 Housing Secretary Robert Gennrich should have already resigned in disgrace. He overalled the government's planning inspector to give permission for a £1 billion development by a man who had sat next to him at a fundraising dinner and who he had been personally texting. Even worse, he gave permission on the day before an infrastructure levy was to be introduced that would have meant the developer in question, Richard Desmond, would need to pay £40 million to health services and schools. Internal emails show Gennrich had specifically pushed for it to be approved before the new measures came in and that Desmond had texted him saying, we don't want them Marxists, we don't want to give them Marxist dough. The Marxists in question were Tower Hamlets Council, the democratically elected council of the London borough with the highest rates of income poverty. And of course, they're not Marxists, they're a moderate Labour Party council. Anyway, we talked about this on Wednesday. It's obviously all a complete disgrace. Obviously, Gennrich should have resigned in disgrace by now from the cabinet. His position as an MP should be in question. But no, if the last two months has taught us anything, it is that corruption and lawbreaking are perfectly acceptable in Johnson's government. So long as you're loyal to him. So on Thursday, Business Minister Nadim Zahawi was sent out onto the airwaves to defend what Gennrich had done to try and make out that it was nothing extraordinary. And he made a quite extraordinary admission. Let's take a listen to him speaking on Radio 4. You're not going to address this point, are you, about your voter in Doncaster or Asheville and whether they have this kind of access to government that this billionaire has. You will address it. Talk to them directly. Why don't they have this kind of access? Well, first of all, what I've tried to address through this whole interview have this kind of access. Well, if people go to a fundraiser in their local area in Doncaster, for the Conservative Party, they'll be sitting next to MPs and other people in their local authority. Is that the way in? So the cat is really out of the bag there, isn't it? If you want preferential access to a Tory MP, to a government minister even, what should you do? You should buy a seat at your next local Tory fundraiser, right? The whole premise of the idea that our party funding system isn't corrupt is the idea that you're not supposed to be able to buy access. Everyone always knew it was false, but this claim that sort of like, yeah, just because they come to the dinner, they don't buy their ticket to the dinner because they think that will affect policy. They buy their ticket to the dinner because they independently support government policy, which is in no way doing any favours for them personally because they gave the party money. Now Nadim Zahawi is just saying outright, yeah, you want to influence government policy? Fine, buy a ticket to a Tory fundraiser. And he's almost making out this is democratic because anyone can buy a ticket to a Tory fundraiser, but anyone with lots of money can buy tickets. This is the whole point. This is why you don't do democracy. You don't have a system whereby you can get access to decision makers if you have lots of money. That's not democracy. Well, it's the whole thing about we have the best democracy money can buy. I mean, that's often, you know, that's been a sort of a joke. Now it's been sort of satirical, cynical take on liberal democracies since, you know, really since the collapse of labour-based socialist movements since the 50s, 60s, 70s. But Nadim Zahawi is actually saying, yes, this is the best democracy money can buy. And it's democracy because you can buy influences. That's kind of what you say. We're so, look, they're so, they're so unaccustomed to actually having to defend their big ideological claims and presumptions. They're so unaccustomed to defending it. Of course you should be able to buy influence. That's a democracy. And I'm sure he believes that. I mean, when is Nadim Zahawi going to be, you know, we challenge one another. Oh, no, that's correct. The only left. You have to really refine your arguments, right? Because if you've got something slightly wrong, my God, heaven help you. But somebody like Nadim Zahawi, nobody's going to correct him. Nobody cares. And so they just come up with this gump and it's getting progressively worse because we're now becoming a managed democracy. And that is to say, you know, the sort of the democratic features of the post-war, I think, are really coming apart, you know, at light speed. I think it was a sort of, this was an articulation of that. He kind of doesn't even care if he makes sense. He's like, oh yeah, buy the influence, buy all the influence you want. And that's, that's, that's the British way. And I mean, the reason they can have this much confidence, because I mean, you know, if you go on, if a left winger goes on the radio with an argument and that, but you just wouldn't go on the radio with an argument that bad, because you know they'll destroy you, right? But if you're a right winger, you can go out and say any kind of bullshit. And then you can just assume that the news story is going to move on in a few hours, even because the way they keep things like this in the newspapers, if it's a left winger who does it, is they bring up all of these different figures from the establishment to keep it a story to sort of say, oh, this is, oh, this, this back bench right-wing Labour MP is saying