 Good evening and welcome to Tiskey sour we have five great stories for you tonight a preview of labor conference can a stitch up be averted. We've also got a resignation from the shadow cabinet rumors about an early election Andrew Neil getting owned on question time and report Murdoch's latest signing. To discuss all of this I'm joined by Aaron Bustani how you doing Aaron. Hello Michael I'm very well very glad to be joining you this fine evening. Always always a pleasure to have you Aaron. You know the school we want to hear your opinions and your questions as well. You can put those out on the hashtag Tiskey sour on Twitter or in the comments below this video do hit subscribe if you haven't already first story. We are just one week away from the first labor conference under the leadership of Keir Starmer and there are already debates raging about a potential incoming stitch up the two big controversies concern which rule changes the party's ruling body will recommend to conference and which policy proposals will be debated on the rule changes according to labor list that NEC will propose the following for representatives and candidates. They will propose waivers to the one year membership requirement that's going to be delegated to the NEC as it sees fit. They will also mandate compulsory training for any member standing for selection and suggest a new power for the NEC to discipline candidates or representatives for having acted in a way considered prejudicial and grossly detrimental to the party. There are also rule changes concerning members they include a probationary period of provisional membership during which time an application for members can be rejected for any reason which the general secretary sees fit. That rule is probably what's seen as most worrying many believe that means the leadership will be able to purge people automatically if they join in any or to vote in any future leadership election I should say. The second controversy relates to policy in particular many have expressed outrage that the conference arrangements committee have decided to rule out of order a motion put forward by the group labor for a green new deal. The motion was submitted by 21 local labor parties and backed by momentum it called for mass investment in green technologies the expansion and electrification of public transport including free local bus networks. Adjust climate adaptation investing in fire and rescue services flood defences and resilient infrastructure retrofitting all homes by 2030 with mandatory building standards and universal basic services including a national care service and universal free broad band. The conference arrangement committee said this had been ruled out of order because it covers more than one subject so it won't be voted on it won't be heard by conference. Aaron momentum of called the rule changes a bureaucratic stitch up and the ruling out of the green new deal motion a disgraceful rejection of our responsibility to each other and to future generations do you think they're right. Yeah there's two questions here the first is about you know the the discretionary power has been given to the NEC into to David Evans. I think in particular what's most sort of brazen in its mendacity and lying and political hypocrisy is the fact that there will be these people who can come in and I don't really see a problem with this who can come in and can become candidates without having previously been Labour Party members that's fine. These were pre it's consistent you can see why somebody would do it you could argue Corbyn should have done it. How is that consistent however with this being the same party political faction people at Luke 8 Kirsten so on who previously said was sorry in 2016 you can't vote in the leadership election because you haven't been a member for more than six months. And so clearly there is an instrumentalization here a politician going on here where when things aren't in their favor they'll do one thing the minute is in their favor to do the complete opposite. And I say that and I start with that because it then leads us on to the Green New Deal and climate change. Luke 8 Kirsten happily and people like him his fellow travellers Labour First David Evans and quite frankly Keir Starmer people on the Labour right and their support point when this is happening. I think anybody who's supporting Keir Starmer not not not saying oh he I'm not saying that anybody who doesn't think he should be gotten rid of is supporting Keir Stamper active support of Keir Stamper think he's doing a good job. I think at this point you have to say you can't be on the left you can't be if you're not going to have a meaningful policy on climate change you're not on the left. And I you know it does does encompass I think Stamper supporters in the media right people that we might think of us on the soft left. So Williams Paul Mason the people that backed him previously. I don't know if Tom Kibassio or Laura Parker still backs and I don't know I suspect not with these policies but if they do with these policies on climate change you have to really question left credentials. There's no need to get personal here I personally don't think they do I think Stamper's turning off many many people with this but that's kind of where we are right now I think we're looking at a very very surprisingly hard right. Labour Labour project I didn't expect it to be quite honest particularly on climate because that's an issue which can elide class. But what we see on climate change reflects the previous point I made around sort of this. Politicking around certain things and I think people like a curse done the Labour right will happily talk about climate change if they think it's going to help them. Frankly however they have absolutely zero real interest in doing anything about it. And some of the names are just listed previously as a sports of kids summer I think clearly do I think many people who voted for him clearly do. And so I think this is a real moment of fundamental realisation about what the Stamper project is the Stamper leadership is both in terms of how it wants to basically railroad. Things through the party centralised the party completely get rid of democratic policy making you know in 2019 and 2019 conference policy making was being driven from the bottom up whether it was the Brexit policy you can agree or disagree whether it was on the Green New Deal whether it was on primary private schools. You know it was being driven by members that's gone and then secondly on climate change you know frankly I think they're well to the right even if people like Joe Biden. And I think anybody who's a moderately progressive looks at that and thinks my god this man probably isn't who I thought he is. I mean I don't think we really disagree on the motivations of Kirsten and the people around him the argument that the conference arrangement committee have made that a group of people who decide what does get voted on at conference they've said. This motion just covered too many things it wasn't just about climate change because it also promised free broadband for everyone so they said it was it was essentially just putting lots of the 2019 manifesto into one motion about climate change do you think there's anything to that at all. Well there's a few inconsistencies here so other motions were submitted by affiliate organisations not by CLPs including trade unions which looked like this you know and they've gone through. So I don't agree with that I think you probably could take out for instance the national care service other than the national care service aspect. I don't see why this would be stopped and we're talking about climate change Michael so addressing climate change the Green New Deal it is about rewilding it is about reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere it is about you know building zero carbon infrastructure for the future it is about retrofitting the built environment to make it more energy efficient. I thought that was actually because you saw the spin coming out again from people like Luke Aitkerst and Twitter you actually read what it's saying I thought it was actually it was surprisingly pithy okay maybe you want to take out the national I think we should have a national care service but maybe take that out but other than that I thought it was entirely coherent and let's see what Labour First are putting forward with theirs and they're saying there's no targets no numbers involved you've got to have targets Christ almighty Michael look