 So, Rachel Cunliffe and Aaron Bustani here with me to go through some of those front pages. And Rachel, the vast majority of them going with the big day for the Labour Party today, a highly critical report, first of all, into Labour's handling of anti-Semitism complaints and then the Labour leader suspending his predecessor over his reaction to that report. You picked out the day to telegraph, first of all, their headline, and shaming of Corbyn Sparks' Labour civil war. Yes, while I'd much rather talk about Basil Brush, most of the headlines are leading on Corbyn and the report into anti-Semitism in Labour by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that was published today. And some pretty damning findings from them, they actually found that the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn broke the law, acted unlawfully in its harassment and allegation in its complaints process. And that should have been the main story today. But instead, the main story is actually the response of the former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who was given the chance to comment on this report that he knew was coming. And instead of apologising, instead of saying that he regretted what he had found and that he hoped Labour could accept the recommendations and move on, he said that he didn't accept all the findings and in fact they had been dramatically overstated basically by his political opponents. So refusing there to take responsibility, he left Sikir Starmer pretty much no choice in suspending him, given that Starmer was saying pretty much at the exact same time that anyone who claimed that the problem of anti-Semitism within Labour was exaggerated was themselves part of the problem. So this report, which I guess we would have hoped to drawn the line under anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, seems to have just sparked the next chapter of it. Well, yes, and it is an extraordinary moment, isn't it, Aaron, for a Labour leader to sack his predecessor from the party. But do you think he had a choice? Well, it's certainly unprecedented. I mean, this has not happened before as far as I'm aware. I just want to correct you on something very quickly. Jeremy Corbyn in his Facebook status very, very clearly said he welcomed all of the recommendations in the report. He said that in black and white. So that's not entirely accurate what Rachel just said. And also the report furthermore said the significant findings. He said he didn't accept the findings. No, no, Rachel, Rachel, please, no, I didn't interrupt you. I didn't interrupt you. You said he didn't accept the recommendations going forward. I'm telling you, if you go on to his Facebook page, if the people watching this go there, that's not true. In terms of Rachel, what you said in terms of the biggest story, I agree with that entirely. I think it's been an overshadowed. It shouldn't have been. I think the EHRC documents are brilliant document. I'm very grateful to live in a country where there's an official, you know, national organisation that can come up with these reports. I think it was very positive. But rather than opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people to learn and as you've said, Rachel, for the Labour Party to move forward, the story instead is Jeremy Corbyn being suspended by his successor. But just to pick up on what he said in reaction to the report that Rachel mentioned, he said that the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons. I mean, the EHRC explicitly in the report talks about people's freedom of speech to defend their own actions. And he's not denying they exist. He said anti-Semitism exists in the Labour Party. He said it shouldn't be welcome in the Labour Party. And he said, I accept all the recommendations going forward. I can only repeat, people should go to his Facebook page to see for themselves. Now, I don't think what he said was particularly strategic, or I wouldn't have said it. But is that sufficient grounds to suspend somebody from the Labour Party? Well, we'll have to find out. When asked what rules he'd actually broken, the party general secretary, David Evans, wouldn't give them to the party's NEC, who were meant to be consulted in advance of anything like this, regardless. The question then has to be asked, do you trust people like David Evans or Kirste Dahmer to administer the British state when they can't even run a party properly by its own rules? One of the key findings today was that there shouldn't be political interference by party leaderships. And we saw that literally happen within minutes. And so I think it asks questions about the capacity of these people to run a large organisation. If they can't do that, can they really run the British state, the sixth largest economy in the world? I don't think so. Rachel. I don't think Aaron was quite that passionate about the competence of the people running the Labour Party complaints process when Jeremy Corbyn was in charge. And one of the things that the report says, one of the findings that I imagine is what Jeremy Corbyn was referring to when he said he did not accept all the findings, was that the leaders office had interfered on just 23 occasions of the just 70 complaints that they looked at. The leaders office had interfered inappropriately in order to disrupt the complaints process. And the report also says that the failure of Labour to tackle anti-semitism was not down to ability, but down to a lack of willingness to do so again from the leaders office. Now, the reason that I think that Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour have given for, I'm not sure they've given it, but others in the Labour Party have suggested is for