 Most people will mark this Sunday as Easter Sunday, a time to spend time with your family and think about religion, I suppose, Christianity. I'm not particularly good at these things myself. For us at Navarra Media, it's a time to think about one year of Keir Starmer as Labour leader. Yes, he was elected Labour leader exactly 12 months ago to the day in two days time, so minus two days. A little bit strapped for time today, but I think we've put together a pretty decent show. We've got some great guests coming up and we're going to talk about some big stories. So as well as reviewing Keir Starmer's first year in office, we're going to talk about the new party set up by Alex Salmond, what it really means and what's driving that party. We're also going to talk about Labour's pretty poor record when it comes to GRT communities, Gypsy, Robema and Traveller communities and that was sparked by a tweet and which was sent last night by a Shadow Minister for Equalities and there was some election literature which which spoke in a negative light about people from GRT communities and we're going to finish and with a story about the Nazi who joined the Metropolitan Police. It's been an unfortunate week for the Metropolitan Police or maybe unfortunate, it's too polite a way to put it. It's been a week where we've seen many dark sides of the Metropolitan Police. As ever, if you want to comment on what we're talking about through the show please do tweet on the hashtag TiskeySour. You can also send us your super chats under the YouTube stream or comment on the Twitch stream to share the show link. Now this Sunday it will be exactly 12 months since this happened. It is the honour and the privilege of my life to be elected as leader of the Labour Party. We've got a mountain to climb but we will climb it and I will do my utmost to reconnect us across the country to re-engage with our communities and voters to establish a coalition across our towns and our cities and our regions with all creeds and communities to speak for the whole of the country. Where that requires change, we will change. Where that requires us to rethink, we will rethink. Our mission has to be to restore trust in our party as a force for good and a force for change. This is my pledge to the British people. I will do my utmost to guide us through these difficult times, to serve all of our communities and to strive for the good of our country. I will lead this great party into a new era with confidence and with hope so that when the time comes we can serve our country again in government. That's slightly awkward looking back at that but we don't judge people for not being natural with auto-cues when they launch their political careers. Corbyn was never particularly good at them. We're going to stick to the substance on this episode. What happened since? That was his acceptance speech. The first thing that happens when someone is elected to the leadership of a party, they select their top team. Stammer when he selected his shadow cabinet, it didn't look that bad. It was a cabinet which sort of or shadow cabinet which balanced people from the left and the right included lots of people from the soft left. Annalise Dodds was chosen as shadow chancellor. Over Rachel Reeves, Rebecca Long Bailey was given a top job. Ed Miliband got a promotion. The problem though at this point was a refusal to oppose the government on anything related to coronavirus. If you think back to the shows we were doing 11 months ago, we were often saying what the government are doing is slow. It's wasteful. They're not taking the measures that they need to take to save lives. Then you saw Kier Stammer who was constantly just saying we'll support the government when they get things right and call them out when they get things wrong but not really specifying what they were getting right, what they were getting wrong or what Labour would do differently. Anyway, the bit I want to focus on now is how he really fell out with the left because I think those first couple of months people were slightly disappointed but gave him the benefit of the doubt. There were a few moments that changed that. The first was when the Black Lives Matter movement erupted. That was in June and that caused problems for Kier Stammer first because it led to Rebecca Long Bailey getting fired after sharing an article in which Maxine Peake connected the killing of George Floyd to Israel and then because he said this. That's nonsense and nobody should be saying anything about defunding the police. I would have no truck with that. I was director of public prosecutions for five years. I worked with police forces across England and Wales bringing thousands of people to courts so my support for the police is very, very strong and evidenced in the joint actions I've done with the police. There's a broader issue here. The Black Lives Matter movement or moment, if you like, internationally is about reflecting something completely different and it's reflecting on what happened dreadfully in America just a few weeks ago and showing or acknowledging that there's a moment across the world and it's a shame it's getting tangled up with these organisational issues with the organisation Black Lives Matter but I wouldn't have any truck with what the organisation was saying about defunding the police or anything else. That's just nonsense. So a few sort of key aspects of Kier Stammer's leadership on show there. The first he's not going to back defunding the police, obviously I wouldn't expect him to. He's clearly putting a lot of effort into appealing to people in the so-called red wall. He knows they think crime is an important issue but he does it in a pretty unsophisticated way, let's say. He's basically just saying I love cops, social movements, they can go to hell. That has kind of been the message from Kier Stammer for the past 12 months. We really saw a sign of it there. That was, again, there were still some people on the left willing to give Stammer the benefit of the doubt after saying that any goodwill people still had at that point would be evaporated later in the year. That's because on October the 29th when the EHRC reporting to Labour and anti-Semitism was released, this happened. I made it clear that we won't tolerate anti-Semitism or the denial of anti-Semitism through the suggestion that it's exaggerated or factional and that's why I was disappointed with Jeremy Corbyn's response and that is why appropriate action has been taken which I fully support. I want to unite the Labour Party, bring our factions together as a united party, but I made a very clear commitment to root out anti-Semitism and I'm going to follow through on that commitment. We cannot say zero tolerance and then turn a blind eye. So that was Keir Starmer's, I think that was a key moment of him falling out with the left, basically the relationship that Keir Starmer could have had with the left breaking down. I'm going to show you some clips in a moment, the key ones I think of him having a relationship that breaks down with the public because he, you know, I mean generally he shows himself to not be as competent as he wanted to seem. First of all, I want to know from you, Aaron, this breakdown with the left, do you think those are the key moments, do you think I've picked the correct moments basically? I mean I suppose I should add that he then suspended the whip from Corbyn. I think that was probably more important than the initial suspension of Corbyn from the party because the formal process has led him back in. Keir Starmer says no, even if the formal process has led him back in, I'm going to personally kick him out of the PLP. Are those the key moments that have caused this breakdown and how big an event is that in Keir Starmer's first year? That's the thing, Michael. I mean, I think whether or not you're a supporter of Keir Starmer, if you're saying what positive outstanding weeks were though, we say no, you know what, like that was a really good week. We will take the W there, right? And in politics, it's always about having more good weeks than bad weeks. And it does feel like the only conspicuous weeks have been bad ones. Yes, there was Corbyn, there was the anti-Semitism, there was the partisan unity one, there was the BLM one, there was of course the the leaked labour report, didn't get much breakthrough in the general media, but that clearly wasn't a good week for Keir Starmer either. And it does feel like he kind of had a honeymoon period leading into early summer last year, June, July. And it feels like it's all been downhill since then. And so people can say, well, he's