this. So if they're saying that what's happened is a real, if they're saying that Corbyn pretending to someone pretending he was friends with a spy in the 1980, if they're saying that's important, oh, it must be important. But here you have, you know, the Tories who actually have discipline, which means that none of them are coming out and really speaking against this. You have the BBC, someone like Laura Coonspoke, who doesn't really do any research into like the facts of the matter or what's actually happened, she just checks WhatsApp. So if there's no one WhatsApping to say, oh, this thing's actually a big deal, then they won't realise, right? And the news cycle has already moved on. And you've got kids, Dharma, completely playing into their hands by saying, oh, actually the serious issue is that Rebecca Long Bailey shared an article in a mainstream newspaper where an actor said something that was slightly wrong about the relationship with the Israeli police to the United States police. And now that is now a more well-known controversy than the Robert Jenrick one. And that matters more than somebody trying to avoid 50 million pounds worth of tax, which would have gone to the one of the poorest parts of our capital city, right? There were people today sharing this opinion poll saying, you know, I think 45% think that it was right to get rid of Rebecca Long Bailey, 12% disagree, and then 41% don't know. That's what I would expect. Nobody knows who Rebecca Long Bailey is. They're like, what the hell? Where's this come from? Even though I'm a sort of, I love politics. I'm interested in this. We're hosting a show on it. And even I was like, what the hell? This is crazy. Where's this come from? So it's the average person. Of course, what's interesting is more people thought that Rebecca Long Bailey should be sacked than thought the Robert Jenrick should be sacked. Well done. Slow clap for Keir Starmer. Wow. Real political genius. Now the electorate thinks that there was more reason for Rebecca Long Bailey to go, by the way, there was none whatsoever than somebody who was assisting a billionaire to avoid 50 million pounds worth of tax. I don't think anybody thinks that is not as bad as what Rebecca Long Bailey did. But because of the kind of the political forensic style of Keir Starmer, that's where we've ended up. And the worst thing about it, that poll, I wish we should put it in the script actually, but I mean, you can check it out. I've retweeted today, is that the reason why more people in the public think that Rebecca Long Bailey should have resigned than Robert Jenrick isn't because they judge what she's done to be more serious, is because the don't knows in the Robert Jenrick case a lower. So it's not that people think what Rebecca Long Bailey did is worse than what Robert Jenrick did, is that they've heard more about Rebecca Long Bailey tweeting an article of an interview of an actor speaking to the independent than they have about a housing minister who had a fundraising dinner with a property developer who watched a video advertising this sort of development on the phone at that dinner, who was texting that property developer about how they were going to try and stop this man having to pay 40 million pounds to a London council for health services and education, right? And no one's heard of it because it's too complicated. It's not even that complicated. It's corruption. It shouldn't be complicated. The problem here, well, here's time I'm making something an issue when it shouldn't really have been an issue. And then the media, if not enough Tory backbenchers send a message to Laura Koonsburg or Robert Peston, then they just forget about the story. But you have to understand with the labour left, you can go anti-Semitic conspiracy theory forwards, goodbye, career over. Robert Jenrick was, you know, potentially took a hand out and there's money and is the business I kind of I've switched off, sorry, has three, four words. You're right, cash for access. I think that's a great way of putting it. But the four words and that's what that's what destroys me. And look, by the way, this this enmity and prejudice against the left, it kind of infuses the whole thing to such an extent where you're here, whenever you actually, bless it, you were introduced quite nicely, I thought, and you know, by on BBC two today, but, you know, controversial and we've got controversial contributing editor Michael Walker from the controversial Navarra media. And we have Julie Harley brewer of course from talk radio. You know, yeah. And they are always, always, always alt left, controversial. Wait, hold on, we wait, wait, wait, wait, we're regulated by impress. We're a we're a, you know, we're a newer organization with fewer resources because we haven't got big money back as like talk radio. But wait, wait, wait, where's this framing come from? We know where the framings come from. These people all hang out together, they all go to the same schools, they all live in the same places, they've all known one another 15, 20 years, it's, it's, it's the it's the bubble that runs this country. And it's not just in politics and the media too. And if you're from outside it, you're controversial, even though the spectator publish articles, you know, with titles like in praise of the Vim Act, that's not controversial. But I remember starting Mr. Controversial, he's in Navarra media, wow, he didn't go to the school I went to, he doesn't live in N1. He wasn't at the spectator summer party, so he must be controversial.