at the summer we've just had you've got to have targets in any in any policy proposal around the Green New Deal. You can't just have vague ambitions we'd like to do this we'd like to do that it's not the 1990s anymore you know we're seeing high 40s in the Arctic in Canada right we're seeing record wildfires across Siberia California Southern Europe we saw in China you know a years worth of rain I think fell in three hours in one place and these extreme weather events are becoming more frequent more intense you can't have vague aspirations be serious and there's an important there's an important line in management. You can't manage what you don't measure and you can't measure what you don't you know sort of quantify so if you've got a climate proposal like the Labour right with no numbers quite frankly it's not worth the paper it's written on. I mean I potentially say I mean you probably can have a Green New Deal without free broadband but at the same time it does it does seem pretty pretty factional to just say this is a left-wing campaign group we're going to throw it out altogether instead of you know try and change it to something the leadership find a bit more acceptable. Let's move on to the other dramatic clash which is going to happen at conference this will be on its first day that's when they'll be a vote on whether to confirm David Evans as general secretary he's controversial because of many spurious expulsions which have been handed out to left-wing party members since he took charge. Both John McDonnell and Luke Acust who is chair of the right-wing faction Labour First spoke to Radio 4 about the conflict regarding Evans. The best thing to occur and David Evans to do is get people around the table accept that there are grievances there that have to be addressed to be frank I think he does lack an element of political experience he hasn't been in politics that long so therefore I think what he needs to do is just engage more. But Luke Acust insists that Kier Starmer would have nothing to fear from engaging in a public battle. I think it's absolutely absurd the most extraordinary demonization of David Evans is going on. I am sure that they will force a vote and I welcome that because it will expose the rather low level of support that they have. So Luke Acust is very confident that if that vote does take place David Evans will win it handily. Obviously this will come down to the political persuasions of the delegates who get elected will they be on the left or the right of the party and then also how the trade unions vote for background information at Labour Party Conference votes are 50% trade unions. 50% members and in the trade unions they're weighted to the number of affiliated members they have so unions such as Unite and Unison and GMB are central. Are you as convinced as Luke Acust is that the right will easily win this one and David Evans would be confirmed. Yeah I think I think I would I don't see why he wouldn't be confirmed I mean I don't think he should be confirmed. I was having this debate with Andrew Fischer on Twitter, a former adviser John McDonnell and you know there's the argument well the left shouldn't call for him to not be confirmed if you can't win it. But that's one side if the guy is put forward to a vote do you think he should be the general secretary or not. And I think going on the evidence the last 12 years he is terrible and so no I don't think whether you're a trade unionist whether you're a CLP delegate you should be voting for somebody who's not very good at the job. I mean maybe that's a really radical idea Michael somebody who's laying off staff didn't liaise properly with trade unions the extent that they were considering strike action during conference they're losing money hand over fist they made powers that need to make. It's not an effective organization it's done very poorly in elections quite frankly and look that the organization under Jeremy Corbyn was often a mess but had lots of money growing membership. It had two good sets of local elections it was building in new competencies and it was formulating policy I don't see any of that with David Evans and what I would say is it's fantastic that there's going to be a vote on David Evans becoming the general secretary that's good and I don't think that's because the left are going to win. I think it's because it's really important that all those people say I want that guy's I think it should be elected by the way they say I want that guy's general secretary because then if he's terrible and if he continues on the same path wasting the money of the GMB. Wasting the money of unison wasting the money of other trade unions and fundamentally all members all members subs and those people are accountable for it. Great that's what you should do and to that extent I you know I'm surprised something like unison and GMB would vote in somebody who is clearly wasting their money to such an extraordinary extent. But let them do it and then that's in the record book and you say next time it goes up up you know we want a general secretary to do XYZ well last time you back this guy and he was terrible he. He didn't help with policy formulation the electoral results weren't great we lost money we lost members maybe let's not listen to the people that made that decision last time. So I think it's good to have all this stuff out in the open equally if he does well then the unions that back in the CLPs that back and say look we were right. Why not have it out in the open I don't understand this which is why I backed an elected general secretary two years ago and that drew a great deal of a program from from the left and some Corbyn supporters because they thought the left was going to control the party forever. And so they could fix things bureaucratically and it didn't really matter you don't need to democratize the party well sadly they were wrong I mean it's not something I wanted to be right about. But here we are so I think the more that's done that out in the open the more this accountable the more it's transparent the better that's good it's not just good because it's democratic at least a better outcomes the long term. And I didn't see your your conversation with Andrew Fisher on Twitter is it we should say was a Corbyn advisor more recently than it was a McDonald one sorry yes I thought that there are there are two issues on this one is should people vote against David Evans absolutely obviously terrible general secretary you're talking about you know the financial situation is left to party in more importantly I think for for most members is the amount of people he's expelled on very very spurious grounds he's obviously an incredibly factional operator with no care for. For members rights or creating an inclusive party the other issue though is how big a deal do you make about a vote which you're likely to lose and that's where I saw some sort of controversy about McDonald and what he said on radio for because as I understand it. His interventions seem to be motivated by an idea look the labor right will probably win that vote because of big unions such as unison and GMB so it would be. Unwise for the left to make a big deal out of this vote so sure vote against David Evans but don't make an all or nothing contest out of it and I suppose that's why that's why he's trying to sort of downplay the significance of it a bit and saying no let's have a meeting with his armor instead. Meeting with Kirsten Kirsten doesn't give two hoots with Donald thinks he's not going to have a summit with the left which is what so you know I think John McDonald still John McDonald still thinks it's like 2018 and he's got these you know it's a it's like you're playing a risk and he's moving his pieces. Around the board of you know the map of the world John's pieces of left Evans is expelling them right all the social power of the left lies in its membership and these people are leaving because they're not being offered any leadership. So I don't really agree with John I think this kind of attitude he's got of just constantly deferring to people and calling it strategy I think is wrong on the other hand I do agree that of course it shouldn't be made to be a big issue it's not a big issue. You do it knowing the rights going to win but I think the point is okay explicitly back this guy and say he's going to do a good job and make the case for him because right now after you have not seen it. I don't see what the harm in that is when has it been a bad thing to say well look there are questions over