got to clean up a mess from Jeremy Corbyn, they have so much work to do, I'm playing devils, I don't believe that, obviously. But those are the arguments and you have to engage with them. But all the memorable moments, but also more importantly, all the quantitative data really shows that at best, he was on an upward trajectory until October. Really, I think the high point for labour was the period around which Dominic Cummings was of course booted out unceremoniously out of number 10. That was potentially a moment too, because he did say I think he should resign a really mealy-mouthed way, which is about as kind of populist as Keir Starmer's going to go. But no, fundamentally, there's nothing memorable in a positive sense about Starmer's leadership after a year. And that has to concern people that back him. That's not a factional point coming from the left. That's a really big problem, because politics has composed yes of ideas, yes of resources. But it's also composed around memorable moments and feelings. And there aren't many positive feelings around Keir Starmer. I mean, there's in fact, at least on the left, a lot of very, very negative feelings towards Keir Starmer. We're going to look at some data later on, which we'll sort of highlight that. First of all, though, I want to take you through a few more key moments of the first year. So I focus there on those real big breaches with the left. Now, what about those breaches with the public? Now, Keir Starmer has mainly relied on pitching himself as competent. That was supposed to be the key value that he associated with himself to try and contrast himself with Boris Johnson. Now, on that front, the key moment where I think, I mean, that all fell apart basically, and he hasn't recovered, was on January the 4th. So back then we had a more transmissible variant of COVID-19. 60,000 people a day were testing positive. Boris Johnson had been refusing to close schools. Keir Starmer had refused to oppose him. Then on January the 4th, the first day back at school, it was briefed, Johnson was going to U-turn and Starmer gave this interview to Sky. It is inevitable that schools will have to close, and therefore they need to be part of the national restrictions package that needs to come into place as soon as possible. Which schools and where? Well, all schools are going to have to inevitably, and this is tragic because nobody wants to close schools. We need closing schools without a national plan isn't going to work. We need the two to go together. So national restrictions, not in due course, not in a week or two or three, but now. So primary and secondary schools should close immediately. Secondary schools are shut anyway this week across the country, and therefore we need to take action this week on national restrictions, and that needs to include schools. So all primary schools shut tomorrow? Well, shutting schools without a national plan is not going to work. You need a national set of restrictions. You need national restrictions, school closures will inevitably have to be part of that. If that can be done, I've said to the Prime Minister to get this plan in place today. What your plan is, what do you need to do before shutting primary schools, and why can't that happen tomorrow? Why do you want to keep schools open? We need a national set of restrictions. It is inevitable that closing schools is going to be part of that. It's going to have to be part of that. That means how soon and if not under what circumstances? As soon as possible, we need the national plan in place, and if that can be done today or tomorrow, then we will support the Prime Minister in that. So that was really the moment for me where I thought, what the hell is this guy doing, right? Everyone was asking for schools to close. Sage, the scientists were asking for schools to close. The teachers were asking for schools to close. Parents wanted them to close. Boris Johnson, for some bizarre reason, was keeping them open, and Keir Starmer just wouldn't take a different position. And there, even when he's being pushed, that evening, Boris Johnson announced they would close. Keir Starmer said, I want an announcement today or tomorrow. Boris Johnson beats him to it. Completely bizarre. It also mattered. So that interview happened on January the 4th. 48,000 people died since then. Now, that's not purely because schools didn't close, but if we had gone into a more strict lockdown sooner in that second wave, many lives would have been saved, actually. Another one on coronavirus because obviously this is the key issue that has defined nationwide politics. This is another one that I think really sums up how he has failed to hold the government to account on this question. Now, this was actually from the same day as that interview on Sky. Let's take a look. These measures are necessary, sadly, and therefore we support the package of measures that the Prime Minister has just outlined. And I think whatever our criticisms and challenges of the government, we've all got to pull together now to make this work over the next few weeks and months. It's going to be a very, very difficult period. There are questions about the timing of decisions, etc. But now is the time, I think, to support this package, pull together and do everything we can to try and make this work. Is there anything, I'm just wondering whether viewers are reflecting on this, is there anything that Labour thinks should be in this measures that isn't there? Is there a notable absence from your point of view? Not an absence. I think the most important thing is the messaging about stay at home and going back to the spirit of March because a lot is now going to depend on the willingness of people to comply. And I urge everybody to comply with the package that the Prime Minister has just outlined to follow the guidance. But we have to rekindle that spirit. And I think that in a way we need to remake the contract with the British people, which is say, in return for you enduring these measures now for the coming weeks, the vaccine must be rolled out at speed. We need this to be mission critical. We were the first country to get the vaccine and we need to be the first country to have the vaccine program rolled out. So it's that spirit of March, stay at home. But we will support this package. As I say, whatever other quarrels we've got with the government, we will support this package. So that was Kid Starmer when the most recent lockdown was announced. There was no money for people to self-isolate if they'd caught COVID-19. There was no right to furlough. No, there were lots of parents whose kids couldn't go to school anymore. If they said, can you please furlough me because I want to homeschool my teacher? As we talked about on previous shows, many bosses said no. And there was nothing that the worker could do in that situation. There was no support for people who were excluded from the furlough scheme. Kid Starmer asked, is there anything missing from this? He says, no, no, no absence. I mean, if anything, I would, I would say they could do with decent messaging. That's not our position. That's PR advice. Aaron, for me, those two videos really summed up Kid Starmer's relationship to, I suppose the coronavirus pandemic, which I mean, from our perspective, Kid Starmer's relationship to the left is kind of key in terms of how we have assessed his leadership. For most of the public, it's going to be how he's related to coronavirus. Do you think on that question, he's got anything right? No. I think he's got, I'll peddle back as well. I think actually the issue of anti-Semitism and Corbyn isn't just the left issue. I think it also does percolate through to broader debate, even at an unconscious level. But hold that thought for a second. No, in terms of the big policy debates around COVID, I think he's been appalling. He's either been inexistent, repeatable, the Tories have said, or he's been completely wrong. For instance, on corporation tax, you know, this is one of the big moments of the breakdown of the kind of austerity narrative policy agenda post 2010, where you have Rishi Sunak saying, you know, what we're going to put corporation tax books at 25% and labor. And by the way, Joe Biden last week, or this week over the last week, has effectively said that there's a $2 trillion stimulus package, which will be paid for by guess what, increase in corporation tax, you had all these melts around Starmer. And I don't mean his advice is, you know, I'm not going to slag people off who can't make a right of reply. I'm talking about people on Twitter like Ian Dunn or whatever