why aren't they out there dealing with the crime on the streets, dealing with all the things that really matter to people instead of chasing around looking for hate crimes? no, no, sometimes it's non—hate crime. sometimes it's non—crime goodness knows what a what a nonsense. the whole thing is. >> it's is.- >> it's a is.— >> it's a mess. but of is. >> it's a mess. but of course, i mean, there is an argument. is this the police and their problem, or is this the politicians for making all of these rules, for making all of

these rules, for making all of these laws, that of course the police then go on and have to enforce? it's something that we'll definitely be bringing up with the shadow home secretary later on in the programme. go for it. but what do you do? but of course, the telegraph has another curious story , and another curious story, and that's president zelenskyy. yes. who is who is sounding surprisingly pro—trump? or is this all triangulation? >> well, i think first of all, the first thing to say is that ukraine had a very bad night. the a terrible attacks by the worst yet i think almost the worst yet i think almost the worst yet i think almost the worst yet on their on their power supply. so it's a very, very difficult time for the country anyway. but the headline on this story is zelenskyy trump will hasten end of war. now . up will hasten end of war. now. up to now, it's been pretty clear that president zelenskyy was pretty fearful that trump would try to impose conditions, would would say he was going to end the war in a day , didn't he? the war in a day, didn't he? that's what he said. but this would probably involve some sort of demilitarised zone or something. and forcing ukraine to give up lots of territory

right off crimea, for a start. and most of eastern ukraine, which is very much against what the ukrainian government says , the ukrainian government says, everything that they've done. but is this zelenskyy actually looking reality in the face? because the fact of the matter is, he's going to have to deal with the whole world, is going to have to deal with a rather different approach from the white house, whatever it is. so zelenskyy , it looks to me he's zelenskyy, it looks to me he's getting in first by saying, yeah , getting in first by saying, yeah, okay, the war could end with trump if we're to believe that he's actually going to move on this face facing reality, i guess. this face facing reality, i guess . very harsh reality, sad guess. very harsh reality, sad reality. there's i don't think there are any leaders that i've read of recently outside of ukraine who've said, no, don't worry, we can go on and push russia out of all of these places if we're not prepared to supply the really serious missiles, that would actually do real damage inside russia. and there's no sign at all. the biden administration certainly wouldn't do it. trump certainly

wouldn't do it. trump certainly wouldn't do it. and we're not going to do it on our own. so it's a sad, sad reality. >> bonkers thing. we've spent billions of pounds to ukraine. we've sent hugely expensive military equipment, and then we've said, oh , actually, you we've said, oh, actually, you can't use some of these longer range missiles . if they would range missiles. if they would attack the missile launching spots that are attacking you. i mean, the restrictions that we've placed on the ukrainian people and the ukrainian army are absurd. >> well, in a way, tom, but on the other hand, escalation could lead. goodness knows where. i mean, that's the reality of it. >> i suppose that's the risk. and now everything is sort of turbo charging up until the 21st of january, when donald trump is inaugurated, when he's in control, when his finger hovers over the big red button in the oval office, as i'm sure there is one. and i suppose that means that both sides, russia and ukraine, will be going gangbusters through now until the 21st of january. >> yeah, 21st of january. that's interesting. is it can we talk about the last thing we were going to let's do that. let's do that because this all flows.

>> it's almost like we planned this because donald trump's been making some appointments. >> he's been making some appointments and all of them, every single one of them people have gone, oh my goodness, oh my goodness. but here's the here's the latest one. the last one i think really in the chain is the new press chief. this is a lady called caroline levitt . and called caroline levitt. and she's supposed to be very tough as you would expect. you work for fox news. you would expect that as well. and here's the thing. she is 27 years old. well that's fine tom. well, what do you make of a 27 year old is such a powerful position . i ask such a powerful position. i ask somebody who is perhaps roughly in the same area. >> well, you know , a year or two >> well, you know, a year or two ago i'd have said that this is absolutely fine and proper now. now, i would say that it's outrageous. how on earth is the is the director of communications in the white house younger than me? i won't have it. i won't have it. but of course, there has been a proud and long tradition of young people in positions of power. i mean, pitt the younger became prime minister at the age of 24.