the sky let's have a vote. I mean it'll be it'll be interesting I should say I suppose I mean I think in defense of John McDonald I think he knows he's dealing you know. He's building strategy with a bad hand so so calling for members to rise up against David Evans calling for a meeting with Keir Starmer in a way. The left is quite weak at the moment so neither of them are going to turn out particularly well so I kind of sit on the fence as to which one to go for. We'll try not to be as depressing as this when when the conference actually starts there will of course be the very dynamic and historically wonderful. Well transform first of all Tiskey so we'll be doing two live shows from there on the Saturday and the Sunday. Let's go to a couple of comments before our next story. On the GND motion Raja D says on the YouTube super chat I would have thought climate change policies would have been very popular and why shouldn't lots of good ideas be presented at conference. That would be the reasonable argument in favor of putting lots of different policies in one particular motion. I mean one of the things that's always motivated the Green New Deal both here and in the United States as you said you know climate policy. In its own right isn't necessarily going to be popular so you have to put in some goodies to get it through this argument that you have to you have to do more than climate policy to build a bigger movement around these demands. It's a reasonable argument. Remember you can get in touch with us by tweeting on the hashtag Tiskey sour next story. Marsha Decordova has resigned as shadow Equality's secretary in the most high profile resignation yet from Starmer's top team. Decordova announced her resignation in a tweet she wrote it has been an immense privilege to serve as the shadow women and equality secretary for the past 17 months. It therefore comes with much sadness that I am resigning with immediate effect. Having only been elected in 2017 for the historically marginal constituency of Battersea I would like to focus more of my time and efforts on the people of Battersea. I will continue to support Keir Starmer from the back benches. That tweet doesn't make the resignation sound particularly contentious so a very polite resignation tweet but according to an article in The Voice there were political disagreements underlying Decordova's decision. They report. Associates of Battersea MP claim that the party failed to put her on a single media round during 17 months in the job and that she was offered just five minutes speaking time at Labour's annual conference which takes place next week. Sources said that efforts to set up a tax force of experts to design progressive race equality policy were held back over concerns this might upset red wall voters and that Starmer had resisted please to make a speech setting out his vision to black communities. They also quote a friend of Decordova who told The Voice it's been bubbling for a while she just wasn't being supported in the bottom line which you can only do so much before it becomes difficult and it did become very difficult. She always had a goal that she wanted Keir to speak authentically about race and despite her trying it just was never going to happen. Marsha wanted to develop Labour's vision for race equality but kept meeting stumbling blocks even to just put out comments on things it was watered down you know challenging the Prime Minister you're not allowed to do that. It's the people around Starmer his team they don't understand race or the importance of it. Aaron I want your thoughts on this this resignation hasn't received too much coverage in the press you might think this would create some negative coverage around Keir Starmer it hasn't really made a ripple. Do you think this is a big deal? You know it is a big deal and it's also because it's part of a broader pattern and people might not know that because it's barely being talked about. You had about a year ago now Emma Hardy pulled back from the shadow cabinet to focus on her constituency it's in hull I believe it's a lead voting constituency the reason why is because she thinks she might lose it. You're going to see that more and more than a few weeks ago you saw something similar with Luke Pollard taking a step back. You're seeing Marsha these are all for different reasons of course nacing Marsha Cordova stepping back. You're seeing moves with Charlotte Nichols I don't quite know the full story here I've not heard the full story but she's been moved effectively by mutual agreement as I understand it. And what this would suggest to you is the poor polling that the sort of enmity towards Keir Starmer from big parts of the membership not all of it from big parts of the membership. And then you've got people who should be your allies you know Marsha Cordova she nominated Keir Starmer to be Labour leader. You know she's on the left but she nominated Keir Starmer to be Labour leader. And as I understand it her major misgivings about Starmer are as identified in this voice article one he's nowhere on race absolutely nowhere on race. And then two he is kind of apparently or the people around him and you know people always say the people around them as if it's some sort of some court you know the monarchs never to blame it's always the courtiers. They want to basically just completely eviscerate the left and get them out of the party that's their number one priority and I think for anybody who looks at the climate who looks at Black Lives Matter who looks at the housing crisis who looks at COVID-19. That is insane it looks ridiculous and crazy they don't want to be a part of that. And I don't think you have to be on the left or a radical to think that and so I think I think Marsha saw that she saw the race stuff and I think she's taking a step back. And I don't think she'll lose her seat but I think that seat in Battersea wasn't Labour until 2017 so she will have to work to keep it. And you know people think oh well Starmer is going to keep all of Labour's votes from 2019 and in big cities I personally don't think he will. And I think she'll have a reduced majority and so I think there's that calculus too like with Emma Hardy. So we'll see I think it is a big story because I think if you've got people who two years out from an election that's looking at 2023 are already saying I can't serve in the Shadow Cabinet. Well you get quite a small talent pool in the end for Labour and I think that plus the race side of this big story. And again you know this stuff just isn't being covered by the Guardian, by the Liberal left press because they don't really care. They don't really care about these things just they don't really care about climate change quite frankly. So yeah but it is I think it is a big story and I think I think something's going on under the surface Michael. I think there's many, many, many people in the Parliamentary Labour Party are big misgivings about Starmer and the people around him. Particularly on policy, particularly on comms. You've had the whole team effectively swept out after battling and spend. People don't really know who these other people are and if you're in a constituency with a 1500-2000 majority you're going to be thinking oh these people might lose me my job. And I think there's a lot of MPs thinking like that right now. It's interesting to know I was thinking about this today because on the one hand I think the reason yeah the Guardian etc. making a big deal about this is because they don't enjoy criticising Keir Starmer in the same way they enjoy criticising Jeremy Corbyn. At the same time you might ask if Marsha Cordova has these critiques why not include that in the tweet? Because it would have been harder to ignore then wouldn't it? So I don't know what do you think about that? Why do you think we've got this situation where the voice has been briefed that this was about political disagreements? And then the MP has officially said oh actually this is because I want to spend more time in my constituency. How would someone make sense of that? Well the way I read it is that this could be wrong. You know she's only been an MP for four years. People say Starmer's an experience. She's only been an MP for four years. And I think she resigned. She didn't want it to be messy. I think it's easy if you're just basically seeking re-election, go to the back benches. You don't want to cause a drama. But the reality is if you resign people, if you don't say why you've resigned people will create reasons as to why you've