saying, no, actually, this is really bad politics. Starmer's right. You know, it was catastrophically wrong. And I feel like, you know, one of the, the pitch of Starmer was, and I understood it, and actually it could even work, is on the police, on law and order, on foreign policy, on Trident, you're going to basically lean into a blue labor agenda. You might not like it on the left, but that's what we've got to do. And that gives us permission to go quite radical on, on housing, on potentially migration post Brexit, radical migration, sort of policy. That's that was always up in the air, wasn't it? Migration, housing, climate change, economic justice, equality, you know, social care. And I think a lot of people on the left, Michael, that's certainly how I felt, understood that trade off and said, you know what, if that's what happens, it could be worse. But we haven't had a trade off. You know, and all the important kind of arguments where he needed to make a left, a left pitch for social justice, which by the way, was at one with the public zeitgeist, he hasn't done it. And he's failed to do it to such an extent that actually now Rishi Sunak is taking positions, for instance, on corporation tax to the left of the leader of the opposition, which is, which is deeply concerning. Now going back to the thing about Alan Semitism, that matters for the, for the, the, the Labour membership of the left, it doesn't matter for public large. I don't think that's true, because until the summer, Keir Starmer felt like a breath of fresh air. You know, even Jeremy Corbyn didn't want to talk about Jeremy Corbyn anymore, right? He wants to talk about, and you've got this, you've got this whoever you talk to, if you talk to people on Corbyn or McDonnell, the left of the Labour Party wants to spend, you might not agree with it again, but this is where they were, wants to lick their wounds, take a step back, allow another section of the party to lead and, and kind of try and build the, the ideas and the policy agenda that, that they thought with Keir's 10 sort of pledges was still relatively speaking, quite stable. And I think Keir Starmer, once he suspended Jeremy Corbyn, basically just took the plaster off the wound. And I think for the public at large, I think at a very unconscious level, actually, the public thought Labour haven't changed. All I've heard about Labour for the last couple of years is anti-Semitism, infighting, factionalism. And for a few months, I hadn't heard that and Keir Starmer did really well. And now all I can see is disunity and infighting. No way should those guys be anywhere near government. So yes, of course, those things are issues on the left. But, but I think it has critically undermined him with the public at large. You know, Keir Starmer now, today, great piece we had on this polling by stats for lefties on the Navarra Media website, he's polling minus 30 in the north of England. You know, so clearly these things have had massive cuts through the public at large. But I don't think they're saying, well, I don't agree with Keir Starmer anti-Semitism. I think it is. But he kind of doesn't feel like that much for breath of fresh air. Actually, Labour feel like, more or less, quite a disaster of a political party, not that different to a year or two ago. And I think that is actually self inflicted. A couple more. I just got two more case studies of what I think has gone wrong with his leadership. And these involve his tendency to not show people, but tell people what he believes, what he's going to do, etc. Right. So the prime example of this is probably him constantly talking about values. So he thinks people care about politicians values. So he says, I have values, I have values, doesn't really tell people what they are. The other thing he's done is said, I'm going to oppose the government instead of opposing the government. So the classic of this genre was I'm putting the Prime Minister on notice. He has got to get a grip. That was last year in June. And then that's happened again. So this month, in the telegraph, we had Starmer say, as we come out of year one into year two, I want to take the mask off and open the throttle. So again, he's constantly giving warnings to the Tory government without ever actually finding anything to oppose them on. And I want to go straight to some polling, because, you know, if you're working for Keir Starmer and you're watching this show, I don't know if they do. They're probably thinking, look, Michael and Aaron aren't impressed with what we've been doing as the leadership team in the Labour Party. We don't care. We were never here to please Michael Walker and Aaron Bostani from Navarra Media. We care what the public think. I think they actually should care what, you know, left wing members of the Labour Party think, but that's up to them. They care what the public think. Let's see what the public think. Now, Keir and Pedley is from the polling company Ipsos Mori, and he did a great thread on Starmer's changing popularity. Very balanced thread. And so he started that thread by saying some Ipsos Mori data on Starmer one year in, first, fair to say things have turned against Starmer somewhat in the past six months. So in October, Labour were five points ahead. Starmer had a net satisfaction rating of plus 15 by March. The Conservatives are seven points ahead and Starmer is on minus nine. So what happens? And he answers that question by first saying that, you know, you have to admit the first thing that's happened is the public mood has shifted 88% of the public currently think the government is doing a good job on the vaccine rollout. That's a complete transformation in terms of how people feel towards the Tory government at the moment. At the same time, this isn't just about health. It's also about the economy. So we can look up this, the economic optimism index. So this is how many people think that the country, the economic condition is going to improve in the next 12 months. And at the moment, it's plus two. And there are 2% more people or 2% points more people who think that the country is going to get better in the next 12 months. That's the most positive it's been since 2015. And in October, when Keir Starmer was in positive territory, it was as low as it's been since 2008. So we can see, you know, that transformation isn't just because Keir Starmer suspended Jeremy Corbyn or sort of you turned on schools. It's because the external environment has dramatically changed. But Peddly, I said this is a very fair Fred, he also says that Starmer's fall in popularity isn't just a result of external events. If you look at this, this is how his satisfaction has changed over time. And you can see it's been falling constantly, especially among Labour voters, and that was way before the vaccine was rolled out. Even in some of the darkest times of COVID, you saw a massive drop in the popularity of Keir Starmer, especially among Labour voters. And there 50% in October, 31% in December think that Keir Starmer's doing a good job, or net think that he's doing a good job. That drop seems to me to be because of the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn. A couple more factoids to give you, I think this one is super important, it's whether or not people think Starmer will change Labour for better or for worse. Now, when he became leader of the party, there are only 6% of people who thought he would make the Labour Party worse than it was under Jeremy Corbyn. That's now gone up to 13%. Which is, you can still say, that's still quite a small minority, but it's a very significant minority. And it could, I mean, deny him the leadership of the country. Because if people think he's taking the party in a wrong direction, they're annoyed at the guy. They're the kind of people who voted Labour who probably won't, again, or are going to be tempted not to, again, at least. We've got here how the unfavourability is changing as well. So this is how people feel towards the Labour Party. The big stand out here, at the moment, only 26% of people have a favourable attitude towards the Labour Party. That's exactly the same as when he took over. There's been no movement whatsoever, although the unfavourability has fallen a bit. Less people have open hostility to the Labour Party. Final factoid for you, this one's super important. One in five Labour voters from 2019 now tell Ipsos Mori they are unfavourable towards Starmer and think he would change Labour for the worse. So that is lots of people. One in five Labour voters, they now don't like Starmer. A lot of them actively don't like Starmer. And from