>> 20. was it 24? yes, that's right. oh, absolutely. yes. nothing against young people. but interestingly, back to where you started, you mentioned that the inauguration , january the the inauguration, january the 21st, 21st, it will be. well, look back four years to the last inauguration and the big argument was about the number of people in attending that inauguration. was it trump said it was the biggest crowd ever in the history of the world. this was denied. and right at the heart of that was whoever the press secretary was sean spicer, sean spicer and these press secretaries, they don't tend to last all that long. yes. >> i think trump burnt through 3 or 4 in his first in his first term. so i wonder if he's going to be trying to be more professional with his appointments this time around, or if actually it's a pretty hazardous job and no one can really be expected to last the full, full term, it would be fascinating to see how this young lady handles handled this thing . thing. >> really will be. >> really will be. >> yeah, but of course, she's not the only controversial. well, i don't i don't think it's fair to say controversial appointment but perhaps headline grabbing appointments. we've also seen the peculiar

appointments of robert f kennedy jr, appointments of robert f kennedy jr , tulsi gabbard, people who jr, tulsi gabbard, people who traditionally have been democrats. but switched to trump, but also but also are perhaps, dare i say it, walking through the edges of conspiracy land. >> yes, i think i think very much so. well, the kennedy is the absolutely classic example, isn't he? basically an anti—vaxxer, although he says vaccines will still be available to everybody. but he said an awful lot of things. but the a lot of these others, i mean, about fracking and all of these things may put out their stalls very, very clearly. and you, depending on your point of view, are they extreme positions, or is it better to have people who don't do actually have a very, very clear view of what they're doing? >> well, of course, in the election, fracking was a big issue. kamala harris four years ago said she wanted to ban it and then switched in the middle of the election campaign because it's hugely popular in in pennsylvania, supports lots of jobs, lots of growth. so it's

interesting , actually, that both interesting, actually, that both parties in the united states are in a very, very different position from both major parties in the united kingdom are. oh, absolutely. >> absolutely. well, we are an outlier, aren't we? i mean, the drift has definitely been towards the right , if you like towards the right, if you like it, and radical policies going back. it, and radical policies going back . fracking is it, and radical policies going back. fracking is an it, and radical policies going back . fracking is an extremely back. fracking is an extremely good example. but denial of climate change and all sorts of things, we're going to have to get used to it. this is a new world. go back to what we were saying about zelenskyy recognition of the fact that the everything's changing. you've got a different sort of administration coming with with trump at mach two, and you better get used to it, and you're going to have to adapt to it. >> although i do know that the new republican senator for pennsylvania, alongside many people in the trump administration, have been saying that natural gas and fracking, that natural gas and fracking, thatis that natural gas and fracking, that is actually a lot cleaner because it means that people can use less coal. and so it's a sort of transition fuel. you can make green arguments in that direction, sort of if it's if it's less bad than the other option. yes . yes. absolutely

option. yes. yes. absolutely true. absolutely. but nicholas owen, thank you so much for the wonderful rip roaring ride through the morning papers this morning. really, really appreciate it. well, after the break, i'll be joined by the shadow home secretary, chris philp. this is the camilla tominey show only on gb news.

good morning . welcome back to good morning. welcome back to the camilla tominey show with me tom harwood putting the tom in tominey. yes, i'm standing for in camilla this morning now. nicholas owen is still with me in the studio. we're expecting the shadow home secretary in a couple of minutes time, i should say. but while we have a glorious couple of minutes, i did want to pick your brains on this curious story of the shadow chancellor. she's been updating

her cv this week. >> yes. that's right. yes. i think what she said go in detail through her cv. we all know she worked for the bank of england. that was constantly being being referred to. i think sometimes the seniority, the level at which she was actually employed there is sometimes under under some doubt, but okay, she was definitely at the, at the bank. she understands the economic processes. you know, the way decisions are made about interest rates, the relations between the bank and the government, which is always extremely important. all of that. we give a full credit for. that's fine. but she also talked aboutin that's fine. but she also talked about in earlier part of her career, being an economist, i think with royal bank of scotland. yeah. >> each boss as a boss. >> that's right . yes, yes. >> that's right. yes, yes. >> that's right. yes, yes. >> well and this week the website guido fawkes has discovered that rachel reeves, the chancellor's linkedin page, has wiped that word . economist. has wiped that word. economist. yes, from that particular job and changed to it retail, retail, retail banking, working in retail banking.

>> yes. and it must be a bit careful. and i mean, rachel reevesis careful. and i mean, rachel reeves is a very, very bright, sharp lady. i don't suspect she was sort of sitting there in a counter of some branch somewhere, sort of saying to people as they came in, you know, can i help you with your mortgage? i don't think it was that , but it mortgage? i don't think it was that, but it wasn't quite at the level that had been expected or had been talked of before. you've got to be dreadfully careful these days. everybody will catch you out at the slightest thing. if you get that, get a line wrong about your history. >> you do have to be careful, but especially if you're the chancellor of the exchequer who , chancellor of the exchequer who, frankly, has been picked up on on various indiscretions before the wikipedia copy and pasting that was in her her book. and now this sort of cv embellishment is this becoming a bit of a problem embellishment is this becoming a bit of a pr