resigned. And you have to say why you've resigned. So you get claims about all it was racism. It's because she's on the left. It's because of LGBT stuff as I understand it's got nothing to do with LGBT stuff. I mean that could, I might be wrong. But like let you say she's not directly stated why she's leaving. My understanding it's about Starmer's position on race and the fact that basically the people around him aren't serious about power. They're serious about eviscerating the left. But like you say I think she should state it quite clearly. You don't need to be mean and aggressive and belligerent. But like I say if you don't give your reasons somebody else will and they may not be true. So you need to tell your own side of the story. It'd be interesting to know Marsh's side of the story. But yeah I mean there are obviously a number of reasons why as a newish MP you wouldn't just want to come out and say I'm resigning. I'm now declaring war on Keir Starmer so I can also see the other side of the argument which is to sort of step down quietly and bide your time. If you're enjoying tonight's show let us know by hitting the like button. We currently have 1500 people watching but only 250 likes. The Daily Telegraph the Tories newspaper of choice is reporting that we could be in line for an early general election. They quote Oliver Dowden who has just been made co-chair of the Conservatives as telling staff it's time to go to our offices and prepare for the next election. They report that while the working assumption inside number 10 is that Boris Johnson will go to the country in May or June 2024. The Telegraph understands he is also eyeing up a year earlier so that would be May or June 2023. The rumours about an early election come as the Tories retake the lead in opinion polls. In a survey released today by YouGov the Tories are up six points on last week to 39% while Labour have stood still on 35%. I fought Karl Schoeman today who used to work for Corbyn. Now Works for Surveysion had a very interesting take on this. He said of this tweet this is now becoming fixed into the political weather unless Labour does something fundamental to change the cycle. When the Conservatives do something bad Labour catches up for a few days, sits back and within days it's back to normal, normal being the Conservatives in the lead. Aaron do you reckon we'll have an election earlier than it otherwise would have been? So we're definitely going to have one by 2024 rumours now that it will be in 2023 and will it matter when it is in terms of who's going to be in a stronger position to win it? Such a hard question Michael. Some of it is based on contingency. Gordon Brown looked at an early general election and then decided against it. Ultimately that probably cost him winning the election. If you look at the economics right now, I think 2023 makes more sense. We're going to go basically now into a mini boom because obviously there's loads of pent up demand in the global economy. You're seeing with supply chain issues, demand is outstripping supply. We can't find enough workers to do certain jobs so wages are going up. Of course that's going to lead to some price rises too. We're seeing inflation for basic commodities but what you're going to see is quite a rare thing in the next 12 months which is lots of new jobs, wage increases, lots of final demand for the consumer. That's kind of rare that all coming together. So I think it would make sense to call an election sooner rather than later. Of course you want to have Covid well and truly behind you. I personally don't think Covid is going to be well and truly behind us by say next spring. I think it's very possible this winter goes very, very badly wrong. It might not. We were saying by now we might have 100,000 new cases a day. Turns out it's about 35,000. I want to be wrong but I think there's a major possibility that the government have got this very, very, very badly wrong again this winter just like last year. Not as bad but bad, pretty bad. The ceiling is much lower because of course the majority of the adult population has been vaccinated but it still could be very, very bad. So I think 2023 sounds reasonable and you're looking at Starmer. Maybe you wanted to carry on as long as possible because you just want the labour party to tear itself apart. But then you've also got the issues of Scotland of Wales, hard one. I think 2023 is the most reasonable one however. I think that's the most sensible. Have let's say 18 months of normality post COVID and this little mini economic boom. That would work. The other thing this will affect because it's very difficult to guess isn't it? The reason Gordon Brown postponed an election in 2007 I think it was because he got cold feet about different taxes which are being proposed. Then obviously the financial crisis happened and labour were screwed after that. So it could be that Boris Johnson says oh I'll hold off till 2024 and then we get another massive economic crisis which he wasn't foreseeing. Something which is potentially more guessable I suppose in terms of what it will have impact on is the internal politics of the labour party. Because if we think at this point you know odds are the Conservatives are going to win the next general election. It could be quite significant whether or not Keir Starmer and David Evans have 18 months to reshape the labour party in their image or whether they have two and a half years. So there might be people in Labour HQ who are really interested in what timetable they are being given to transform the labour party. I think you know potentially if there hadn't been a snap election in 2019 Corbyn and Jenny Formby would have been able to transform the labour party to a great extent. They could have made a degree so that it couldn't just get retaken by the right and then stitch it up to basically expel anyone they didn't like. So it could be that this snap election if it does happen undermines Keir Starmer's attempt to lock out the left forever. Yeah there's a nice symmetry there but I don't think Keir Starmer is going anywhere. I think Keir Starmer could be absolutely decimated and I think he could do far worse than 2019 and he'd still stay in place. What's going to change? What would matter is decisively Unison GMB, the trade unions, the media will, the media will cover us. Of course you know that it could be that the defeat is so big and I don't think it would be. I think Labour would generally speaking keep the same as what they got, 32% probably more. Of course the problem is where is that going to come from and you could see them losing a few seats in the Northeast. You could see them losing a few more seats in the West Midlands. Overnight for instance look it's just one council by election but the Labour candidate got walloped. A good candidate I'm told in Middlesbrough and the Labour vote went down something like 38%. Okay it's just one council by election but clearly something important is happening in the Northeast. We saw it with Hartlepool too and so I think Labour could get 32-33%. Same as last time maybe even a bit better but you know actually they don't pick any seats up in Scotland. They don't pick any seats up in Wales particularly with boundary changes. They'll actually lose seats regardless of performance really. And they'll lose seats in the West Midlands and in the Northeast. And the real net beneficiaries in terms of vote share, not necessarily seats but vote share would be the Lib Dems in the south of England. Under those conditions I kind of struggled to see how he would stay on but I think his ambition would be to stay on. And I think the people around him would very predictably say well Neil Kinnock had two bites of the cherry. Jeremy Corbyn had two bites of the cherry. Well he had a second go because 2017 was a success. So I suppose for Stammer if he gets anything above 32% he can say well I've earned my opportunities to stay on. I think that's a fair thing to say. I wouldn't agree with it. I think ultimately it comes down to seats. If he loses seats and the vote share stays the same I think he has to go. But who's going to push him Michael? Who's going to push him? John McDonnell? The Guardian newspaper? No. So I don't really know. I don't know what's going to happen. Members are going to leave? He wants members to leave. So it's a really tough one to predict. I think ultimately it's going to come down to if he's embarrassed yes you will need to go. And also fundamentally the party runs out of money. If the big donors don't come back