people I speak to actively wanting to lose, there's so much bad will there that he didn't need to have. Aaron, can he recover from this? Does he even want to? No, no, no, no. When the HRC report came out and then obviously that whole debacle happened around Corbyn, I emailed our good friend, Paul Bas, and I said, this is the day that Keir Starmer has decided he won't be Prime Minister. And I think, yes, of course, the objective conditions are there, Michael, although it's interesting because the polling about economic optimism, if you actually look through the late 90s, early 2000s, people will constantly think we're not optimistic. And actually, that was when we had like 40 odd consecutive quarters of growth. So that sentiment, it can often mean, well, this was so shit or actually equally after austerity, it goes up again after 2011, 2012, we've had a couple of bad years, therefore we're going to have a couple of good years. And people are optimistic now because the last year was so terrible, it can't get worse. So it's partly that. But also, you know, Labour are not offering anything, Michael. And I think ultimately, yes, Johnson failed on the response to COVID, but he came through on Brexit. And then you've got the vaccines thing. I think people are quite transactional. You know, if a politician is not going to make their life any worse, if they're moderately entertaining, if they're not completely screwing things up, you know, I think Trump probably would have stayed, had COVID not happened, for instance. That was a clear screw up he had to go. And I do think, you know, partly you're right. But look, the baseline here is Trump. And we do have a similar-ish fatality rate to the US. Actually, US GDP didn't contract anywhere nearly as bad as ours did. And I think on a purely kind of superficial aesthetic level, the government early doors shaking hands, talking to Philip Schofield and so on, was every bit as bad as Donald Trump. And for Donald Trump, that ultimately cost him reelection in 2020. There's been no overhead for Boris Johnson. And I know what you're saying, Michael. Yes, there are sort of structural factors here. But it also reflects the fact that Keir Starmer hasn't, in any way, taken a single opportunity laid at his feet. And what I would say is this, just to finish, Michael, and you said, it does feel like nobody wants him to win. I really feel that. I really feel lots of people would be very happy if Keir Starmer fails. It's a very broad coalition of people. It's, it's leave voters, strong leave voters, people that don't like the idea of a London lawyer, people that don't like somebody, oh, he looks like a smoothie chop. He's a bit smarmy. He thinks he's got all the right answers. Identicate politician. There's a lot of people that feel like that. Now, look, you know, people felt that about Tony Blair in 2001. He's still one. People felt that about Tony Blair in 2005. He's still one. You know, they didn't feel about him in 1997. Lots of people felt really optimistic, energized. This is what 21st century British politician looks like. People aren't saying that with Keir Starmer. There's no excitement and there's no likability. You know, and I think people forget this, both with Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. They actually did very well in their different ways. You know, Theresa May got in the 2017 general election, it was a terrible election for the Tories because they, of course, lost their majority, but they got their highest share of the vote, I believe, since 87 or maybe 92. But it was a strong performance in that regard. And of course, you know, Jeremy Corbyn got 40%. And there is a sort of personality type in Britain. People love a tryer. You know, sometimes you don't actually have to be producing the goods. People love a tryer. And Theresa May captured a little bit of that for a little while. Jeremy Corbyn too. A lot of people didn't agree with his politics, but there's again, this kind of British type where they say, I don't agree with him, but he knows what he believes and he knows what he stands for. And he always, you know, you could always rely on Jeremy Corbyn to have that particular position on something. People would say that about Nigel Farage over the last 10, 15 years. Again, you might not like that, but that's a kind of caricature of a certain political type in our public life. Nobody will say that about Keir Starmer. You know, what are the associations with Keir Starmer? Yes, some people will have positive ones, although increasingly few people will have positive ones, but many will have identity politician, smarmy, thinks, you know, thinks he knows best all the time. Again, metropolitan elite, that has a bunch of negative associations, connotations. But in some ways it also reflects, you know, a fact, which is that he did want to override a referendum where 400 constituencies had voted to leave. He thought he knew better. And that's all going to have a big political overhead for him. Whether or not you thought he was right, he has consistently shown himself to think he knows best, trying to get rid of Corbyn in 2016, backing Owen Smith on the EU stuff, you know, on the COVID stuff. He actually looks like a pretty disastrous politician, but the last person who will admit that is Keir Starmer. I do want to say, the last thing I'm going to say, because I want us to be fair on this, I want this to be convincing even if you're not already, you know, of the way of thinking that we tend to have it in our media. So David Cameron's personal ratings were minus five at this point in time. He went on to BPM. Obviously, Keir Starmer is now minus nine. So, you know, you could look at this objective and say, look, Keir Starmer, and I think this is probably true with the general public, their first impressions aren't great, but most people will not have made their mind up about this guy. I think if the economy goes downhill, there's every chance that various swing voters could come back and say, actually, Keir Starmer, look, he's all right, let's give him a go. What I think he really can't come back from is the one in five Labour voters who actively dislike him basically because he's put two fingers up at them and called them racist and said they should have nothing to do with civilized society. And I think it's very difficult to come back from that because, you know, most people aren't that interested in politics. That's fine. Most people will think Keir Starmer a bit boring, don't know that much about him. But he, you know, there is a chance to come back. But for those one in five Labour voters who he has, you know, basically mortally offended by kicking Corbyn out of the party, I don't see how he changes that. So for me, that is the key moment of his leadership so far because that for me is the thing that's harder to reverse. Aaron, you want to come back in super quickly, don't you? I'm going to be super quick. We've got a great guest coming on right now, but I want to be super quick. And I think it's important to say this, Michael, because you're talking about fairness. You know, the last 12 months have not been a normal political context. You know, he's not been able to do speeches and meet in greets and campaigning and so on and so forth. So from that perspective, yes, it's been very difficult. But that will change is from May. And if May have, if Labour have poor election results in May, and he doesn't really make any impact over the next six months, he's toast. He is toast. Sounds presumptuous, but that's where we are. Let's go to a couple of comments. Mr. Krabby with £10. As much as I appreciate your analysis of Starmer tonight, watching so many clips of him has been upset on settling and vividly illustrates how he singlehandedly made the Labour Party irrelevant. I'm sorry for subjecting you to all of those clips. If you're enjoying the show so far, please consider becoming a supporter. If you are already, thank you so much. You make all of this possible. Of course, you can become a supporter at naboramedi.com forward slash support. We ask you to donate the equivalent of one hour's wage a month. Now the Labour Party's claim to be an anti-racist party can often seem fairly superficial. This is no more so than when it comes to its relationship to Gypsy Roma and Traveller communities. That prejudice against Travellers, or at least a blind spot to anti-traveller prejudice, was on show in a tweet from the party's shadow equalities minister, Charlotte Nichols, last night. Nichols posted this tweet of herself campaigning in Warrington, where she's an MP. So the tweet reads, great evening