bringing the party into disrepute. And to look at a report that has come out today that specifically says there were issues with the leaders office and the way these reports were handled from the top to say, I don't accept the findings. And by the way, I think they were politically motivated. That is bringing the party into disrepute. He didn't say that. He says, I did not expect all the findings. That's the second thing you've said, which wasn't accurate. For political reasons. That is what he said. No, no. First of all, we started the beginning of this program. What's happened here? And this is barely being mentioned. Two agents of the Labour Party have been found to have broken the lot too. One of who is Ken Livingston. And you're absolutely right, Rachel. Jeremy Corbyn interfered in the process there to get the guy thrown out. And he shouldn't have. And you may remember Tom Watson at the peak for the stuff saying, I want the cases on my desk thirsting Monday morning. That was precisely the problem. The media was saying, Jeremy Corbyn has to get a handle on this, has to get involved. And now we're being told actually that was part of the problem. Now, I think Labour made catastrophic failings over a number of years. I think the complaints process wasn't up to scratch. I think actually the Labour Party generally as an organization hasn't been fit for purpose for probably the best part of 15 years in a number of ways. It's part of the reason why it keeps on losing general elections. But look, the general secretary, the leader of the party has to give the reason for why the guy's been suspended. And they haven't done that. And so, you know, we have to talk about basic elementary questions of due process, principles of natural law, equality under the law. And that doesn't seem to be what's driving this. And so the only conclusion can be they're not that serious about this. This is still being treated as a political football and public relations rather than what it is a hugely important political question. I'm going to get through some more of the front pages. Rachel, the Guardian next, Labour plunged into crisis after Corbyn suspended. He has had John MacDonald come out to condemn his suspension, Len McCluskey as well. I mean, how much is this a crisis for Labour now? How much division is there going to be as a result of today? I think there's certainly going to be a high degree of division. I think that was inevitable because, unfortunately, if you inherit a party that has such a toxic attitude to anti-Semitism as Kirstam did, you are either going to end up upsetting and alienating the people who allowed that culture to flourish, the anti-Semites within it and those who supported them, or you are going to continue to alienate the Jewish community and indeed anyone who believes who can see that Labour's attitude to anti-Semitism over the past few years has been abhorrent. You have to pick a side, unfortunately. You can't please everyone. Now, we're talking about a civil war now, as though a civil war hasn't been going on within Labour for the past four years. There were a lot of people who are suddenly very concerned about a unified party. They'd be unified to be electable, a divided party doesn't win elections. These people were not really the ones trying to unify the party when Jeremy Corbyn was leader and when so many Jewish Labour members, so many people who support Labour's left-wing values but couldn't handle the levels of anti-Semitism within the party, were raising concerns, they weren't really worried about unifying it then and about bringing those voices within. So it seems that they're a lot more worried about alienating supporters of Jeremy Corbyn than they ever were about alienating Jews. I'm going to rattle through a couple more of the front pages, Aaron. The Daily Mail says RIP Corbyn's legacy of hate. The Jewish Telegraph saying anti-racist to his court. Perhaps some of those front pages, as you would predict, they would go. But to go back to Keir Starmer's actions, Aaron, did he not need to take a tough line in order to show the party was taking on board some of the lessons of the report, which was damning, which I'm sure you will agree was pretty tough, wasn't it? And he has to make the party one that Jewish people feel safe in. Well I think actually Keir Starmer did the precise opposite, because his actions today have undermined the primary story which should have been this report. It's undermined a historic opportunity for thousands of people to learn about anti-Semitism, which is clearly an issue. It's an issue also in the Labour Party in the left as well as society more generally, but it's clearly in the Labour Party. And that opportunity was missed, frankly. It's been overshadowed, it's been undermined. And as I've already said, one of the principal recommendations within the report is that any complaints process is independent of the Labour Party leader and the General Secretary's office. And we've had literally the same day the General Secretary's office suspended Labour Party, former Labour Party leader. And so I'm not quite sure really, I think in many ways it just makes a mockery of the whole report. I thought the report was very sober, highly analytical, very rigorous, and rather than actually stick to that which is what we should be doing, we've returned to some partisan hysteria, which actually, frankly, the people that suffer the most from that is Britain's Jewish community. It's a huge tragedy that this opportunity has not been taken for introspection within the Labour Party, but of course in our society more broadly. Okay, I'm sure this is a subject that we will return to in the next hour, but for now we're going to take a pause.