and the big donors aren't going to come back if the party is clearly in a downward spin even after 2019. And you don't have the members and trade unions kind of recognize that this isn't really where they are maximizing resources. Then I think he probably would be pushed out. And also ultimately MPs are not going to back a guy who they think are making them particularly vulnerable. And so if more and more MPs think he's going to lose their seats at the next time of asking, yeah he'll go. But I think they're probably planning to lose the next election. I think that is the plan. And he'll be staying in place. I mean the issue is who's going to push? I mean I do think that probably if he did lose a general election I think John McDonnell and the socialist campaign group would mount a challenge. Potentially if he'd just lost an election as well you would be able to get some of the soft left MPs in and trigger a leadership election. So it's not impossible that he would be toppled. I don't think he would resign of his own accord but you could imagine the situations where a leadership challenge happens and it will depend to what degree Evans and Stammer have by that point in time managed to stitch up the internal politics of the Labour Party so that a left winger can't possibly win again. I imagine that's going to be the real story about this conference, our next year's conference, is them making sure that if and when Keir Starmer loses a leadership election if there is to be a challenge he will either win or be replaced by someone from the same wing of the party. Interesting. I mean the next general election is obviously going to be an ongoing story on this show so we'll come back to that another time. Let's go on to our next story. After months of speculation this week Andrew Neil quit as lead presenter and chairman of GB News. His first media appearance after making the announcement was on BBC's Question Time. This is how he explained his decision. In the run up to the launch through the launch and in the aftermath of the launch and I think most of you have anything about it we'll know that you couldn't file the launch under startling success. More and more differences emerge between myself and the other senior managers and the board of GB News and rather than these differences narrowing they got wider and wider and I felt it was best that if that's the route they wanted to take then that's up to them. And what was that? Well the route is what I think is what you can see on GB News at the moment people should make up their own minds. That's what they want to watch. I thought it wasn't for me and I had wanted a different route. It doesn't mean I'm right or they're wrong but it certainly was a difference. And is it because you felt they were going too far to the right? I also spent the summer looking at all the work. People should make up their own minds on that. What I've told you is that the differences were such that the direction they were going in was not the direction that I had outlined. It was not the direction that I had in Visage for the channel. But I was a minority of one. So it's doing what it's doing and it's up to them. Good luck to them if that's what they want to do but it wasn't going to be with me. You know lockdown and the summer and all the rest of it made us rethink our priorities as well. And I decided too it was time I had to cut down on some of my commitments. And perhaps maybe enjoy myself a little bit more. Now you can get to compare and question time every now and then which I haven't done for two decades. And that given that these differences are the disagreements of the direction of the channel and the way it was going. And not many other things too I don't want to bore you with. It seemed to me that one of the commitments I should give up is GB News. And that's what I've done. I'm very comfortable with it. Indeed I feel at peace with myself as a result. People know my kind of journalism and that's where I'm going to stick to. People know my kind of journalism and that's what I'm going to stick to. The implication is clear. Andrew Neil wanted to launch a channel that was independent minded and freed from the stifling culture of the BBC. But he had no intention of creating a forage fronted far right outlook spreading misinformation about COVID and inciting hatred against asylum seekers by leaving his now at peace with himself. How noble of Andrew Neil. Thankfully that self-serving account given by Neil did not go unchallenged on question time. This was the response of author Nels Abbey. So I know there's a cabinet reshuffle going on and I've had to do my own too. So I came with something from my own cabinet or so. And it's just... What does that say? We can't see it here on the panel. As you might remember these days or so. So it says why Britain's TV News Channel won't be woke. And I thought to myself I'd just bring that along. And for the benefit of those at home or so I bought a bigger copy too. So there we go. Everyone is familiar with GB News so you might have to explain why you brought that. So GB News... Sorry, everybody's not familiar with GB News. The viewing figures would suggest that not everyone is familiar. You're right, absolutely. They're kind of close to zero viewers on a long-going basis for a long time now. GB News was set up as it says over here in black and white and a channel that was intended to not be quote-unquote woke. That it was going to be a channel that was going to fight the quote-unquote culture wars. I posited to you, Andrew, that you actually knew exactly what you guys were setting up. That you were setting up... When you used the term woke as a pejorative I put it to you that you knew exactly who that dog was. You knew exactly who the dog you were blowing that whistle at. So why am I not still there? Well, why were you there to begin with when you were doing that? If you're saying that what's happened is what I wanted, why would I be here tonight and not still sound? Because I think... I'll give you my reason. You're assuming things of which you have no knowledge whatsoever. Well, I'll give you my perception of how I view things or so. I think GB News when it launched up was actually a very, very shoddy platform or so. It came out, it was embarrassing to watch. To Beatrice, it's not going to be Fox News. It's not Fox News in it by any means. Fox News actually has very, very decent production values or so and very well fought through programming. GB News is by no means whatsoever Fox News is actually a very inferior product to almost anything on the market. But what we actually had, what GB News did represent is the exact same thing that Fox News represented, which was for the purpose of remain streaming and maintaining almost a cocktail of bigotries within our nation. You can see how effective that attack line was because Andrew Neil resulted to accusing the speaker of prejudices. I don't want to break it to Andrew Neil but being a white man journalist who joins a right wing outlet, that's not a protected characteristic. It's not prejudicial to make judgments about someone based on what that individual has said and done in the past. Aaron, did Nels Abbey hit the target there? Yeah, I did, Michael. I think just following up from what you just said, it's not prejudiced. He's not prejudging anything. He's observing what you're doing and he's making conclusions from his own observations. I mean, that's just judiced. It's just the judging bit. There's no pre-involved. So I thought when he said, oh, it's got even lower production values than Fox, and it cuts to Andrew Neil's face. I thought that's one of the best moments of television. I've seen him in question time in a really, really long while. He was seizing. And I think the way that Neil started at the start of that clip, when he starts talking about how we should take it in different directions, good luck to them, etc. When there's somebody like Andrew Neil from that generation with his politics, when they say good luck to them, it means for any of our audience out there, listeners or viewers who aren't British, it means I really hope you fucking fail. That's what it means, good luck to them. So that's where we are, I think. It's a really strange, strange sort of way things are played out. I remember speaking to Andrew Neil a couple of years ago. You were there actually, Michael, and I did BBC this week. And you could see he wanted out of the BBC and he wanted to try something new. He's really fascinated by media as a world. He was previously involved in