back out on the doors with the awful massive checking in with local residents about issues and concerns and speaking to them about their priorities ahead of the upcoming council elections. Now you look at that tweet, it's completely uncontroversial. It's just a Labour MP who's campaigning for councillors in her area. Now the problem emerges when you zoom in on the leaflet and the issues and concerns that Labour is promising to address. Now along with waste transfer sites prevented and continued action on fly tipping, they list dealing with Traveller incursions. Now there are obviously a few things wrong with this. First, any reference to an ethnic group as a problem to be challenged is worrying on any kind of party literature that's always going to reinforce negative associations for people and lead to racism. Second, that phrase incursions, which means a sudden attack or invasion is especially dehumanizing. Now that was noticed by many Twitter users, including members of the GRT community who held Nichols to task over that tweet. We've had a couple of statements from her in response. So first thing this morning, Nichols tweeted the following statement. So she wrote, I can understand concerns raised about the language in a recent leaflet, particularly in the context of the draconian measures in the police crime courts and sentencing bill, which pertains to GRT people, among the reasons why I voted against it at second reading. The terminology around incursions appears widely used in legal and local government contexts, and I wasn't aware of its problematic definition. The best way to deal with encampments in inappropriate places is for proper transit facilities to be built in Warrington for families passing through with the amenities they need, something I have consistently argued for in which Warrington borough council supports with £2 million set aside for the capital budget to progress plans. In my mind, this is always ever intended to refer to. I'm trying to be an ally to the GRT community, but anti-racism is an active process that means being willing to listen and to learn. I'm more than happy to sit down with community representatives to discuss more appropriate terminology to talk about sensitive issues like these and how we can work together to best ensure the needs of the community are met going forward. Now that was the full statement, obviously some thought had gone in it, however, gone into it. However, it was deemed insufficient by many Labour members and GRT campaigners, very understandably, I think, as it focused purely on the word incursion, not the broader problem of referring to an ethnic minority as a problem on campaigning literature for the Labour Party, right? So in response to those criticisms, Nichols tweeted the following statement this afternoon. She tweets, I would like to unreservedly apologise for the offence and hurt that I have caused to the Gypsy Roma and Traveller community. I have spoken to the local Labour Party. The leaflet has been withdrawn and the leaflet will be destroyed. I regret that this leaflet has been distributed in the town. The leaflet is not in line with my personal values or those of the Labour Party. Now to discuss anti-traveller prejudice in Britain's major parties, I'm joined by Jake Bauer as a Romani journalist and filmmaker. Jake, thank you so much for joining us on tonight's show. Good evening. It's lovely to be here. Yeah, pretty nice. Now we're going to talk about, you know, broad issues involving politics and the GRT community. First of all, can I get your thoughts on that leaflet, what was on the leaflet and Charlotte Nichols response to the pushback that she got? Yeah, it's a bit media-mouthed, isn't it? And we've, you know, with friends like Charlotte who needs enemies and God knows we've got enough enemies of our own and have done for many, many years. I mean, you don't put that on a leaflet and then go and put it through people's doors without thinking about it. You know, the Labour Party, and I say this as a Labour Party member, has been focusing on its messaging for years. So she must have read it. She picked it up. She put it through people's doors. And what she's done, if you look at where we are in that agenda amongst fly-tipping anti-social behaviour, she's castigated and demonised an entire community that I'm part of. And it's disturbing, really disturbing. You know, where I am down in Hastings, in my caravan at the moment, the local Labour Party wants members like me to go out and campaign for it. And you know what? I can't be bothered. I really can't be bothered because I feel like I'm supporting a party that isn't really any difference from the Tory party when it comes to my community. The Tory party, Priti Patel, has come out with some really horrible suggested legislation which will effectively wipe out my culture. Is the Labour Party any better? Maybe a little bit, but if you put leaflets like this through people's doors, you're not really any better. People in the Gypsy and Traveller community will not see any difference between the two. And you know, it's difficult to engage many ethnic minorities in politics, particularly difficult for the Gypsy and Traveller community because no party really has done anything ever for us. So it's a massive own goal. And taking down the tweak, putting out a statement saying I'm really sorry, she's just sorry she got caught. I don't think she's done anything to address or look at the diversity blind spot that she personally has. And the Labour Party still has when it comes to the Gypsy and Traveller community. And there's a lot of work left to do. And I'm thinking at this stage, should I be paying my dues to a Labour Party that is prepared to do that to my community? There aren't many other options. And I stood as a Green Party candidate here in Hastings in 2015 before Corbyn became part of the Labour Party. And that's when I jumped back to the Labour Party. But like a lot of people out there now, we're thinking, what's the point? What's the point in staying and stuff like this happens? I mean, it clearly is a blind spot. I suppose you could say in Charlotte's defense, it has been 24 hours. I mean, maybe she will be putting some more thought into this and hopefully recognises it's a blind spot and work needs to be done. I want to talk to you as well as the language that was used here and as well as the fact that this appeared on party literature and what that tells us about how people from the GRT community are spoken about. I want to know about the policy that was represented here because this is a Labour Council saying they'll deal with Traveller community incursions. What does that mean in practice? And especially I'm interested in sort of, you know, is the policy of Labour councillors, you know, the material physical policy of Labour councillors towards GRT communities any different to Tory councillors? What are the issues on the ground there? Okay, well, let's look at the language and then kind of unpack the policy that comes from it. The word incursion lost, you know, anytime that I've ever kind of looked it up or I'm just aware of its meaning is a kind of a militaristic term which would usually be applied to somebody other, usually an aggressive military or physical force. Now, we are a community that's been part of the British landscape for at least 500 years, so it's inaccurate as well as being racist. Is the Labour Party any different? There have been Labour Party, you know, there have been some good stuff that's happened in the Labour Party. I remember Charles Smith, he was chair of the Gypsy Council, was a Labour Mayor of Castle Point in Essex. So, you know, it is different to some extent, but I also know of a local Labour Party down in Bournemouth, for example, a few years ago, where the elected members, you know, were suggesting that muck spreaders should be sent out to throw tons of horse manure on caravans and that would stop people coming to the town. So it's really, really patchy, depending usually on whether those Labour Party activists had a background in anti-racism and knew what racism was about, had experienced it directly and could make the connections between Asian and Black communities and the community that I'm from. So the policies have been different, sometimes they've been very hostile from Labour Party, sometimes they've been okay. There's never really been any local party that is actively welcomed, the Gypsy-Rome or Traveller community, into its area, not a single one. And that's problematic. When you think that we've been here for 500 years, there is undeniably a conflict over where