The Sunday Times, The Economist. And he wanted to do something over here, which was like Fox, which he did. The former anyway, if not the politics. And it's just been so catastrophically pulled off. I kind of wonder, did he think it was ever going to be any different? And that would be a really interesting interview. I don't think it's about the politics. I agree with that conclusion. It's actually about just how shoddy and ramshackle it is. It's a real affront to a man of Andrew Neil's sense of self. He's worked for some of the most important media outlets in the world. He helped start up Sky News. By the way, he helped go and start up Fox News in the early days. Like I say, it was The Sunday Times. He was previously at The Economist. He was, of course, working for the BBC, who I expect to take him back, by the way, with open arms. Expect Andrew Neil to be hosting the BBC's election coverage in 2023. And I think that's what hurt him most. Somebody who likes to be associated with top production values that wasn't happening at GB News. I didn't know that. So Andrew Neil was involved in the creation of Fox News as well, was he? Yeah. So he was at The Sunday Times from 83 to 92, something like that. He was at The Sunday Times the best part of 10 years. He doesn't replace Larry Evans, but he replaces the one after Larry Evans. You go from actually quite a progressive, interesting journalist to somebody else. And then I think it's Andrew Neil. Or maybe he directly replaces Larry Evans. I think it's Larry Evans. David Evans in my head. It's not David Evans. It's Larry Evans, I think. And then towards the end of that, Murdoch kind of, for some reason, just doesn't like him anymore, wants him out. And of course Murdoch is starting at this point Sky News. So he says to Andrew Neil, like, why don't you go and help start this project up? Andrew Neil starts it up. He's not in front of camera, like Adam Bolton, but he's, by the way, was there at the beginning. But he was sort of helping the whole project get going. And then after that, he says, I want to send you to America to work on Fox News. So he goes to work in New York, not for very long. I think six months a year, something like that. So he was there right at the beginning of Fox News before it's this massive channel. And he had a role in its initial growth, for sure. They piloted a few shows where he would be the anchor and so on, didn't work out. But he was the guy who'd basically executed Sky News for Murdoch, who then went to the U.S. and worked on Fox News. Of course Murdoch owns the Sunday Times at that time, owned Sky News, and of course, Fox News as well. And Andrew Neil in the 1980s and early 1990s was known as Rupert Murdoch's Rottweiler. Very strange that he then worked for the BBC and everybody says the BBC's left wing, but there we are. That's really interesting because even if you take him at his word, that he does think the politics of GB News is now repulsive and he does think the politics of Fox News is now repulsive. You might then ask, this is the second time this has happened, Andrew Neil. This is the second time you've been used for your status and your stature to get going, a media operation which ends up being an absolutely malicious force in society. How many more times are you going to be used to such a malignant end? You've got to ask, what are you doing with yourself? Could you not see this coming? That he had this Fox News background as well. He just keeps helping birth cancers into our media ecology. What a legacy to have. We're going to go on to our next story after I make a shout out for financial support from our media. We don't have the £60 million to play with that GB News had, but I think we are a more sustainable organisation. And that is thanks to our very generous supporters. If you are already donating the equivalent of one hour's wage a month, we thank you so much. You are what makes this possible. If not, please do go to thevaramediet.com. Rupert Murdoch has announced plans to launch a new TV station in the UK. It will be called Talk TV and it will be fronted by Piers Morgan. Earlier in the year, News UK had scrapped plans for a TV station, but sources suggest Murdoch's mind was changed by the rise and fall of GB News. Apparently the launch of GB News showed there was a market for right-wing television, if only it were done professionally. The fees involved in the tie-up with Piers Morgan remain unknown, but it's understood the cost is being shared across multiple Murdoch-owned platforms. Murdoch will host a primetime weeknight show on Talk TV, which will also be broadcast on US streaming service Fox Nation and Sky News. Australia. He will also have a column in The Sun, which will be reprinted in the New York Post and has signed a book deal with the Murdoch-owned Harper Collins. Morgan will also be hosting a series of true crime documentaries to be shown on Murdoch-owned channels across the globe. This is how Piers Morgan announced the news. Breaking. I've gone home great to be rejoining Rupert Murdoch's news corporation after 28 years, the place I started my media career with the boss who gave me my big first break. We're going to have a lot of fun. Aaron, do you think this signing of Piers Morgan by Rupert Murdoch is going to make Talk TV a success where GB News failed? Great question. You have to be fair with Piers Morgan. I mean, he's a terrible human being. But, you know, it wasn't that long ago that he was by a very long stretch the most effective journalist in the country when it came to covering COVID-19. He was really good. He was really forensic. He was very entertaining. And so on stuff like, you know, social liberties, trans rights, LGBT rights, anti-left stuff, the Meghan Markle stuff. Clearly, he's just an idiot. And I'm sure Murdoch wants that too. The kind of bigoted right wing stuff. But he also is. He's also a very good entertaining journalist on popular issues. I mean, it's a very similar thing when he was at the Daily Mirror, he was the editor. He captured a big part of the zeitgeist in terms of opposition to the war, which is ultimately why he was sacked because he published on the front page the newspaper images that were ultimately proven to be false. They weren't real images, but of course there were things going on like we saw in those images, but they just didn't happen to be accurate. So interesting guy. He's been the best journalist when it comes to COVID-19 by a long way. At the same time, as he sort of insinuates there, his career started at News International. He was the bizarre columnist at The Sun, Michael. He was a gossip columnist, a showbiz gossip columnist. I think he still is in many ways. Not much more than that. But I think he is clearly a big get. He is a big name. He's big in the U.S. He's big here. He's got a big social media footprint. He's going to launch a TV channel around somebody and it was to appeal to a right-wing audience. I think he's a good bet. I think Andrew Neil is a bit older. I think he's a bit more sort of, you know, wonky, inside politics Westminster-y. And I think, you know, Piers Morgan likes the more culture wars stuff. Yeah, I think Piers Morgan could have a YouTube channel where he does interviews and videos and so on. It could do super well. It could be super big. I think he's a big personality. So I can see why Murdoch's done it. But for me, Michael, what's really strange is you look at talk radio, you look at times radio, you look at this kind of space where it's clearly going to be a very low-budget TV station, Michael, this kind of hybrid podcast video aesthetic, I suspect. And when I say low-budget, I mean low-budget for mainstream media. And I wonder, you know, why would you have talk radio if you've also got this? Why would you have times radio? Times radio. So it feels like there's a bit too much going on. Is that because there's just no strategy and he's throwing as much stuff as he possibly can and hopes something sticks? I mean, I feel personally that talk radio is a bit of a failure. When you talked about the introduction for Piers Morgan then, I mean, it really just shows Rupert Murdoch was just a machine for lies and hate and misinformation. Radio stations, newspapers, TV channels and even a book publisher. So you'll have your book published with Harper Collins. It'll be reviewed in the Sunday Times and you'll be interviewed on talk radio and times radio. It's a whole media ecology, which is basically the Murdoch sphere. Very, very concerning. Clearly in a democracy, you shouldn't have somebody