caravans such as the stop and it's not being resolved and it's going to be made worse by the Tories. And if you get stuff like this coming out of a Labour Party, it just aids and abets it. What we should be doing now whilst they're on their back foot with the police courts and sentencing Bill is we should be building solidarity with the Gypsy-Rome and Traveller communities, with protesters, with a great coalition of the unwashed as the Tory Party would see it and working together. But when leaflets like this come out, it makes you think, is the solution to this stuff, is it through party politics? Is it through electoral politics or is it just through direct action? We live a life of civil disobedience. Our entire existence has been made illegal and it's going to be made even more illegal by the Tories. And the Labour Party should be opposing that with every fibre of its being, not reinforcing it. We're obviously very early on in the campaign against the policing bill. But is there any sense in which you've sort of seen people are waking up to the issues facing GRT communities? Obviously, it's a terrible circumstance because this is a law which could completely threaten the way of life of Gypsy-Roma and Traveller people in this country. But do you think there could be a sort of effective opposition to the bill that's starting to build at this point in time? Yeah, I think there is. I mean, I think the closest thing that I've experienced to this was the passage of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which did become law. At that time, my dad was president of the British-Roman Union. I've got a flag behind me here. Most people won't ever recognise it, but it's nicer than the Union Jag. And that's the parallel. That's the echo that I can hear with what's going through at the moment. People are coming together. They are on a grassroots level connecting with each other, seeing the threat to the liberty of the Gypsy-Roma and Traveller communities the same as the threat to the liberty of all. And so people are coming together. But let's not forget that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act is law. It did make trespass criminal, but it restricted it to six vehicles like these. What the new law will do will reduce that to just one vehicle, which is the final nail in the coffin for nomadic life in this country. And a lot of people out there might think, well, it doesn't really affect me. It's not really going to touch me. But we are the canary in the coal mine of liberty. And so we really need to kind of reach out to each other. All people, whether the Labour Party members or not, if they consider themselves socialists, if they consider themselves on the left, if they're anarchists, whoever, we need to link together and we need to resist it. We need to resist this racism and see it for what it is. We need to actually be proud of who we are. One of the things that I'm working on at the moment is a campaign called Proud Roma Free Europe, which you can find online. And we're getting people to try and stand up to be proud of who they are, to show that the stigma and the fear of our identity is something that we need to shed and we need to throw off, we need to embrace and we need to be proud of it. And that's something that I hope that people will join. So it's ProudRoma.org, go and have a look. It's something that's happening all the way across Europe throughout this year. It's now the 50th anniversary of the birth of the Romani civil rights movement. We've come some way in the last 50 years, but we've still got a very, very long way to go. Let's definitely keep discussing about this, this 50th anniversary as well. That's of the birth of the modern Romani movement, right? That's right. That's right. ProudRoma.org. Check it out. Brilliant. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. That was Jake Bowers. And yet, I do recommend you go check out that website and keep your eyes peeled for an article from Jake on Navara over the weekend. The very public breakdown in relations between Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor and former mentor, Alex Salmond, has been one of the most dramatic developments in British politics over the past two years. As we've discussed on previous shows, the breakdown originated in allegations of sexual harassment against Salmond, dating from his time as First Minister. Salmond was cleared of all charges, though not exonerated of inappropriate behavior. Yet, his victory in court was followed with a campaign against Sturgeon for allegedly mishandling the initial investigation. It's a battle which has taken place in courts, committees and TV studios. However, in upcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament for the first time, the ongoing war between the two giants of Scottish politics will gain an electoral dimension. That's after the launch of a new party, Alba, which Alex Salmond has spoken about to Channel 4 News. The one thing I can say about Alba's campaign is that we'll be positive and contribute to a positive political debate. You won't hear a word out of any Alba or Alaba car party candidate. Anything negative about Scotland will not be bothered about our political opponents. We're interested in building a supermajority for independence in the Scottish Parliament. We have the opportunity to do it and we're determined to seize it. That is the opportunity to build a supermajority for independence in the next Scottish Parliament. Many of us in Scotland are really excited by that prospect, by that opportunity, because that will strengthen the hand of the Scottish Parliament by having the debate configured, not as Tory party against SMP, Boris Johnson against Nicola Sturgeon, but Boris Johnson against the Scottish Parliament representing the Scottish people. That will give an enormous advantage to Scotland that's an opportunity we're determined to seize. Today we've planted a salt aisle in the hill. That's a huge enterprise to launch a political party six weeks before an election. We're not presuming anything, but if we can put forward our arguments in a positive, reasonable fashion for independence for our country, then I think a number of people will rally to that standard. But listen, time will tell over the next few days, over the next few weeks, and we'll see if people think that Alba or Alaba is a significant contribution to the independence cause. Now you heard a lot there about the concept of a supermajority. Now this was a little bit alien to me and probably will be to most people south of the border, luckily, to explain what Alex Salmond is talking about and also the broader meaning behind the launch of this party. I'm joined by Rory Schoforn, a freelance writer and co-author of Rockwind's A Treacherous Guide to the State of Scotland. We're going to talk about your great piece in the new statesman about the underlying sort of motives for launching this party and the cultural sort of trends that this represents. First, though, can you clarify to me what is a supermajority? What is he talking about? What's the sort of electoral task that Alex Salmond has set himself here? So the thinking behind this is that the Scottish Parliament has 129 seats. It's a semi-proportional electoral system. So 73 of those seats are elected essentially by first plus the post. But then we've got another 56 seats, which act as a kind of top-up. The function of them is to ensure that if a party wins, their kind of accurate proportional allocation of seats in the various constituencies within a region, the other parties in that region that might not get enough seats on the constituencies will be topped up to the correct level within their proportional vote on the list. So there's two votes on the ballot paper essentially. What some nationalists argue is that this means that a lot of S&P votes are wasted on the list. People are voting S&P once for their constituency, voting the S&P again for their regional list candidate. Now they argue that that second list candidate gets wasted because the S&P wins so many seats in the constituencies. Now that's kind of ridiculous because of course what's happening is a proportional top-up process that means that those voters votes are not outweighing the votes of other people who are voting for different parties. But they view this as a wasted vote so the idea is to set up a second party that will only run on the list that will turn that kind of second S&P vote into an extra pro-independence vote and thus top up the S&P's majority even further so that they can achieve a super majority. Now that's what they mean by super majority