with that much media power and political influence. But I don't think it's necessarily going to be a success by any measure because I think trying to make money out of news media in this country has always been very difficult, particularly in television. Sky has lost millions every year for decades. So I don't think this is about making money. I think this is about trying to exert political influence in a world where the sun is less influential, in a world where the times is less influential, and in a world where quite frankly times radio talk radio have kind of failed. No, I think the important thing there is that this probably isn't about money. So I mean, it's probably the case that Rupert Murdoch has deeper pockets than whoever funded GB News. And although actually they had some big deep pockets as well. But Rupert Murdoch, I mean, I think this will be more likely to be successful because Piers Morgan is a bigger draw than Andrew Neil. And also because even though talk radio is pretty shoddy, it's just sort of like the, you know, the ugly sibling of LBC. They at least have some experience, you know, they're kind of working their way up towards a TV channel in a way, aren't they? Whereas GB News really tried to create it out of nothing. So you would have had a lot of producers and journalists and people in front of the camera who just really weren't on the same page, which is why the whole thing's been a catastrophic mess. Whereas with this talk TV thing, it will have grown out of an organization where you do have people on the same malicious page. You know, it's a really malicious page all in the same building. You've got talk radio, which is Julia Hartley Brewer trying to, you know, so doubt about COVID-19 lockdowns don't work. I'm going to break all of the rules saying some really nasty thing about nasty things about trans people. Then in the same building, you've got the Times Radio people who are trans. Oh, we're proper journalists and we're really cultured and we're the respectable people who you can get on, you know, on your TV channels or whatever. The whole thing, I find it very, very unpleasant. This is going to be one more, you know, element of that Murdoch Empire, which has been so pernicious for so long. And I think, you know, I worry it is going to continue to be because he keeps shape shifting as the tabloid industry goes down the drain. He's trying to reinvent the organization as a TV channel grown out of these. Yes, not incredibly successful, but somewhat influential radio shows. Do you think, am I being overly worried? Oh, I think, look, I think you're right, Michael. I think here's some good news, and that is that Rupert Murdoch is going to die. He's an old man. He's not going to be around forever. I think he's in his early nineties now, mid eighties. I don't wish anybody death. I don't. But the brutal reality is he's an older man and he's not going to be around for very long. He's 90 and even his own son, James Murdoch has distanced himself from his father when it comes to climate change. No, even his own family don't really like the guy when it comes to quite key political dividing lines. So that's the good news. You know, he will die quite soon. Of course, he has some of the best healthcare in the world to probably live into his early hundreds. Fine. I hope you enjoy his, you know, what he has left of his life with Jerry Hall, even though he is. Arguably, the most toxic person in the English speaking world in terms of making our politics and public life worse and rotten over the last couple of decades. I think he is number one. He's numero uno. No, no doubt about it. But often you hear the retort. Well, you know, it's not the person. It's their ideas. And when they pass away, somebody else will take their place. I don't really buy that with Rupert Murdoch. He's a very singular figure when you're talking about the rise and mass appeal of these ideas, these bigotries. Since he first entered the UK news market in the late 1960s when he bought the news of the world. And of course, that shut down for very disgusting reasons. That should have been the end of him really. But it wasn't 10 years ago. So I see what you're coming from, Michael, but he's made a lot of bad calls commercially and politically in the last 20 years. My space is obviously the most memorable one. It feels like the last big hit, if here's what's really Fox News Sunday Times has undergone a bit of a reinvention. They've kind of gone back to what they were. Well, they're trying to go back to what they were pre Andrew Neil quality paper, you know, good reporting, long form investigations. Andrew Neil will say, well, we always had that when I was there. The point was you were getting rid of it constantly. It was you were filing it down with a bit of sandpaper. So I'm optimistic when it comes to this stuff, Michael. I think I think we have major problems in the UK media landscape because of billionaires. That's not going away. But this particular billionaire, you know, I don't think he exists anything like the political influence. He did say 10, 15 years ago, but I think the mid 1990s fundamentally, both major political parties felt they had to listen to him on every single issue. I think that's just gone. You look at what the Torah Torah is just a national insurance, you know, and, you know, Rupert Murdoch would not have supported that. You look at what Labour is talking about with regards to increasing minimum wage. Rupert Murdoch wouldn't support that. And I think as that sort of neoliberal consensus collapses and both parties address it in different ways, sadly, the Tories are doing that better, more quickly, more effectively than Labour. Ultimately, if Labour want to ever win election ever again, they're going to have to do the same thing. I think that's the problem for Rupert Murdoch. He's he's fixed to that thing. He's fixed the economic model with a kind of big right wing turn on immigration and social issues. You can't really have that. The economic model is the thing that ultimately people want change for. You can talk about immigration and refugees and get them angry about it. But if you're at the same time saying we're not going to do anything about wages or pensions or stagnating living standards, they aren't going to like you. So I'm not optimistic generally, but I think with Rupert Murdoch, look, he's going to probably be dead in the next 10 years. We should celebrate when that happens, Michael. Again, I don't say that very often. I hope this is being recorded and somebody puts it on social media. Rupert Murdoch is uniquely toxic in creating a depraved media environment in our country. He's responsible for horrendous, horrendous things. I've got a comment. All that comments disappeared. I'll go on to a story which was breaking as we were live. We've talked on tonight's show about David Evans' habit of spuriously launching disciplinary investigations against members last week. We talked about how the chair of Young Labour got caught in that net. And now apparently a left wing MP has also been subject to these spurious investigations which fall apart under the smallest bit of scrutiny. It's Kate Osbourne. She is the MP for South Tyneside. She was one of the 2019 intake, as I say, on the left of the party. And she has tweeted the following statement. Without warning this morning, the Labour Party served me with a notice of investigation making serious allegations of breach of the party rules. I was shocked and unnerved by getting such a letter and was puzzled at what the party was saying about me. I thought my job as an MP was on the line and that I faced public shaming in front of my constituents as some will always say there's no smoke without fire. Well, there is. The charges were completely baseless. The evidence relied on made no sense. There never was anything that was a breach of the rules. I was told I could not discuss the matter with anyone except Samaritans. Luckily, I had access to immediate legal advice and my solicitor wrote a very strongly worded letter utterly rejecting the allegations. Shortly after the legal letter, the party withdrew the investigation claiming it was an administrative error and apologised for the mistake and the distress it had caused. I had been put through a very worrying ordeal for no valid reason whatsoever. She goes on. What does this say about an apparent mission to threaten members with expulsion from their own party? There is little if any consideration being given to the impact on members of receiving such threatening letters. An apology after the event is one thing, but the effect is awful. How many members have had similar letters but do not have access to specialist legal advice? I am one of the fortunate ones, but how many others are left stewing? Whilst ill-considered baseless allegations are rained down upon them, it is time for a serious rethink by those running the governance and legal unit about what they are doing to members. I have decided to speak out because if they come after elected MPs with baseless claims, they will come after others. We need a serious look at ourselves and what is happening to our party. I would like to thank everyone who has supported me throughout this very difficult day, particularly my union Unite. Wow, Aaron. This is exactly the same as that investigation they launched into the chair of young Labour, it seems. Now, the same thing has been done to Kate Osborne MP where they send a spurious letter saying we are starting an investigation. The Labour Party is challenged on it and the Labour Party said it is an administrative error. As if disciplinary investigations are someone hitting the wrong button. It just seems like the party machine is completely out of control. Well, Michael, I am very sad that you haven't mentioned I broke this story actually, shortly before Kate Osborne tweeted that. You should have told me. You should be bigging up the organisation. We were going live shortly before, so shortly after. I think I tweeted about half an hour earlier. I knew a bit early on, but I hadn't seen any documentary evidence. I can tell our audience tonight the reason she was being investigated is because she said to Rebecca Long-Bailey when she was suspended, solidarity. That was her offence. That was it. Wow. Well, Rebecca Long-Bailey was never suspended, right? So that was when Rebecca Long-Bailey had to resign from the front bench. So that wasn't a suspension. I don't believe she was investigated. Maybe she was, but which is an important point, Michael, because a lot of people said that. Is every single person who said solidarity to Rebecca Long-Bailey when she lost her position in the shadow front bench, is every single person now under investigation? And you said it's an organisation out of control. I think it's actually worse than that. It's not the organisation here. I think this is rogue elements within the organisation are out of control. This is the very same day where the Labour's NEC implemented rule changes, which basically are EHRC recommendations about what the disciplinary process should look like. They've changed the rules to basically integrate those into the party. The very same day where they sort of talk about, oh, we're creating an independent disciplinary structure and analyses, Dodds is saying that, you know, we're going to deal with this terrible issue. The very same day, her own colleague is contacted and told that she's going to be investigated. She doesn't know by who. I don't think it's by the by glue, the governance and legal unit. Presumably, like with Jess Barnard, it's just rogue elements close to Lotto, close to the leader's office and David Evans and Keir Starmer. And she kicks back and then they disappear. Is this another error? This is the complete opposite of an independent complaints process, clearly. And I think it is really important Michael. Obviously, the EHRC don't care. Obviously, they don't care. But I think somebody needs to say, look, this is clearly not compliant with the recommendations you laid out in the report. Clearly, you know, we're not just talking about, you know, Bill and Ben, two local members up the road who sit over, you know, a pint in the dog and duck and have a couple of lagers. This is the head of young labor and labor party MP. And I think there are many, many more. It's just that it's not public knowledge yet. Is this about intimidating the left? Absolutely. Does it show that there's effectively no discipline in the party's disciplinary process? Absolutely. Is Keir Starmer or David Evans going to do anything about it? No, nothing at all. I don't think it's going to stop. This is just about quotidian wearing people down to get them out. That's the whole point of this, Michael. And I think the thing that really disgusts me the most is saying you can't tell anybody, but you can talk to Samaritans about it if you're feeling suicidal. I mean, this is abusive behavior, Michael. This is abusive behavior. If an employer said this to a member of staff, people on the left, socialists, even center-left melts who think Keir Starmer is the best thing since sliced bread, would say, what an appalling employer. People like Ian Dunn or James O'Brien would say, what a terrible employer. Are they going to do the same thing now? Because it's become the default in Keir Starmer's labor party. Presumably they're not because they happen to agree politically with the guy. So we have a double standing going on. I think it's just remarkable. I mean, Christ, do you think these people are going to change the labor market in the interest of working people when they treat their own people like this, when they lay off workers and impose redundancies and don't consult, and when they have MPs, their colleagues in parliament treated like trash? No. Judge people what they do, not by what they say. We've got some comments on this, all with a five, a solidarity Kate Osborne MP, coincidence that the labor investigation into her was withdrawn straight after her, solicitor wrote the party a letter, obviously not a coincidence. And this is really important to mention because this is the same as what happened with Jess Barnard, which is that they only withdrew the investigation after, in her case, she tweeted about it and it got a lot of traction from people with lots of followers. In this case, it only got withdrawn after a solicitor's letter was sent. And I think what this tells us is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. These spurious investigations, these spurious suspensions, are happening everywhere to hundreds and hundreds of labor members, and many of them won't have the clout on Twitter as a chair of young labor or won't have a solicitor as good as an elected MP. These are the most significant important roles you can really have in the labor party, an MP or a chair of one of its constituent organizations, and these people are getting these letters. There will be loads, loads, loads more people getting these letters who are not in such a strong position to resist them. And I think this does just show us what a disastrous state the labor party is currently in. Also, thanks to Mary Dwyer for a £10 Super Chat and everyone else for your donations this evening. Aaron Bustani, any final comments before we go? Yeah, I had one more thing I wanted to mention, Michael, which is I have been told about somebody who's being investigated for tweeting anti-Semitic material. Would you like to know what the anti-Semitic material is? Yeah, go on. It is me, when I tweeted about Ed Balls, he was questioning whether or not Jeremy Corbyn was anti-Semitic, and I tweeted basically something like, This You, with him wearing a Nazi uniform while he was at university. Somebody retweeted that, and apparently they've now been investigated for anti-Semitism because they have a problem about Ed Balls wearing a Nazi uniform and they think that's probably a bad thing. We should probably talk about that, right? But if you even tweet the image, apparently that's now tantamount to racism. Everybody's been investigated for it. Hundreds of people like this. And like you say, if you've not got recourse to good legal advice, you're gonna get stitched up. It's just disgusting, Michael. And I think fundamentally, do you want people who behave like that run in the country? I don't. When it comes to civil liberties, the rule of law, they'll be worse than the Tories, of course they will be. Labour in the mid-2000s were. These exact same people. Peter Mandelson, David Evans, and so on. So deeply concerning. We don't want these people running the criminal justice system. Are you kidding me? If you have a vote at Labour Party conference, do vote no. For David Evans being confirmed as General Secretary. Aaron Bustani, it's been a pleasure speaking to you as always on a Friday evening. My pleasure, Michael. Thank you so much. And thank you to everyone for your super chats and for watching tonight. We'll be back on Monday at 7 p.m. So make sure to hit subscribe. Have a great weekend. You've been watching Tiskey Sour on Navarra Media. Good night.