is to boost the guess vote to as much as it possibly can be and quite deliberately produce a disproportionate result that skews the amount of pro-independence representation in parliament towards the independence side. They're setting out ostensibly to destroy as much of the unionist party vote as possible by essentially turning independence voters into kind of super voters. Now that's a fairly delicate bit of electoral gaming I think for instance if the Alba party doesn't win over five to six percent of the vote in regions those votes will simply be taken from the S&P and they won't produce any more seats. If they do start winning over five to six percent of the vote they will start getting seats on the list. So the idea of a super majority is to boost the independence vote. Dree, I think for them, is to boost it to something like two-thirds of Hollywood which they can then claim as a kind of super mandate against Westminster. Now Westminster will of course look at this and go well you've just hacked the voting system this mandate is illegitimate but for some reason all of us supporters seem to think it's gives them an extra legitimacy. Yeah so I mean I suppose you've said that you're indicating that it doesn't necessarily make the most sense if what your prime motive is is to just get independence if that's you know the one thing you want to do is make sure this election gives a mandate for independence a bit messy actually which is where your argument in the new statesman comes in. I want to bring up the headline this was a really good piece very instructive I think for people who don't follow Scottish politics that closely I mean it probably is as well if you do but in it you argue that Alba is not just a vehicle for the personal beef between Sam and Sturgeon or an attempt to gain the electoral system the the flaws of which you've just described but rather it's a new front in a culture war and particularly the war on woke so the Alba party has been set up to represent people who want Scottish independence but don't like the fluffy cosmopolitanism of the SMP. Can you explain your argument? Yeah absolutely in a sense there's kind of two contradictory wings of of liberalism coming out here the SMP has for decades tried very hard to cultivate a vision and really for since its existence Scottish nationalism modern Scottish nationalism has been a liberal nationalism it has sought to ensure all sorts of equal rights from the 19th century nationalists were engaged with rights for women with social reform and and that's been updated as as time's gone on the SMP especially in the 21st century has become a fairly vocal supporter of LGBT rights and has sought to incorporate as many possible identities into the yes umbrella as possible to forge a vision of national identity that is defined by inclusiveness and not by things like ethnicity race things like this. Now what's happened in the past few years since the independence referendum is that that has collided with what we've all seen across various countries a transnational backlash against so-called woke politics which is continuous with ideas of political correctness gone mad which goes back to 80s scaremongering about the loony left all of which is targeted at identities that are finding a voice and new advocates in the public sphere that are pushing for better representation greater rights and people are you know finding their old certainties unsettled by this and lashing out against it obviously some of this is being much more consciously manipulated for people pursuing their own cynical ends and there's a mixture of those things going on here there are elements of the yes movement who feel like the movement has been distracted from the pursuit of independence by pandering to various minority interests and then there are people who really have been radicalized on the internet by kind of anti-woke alt-right propaganda and one of the flash points for this has been the Scottish government's efforts to reform the gender recognition act and to make it easier for trans people to self-identify now obviously there's been a backlash against that across the UK and the similar things have happened in the USA and elsewhere in the world in Scotland it appears to have been particularly fierce for some fairly complicated reasons and that has been a big part of all this that there's a section of the S&P membership who have really become fairly radical critics of self-identification of gender and this has spread through a pretty densely populated network of blogs and Twitter accounts and that make make up the yes movement and grew out of the original yes movement which have become really disenchanted with Sturgeon's leadership and super quickly just because we're running out of time is this speaking to a key forgotten segment of the Scottish population who both want independence and are vociferously anti-trans or is this a sort of I suppose the story of the origin of this party but it's not it's not that this party started because there was a demand for an anti-woke party it was that Salmond wanted to create a party and that the anti-woke thing was kind of an issue that brought together the activists even if it's not necessarily a vote winner. Yeah I mean one of the key things about the yes movement is that quite a lot of them have mistaken themselves for the whole public of Scotland and there's a lot of division here between the yes movement as a kind of really quite self-contained discourse community of people who don't actually have that many I don't have much time for unionists at all anymore and so they see themselves as the country and as a result this wing of the yes movement which is a minority it's a small minority of the public and see themselves as much bigger and more significant than they are and the fact that they have all these blogs and are very very vocal online they've confused with being the country as a whole so they really have some of them have convinced themselves that Salmond was going to get 30% on the first poll I mean they've got 3% on the first poll and so it's not it's not a significant chunk of the party maybe there is a kind of left behind element of Scottish society just waiting to be you know set off by this and that is a real danger with some of this maybe but I would say that they are wildly overestimating their real public reach and that the real popularity of their demands it's not like other countries where there's this giant really quite reactionary element of the public waiting to be activated Scottish nationalism has very effectively contained the kind of populist impulses that UKIP the Brexit party Trump have tapped into elsewhere and contained it within a much more liberal political and ideological framework and it's going to be hard for Alba to break them out of it I think. It's another one of those issues where it's a bit like the northern independence party they probably won't do that well but it's made the election campaign just that little bit more interesting although as you've described the politics of this party and the northern independence party very very different that should be clarified from the outset. Rory Scopor thank you so much for joining us this evening. Cheers. Now the Met Police have faced a fair bit of scrutiny over the past few weeks from the public at least now another latest shocking revelation has come to light this is that a serving officer in the force was a member of a Nazi organization now his name is Benjamin Hanam he is 22 and from north London and he was found guilty of being a member of the prescribed organization National Action. Now this makes him the first British officer to be convicted of a terrorism offence this is the BBC's home affairs correspondent Daniel Sanford confronting Hanam as he left the old Bailey. Why did you join a terrorist organization then join the police? That was a very dramatic attempt to an interview now Hanam has been released on conditional bail and is due to be sentenced on April the 23rd. Now this guy he spent two years in the force working among communities in north London and apparently even interviewing suspects on his own so it's incredibly worrying. We've also got some more details on the timeline of events which led to him managing to become an officer so he joined National Action in early 2016 while studying his A levels and remained a member after it was banned. We can see a picture here in July 2017 he was in this propaganda video spray painting the National Action logo. He apparently began his application to join the Met only days after this so there isn't a big time difference between involvement in this prescribed organization and joining the Metropolitan Police. Now one of the BBC journalists reporting on the case shared this detail from two months later in Hanam's timeline. So he says in September 2017 before he joined the Met counter-terror police seized raw footage of Hanam at group events after the ban. The footage was found during searches of the homes of NA co-founder Alex Davies and a member called Mark Jones. Hanam was not identified. Now when he applied for the role in the Met in 2017 part of the application involved being asked if he'd been a member of the BNP. So the Met do ask or any other organization which may contradict the duty to promote race equality. Clearly he shouldn't have ticked no but he did tick no and it was that easy. There were some other signs missed in the application process. So the BBC report that a teacher told the trial she had been unable to mark one essay submitted by Hanam. The first time this had happened in 20 years of teaching because of concerning content and his intolerance towards Islam. He was also spoken to after students at his diverse school reacted to anti-immigration views he espoused during a debate. The Met never took a reference from the school. That wasn't the eye leaving the BBC uncovered. They also uncovered this during his trial. Hanam told jurors there are no pictures of me doing a Nazi salute but we have identified him at a fight training event in August 2016 that was filmed for a national action propaganda video. What did the group do at the end? He circled in red doing a Nazi salute if you're listening to the podcast and can't see him doing it there. Now this is from a fight training event in the summer of 2016 which was the same summer that national action glorified the murder of Labour MP Joe Cox. Let's go to a Met comment. So the Met police say Commander Richard Smith, head of the Met's counter-terrorism command, has said he was hugely concerned that a serving officer had been a member of a band group but that he was identified at the earliest opportunity and officers then moved quickly to make an arrest. Now Aaron what do you make of this? I mean on one hand you can say this is just you know one bad egg that they've found and they've managed to take him out and they've charged him and they found him and he's being punished. On the other hand you can say how did he manage to join and be a member of the Metropolitan Police for two years without anyone sort of raising alarm bells that this guy's a raving and presumably he's a raving racist if he was a member of national action. What do you make of it? Yeah it's it's remarkable and also you know for our audience out there, national action are a serious organisation, they're a serious organisation. Jack Renshaw who was found guilty of I think conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, something to that effect, he was he had plans at hand to effectively assault and to murder Labour MP Rosie Cooper in a manner which was similar to what happened with Joe Cox, a copycat killing potentially. Obviously didn't happen, he was incarcerated for preparing to do that. So very serious organisation, you know when you're looking at the politics of extremism, somebody has been in a WhatsApp group and they've said something in inflammatory or incendial, obviously completely unacceptable, still a very nasty horrible person but national action members have been involved in deeply serious stuff and one can only surmise from that that he was in the police precisely to advance these politics because like you say there's no real time delay here and I think that does that does have to beg a broader question Michael which is to what extent are the far right trying to infiltrate the police in this country? Now there's not many people you know national action as we as we understand that has a membership of potentially 50, 100 people you know it's in the dozens but there are there's a very strong far right ecology through telegram channels now to increasingly through offline meetings and so on and so forth you know who use alt-tech whether it's GAB or whether it's a plethora of these other platforms they use bit chute. So I think that's the first question for me which has has to be asked are there others? How many of them and like you say there has to be a join to the to the question you posed me which is how did he get this far? How did it take so long? By the way he was only uncovered because there was a leak of the membership data of national action the police found managed to get older this leak and then they went one by one through the members and they realized that one was working for the Metropolitan Police Force so Metropolitan Police Service rather so it was it was actually entirely fortuitous and I suspect there are many many others and of course we know from experience elsewhere in Germany in Greece there has been a significant infiltration by the police of organized far right groups for the Golden Dawn in Greece equally in the United States obviously a long history of the clan far bigger than anything we've had over here thank goodness infiltrating the police in a states historically associated with racism, Jim Crow laws and so on. So I just want to impress that point this is really serious and it feeds into a broader international pattern and I don't know how the police can can deal with it because frankly I find it remarkable that the only reason why this guy has been caught after several years is is down to luck down to a leak you know and I think I think we have to work on the presumption there are at least several other people just like him in the police and I think clearly his entire record as a serving officer I think he was probationary officer for almost all of his time as an officer in the Met I think clearly every single case he's been involved with now has to be reviewed did none of his colleagues bring up his behavior we know for instance that a teacher and this is remarkable it wasn't caught by the mat a teacher said that he was deeply concerned by his political views this is what I think he was in sixth form he briefly goes to university after a month or two after a very short period of time he joins the police force so a teacher can ascertain he has really troubling political views but nobody in the metropolitan police service identifies that after two or three years no colleagues no line managers that speaks to a very degenerate culture inside the police when it comes to racism deeply deeply concerning I think personally we have to have at the very least a really a big public inquire around this but I think also you know politicians from all sides labor Tories and so on need to get all in here now it's not a pile on into the Met which I think they should do anyway given what's going on with Sarah Everard and a bunch of other stuff public order policing the proposed new bill that's coming through but we need to be really attentive here now to the possibility of the far right trying to enter the police force in an organized way the army as well this is what they have done in many countries over many decades can't be taken lightly super worrying and it is I mean I think the the thing that really stands out to me is they only caught this guy by accident as you say Aaron it was only because they leaked the list of members it wasn't that someone in the Met's for all this guy seems a bit off less investigate him he presumably could have gone on working in the Met for a very long time and we've got a comment Clint tweets on the hashtag tiskey sour let's hear a shout out for Fox the wizard behind the scenes love you guys love the show another entertaining and insightful evening thank you let's hear a shout out for Fox for the little Fox emoji in the chat we are going to end there Aaron Bustani it's been an absolute pleasure being joined by you this Friday it was my pleasure I think Michael kind of saying Michael to you and Fox you've got two great guests tonight I thought Rory and Jake were both excellent on their respective topics so well done and that's why people should subscribe as you're about to tell them I was I was actually going to forget you know but you should Aaron's right subscribe to the channel because we go live every Monday Wednesday and Friday at 7 p.m we put out videos every day and if you're not a supporter already please do go to the viral media.com forward slash support and the equivalent of one hour's wage a month if you are already a supporter thank you so much we'll be back on Monday at 7 p.m for now you've been watching Tiskey Sour on Navarra media good night