 So when Stama was first elected leader of the Labour Party, he said his number one priority was to repair relationships with the Jewish community. There was also another difficult issue that had caused some problems to the last Labour leadership in that at least the 2019 general election, which was relationships with big bodies of the Hindu Indian community. It was sort of reported from lots of, often marginal constituents. So for example, East Haro, where I went around, there were many people who were of Indian origin, who were traditional Labour voters who weren't voting Labour at this time. And that was because of their position on Kashmir. The background here is when tensions arose last summer, and that was in response to, well, that was because Narendra Modi had basically suspended the autonomy of Kashmir, which had been historically guaranteed, locked down that region from having any contact with the outside world, sent in the military, some real nasty human rights abuses from a really nasty leader. At Labour Party conference, there was an emergency motion passed to condemn these actions, but it also committed the Labour Party to accept that Kashmir is a disputed territory and the people of Kashmir should be given the right of self-determination in accordance with UN resolutions. That was seen by some people to be anti-Indian and caused some of those problems on the doorstep this morning, Keir Starmer. So in a bid to solve this problem, met with Labour friends of India and, I mean, brought about a real reverse of Labour policy. Let's go to a statement that he made after that meeting. So he says, we must not allow issues of the subcontinent to divide communities here, fair enough. Any constitutional issues in India are a matter for the Indian parliament and Kashmir is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve peacefully. Labour is an internationalist party and stands for the defence of human rights everywhere. Now, the difference between those statements is very clear. One talks about the right to self-determination. The other drops that. But I mean, the most controversial thing here is it's not even a statement that sits on the fence. It's not saying that Labour will try and bring people together and talk to all sides in this conflict. It's taking a very strong position and a very strong pro-Modi position, which is that the constitutional settlement for Kashmir will be decided in the Indian parliament, which is a very odd understanding of how you defend minorities is to say, oh, well, it be decided in a parliament where the majority wants to occupy and remove the autonomy of Kashmir. I mean, to me, it just seemed... It was a very right-wing statement, wasn't it, Aaron? Yeah, it was a very right-wing. I understand, again, often if people criticize Dharma, people go, oh, this is the left, you know, get real. This isn't, you know, Jeremy Corbyn being the leader anymore. But it was a really odd incoherent statement. Maybe we can actually pull it back up and I'll just go through an inconsistency you literally see between the two lines. It says, on the one hand, you can see here, Kashmir is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve peacefully. And then it says, literally the next sentence, Labour as an internationalist party stands to the defence of human rights everywhere. Now, human rights are covered under international law. And yet you're saying in the previous sentence that this is an issue which is to be determined by India and Pakistan bilaterally, i.e. between them as two sovereign nations. So either this is an issue within the constraints of international human law, which it is, by the way, as is issues surrounding self-determination, or it's purely an issue between two sovereign powers, India and Pakistan. It can't be both of those things. It's like saying that Crimea is between Ukraine and Russia as two sovereign states. Who says that? No, you would say, as an international community, we respect the sovereignty of nations. That's the first thing. So you'd say, well, Russia shouldn't be going in there. But then if you had a legitimate referendum there, as you had, for instance, in Kosovo, majority of people in Kosovo wanted an independent nation state, which eventually broke away from the former Yugoslavia, you'd say, well, these people have a right to self-determination. And yet this entire corpus of international law, this guy's a human rights lawyer, has just been jettisoned. And it sounded almost like a little kind of garnish at the end. Of course, we're an international party, we respect human rights law. We've just said it's purely a bilateral issue between two sovereign states. So obviously you don't think that. And if you take human rights seriously, it has to inform policies, not just to garnish. It's not just a sort of superficial thing you put on top. It's not some icing on the cake. It should be at the heart of the policy. Really, really surprised me because Starr was a human rights lawyer. This is a guy who's been campaigning for years and years and years to end the death penalty in various countries around the world. I would have thought on an issue like this, he'd actually be very good, which leads me to suspect he didn't write this or the policy isn't necessarily his. I think something that right wing probably has come from somebody in his office who has quite different politics. I don't know, because it just showed a complete disinterest in ideas of universality in human rights and the universal right to self-determination. Really shocking to see it. I mean, you're totally right about the inconsistency there because he's talking about internationalism. But what he's done there is a really traditional realist response to international relations which is basically say, what happens in that nation is their issue. And also basically, I mean, later in the letter he talks about how we're going to strengthen trade with India, et cetera. You don't want to upset the sovereign government of India. So what they do with their minority communities, that's up to them. That's the realist position. It's not an internationalist position. So it is disappointing. And I have to say, I mean, because one thing I thought Kiostama would potentially be quite good at, especially in, you know, contradiction to someone like Tony Blair, is he does what I assumed he was someone who sort of cared about human rights and potentially about international relations. We've often said that he, you know, he doesn't seem to have a very strong position when it comes to political economy, but that's fine if what his passion is is about defending human rights. And that's an important, you know, that's an important obsession of a labor leader. But if you look at this letter, which is one of his first moves, really, as labor leader, one of his first concrete policy stances he's taken, it runs completely roughshod over the human rights of the Kashmiri people. So I mean, I hope you're right in it. It's just some, you know, lowly advisor and Kiostama will change tack here. And that's not necessarily even to say that he has to commit to the previous labor policy. I think the idea that for labor to say we stand 100% in terms of self-determination for Kashmir, I mean, they haven't said that about Catalonia, for example. You can have a more sort of almost wishy-washy statement where you sort of like, we respect the rights of the people of Kashmir to determine, et cetera, et cetera. But we also recognize the claims of India, blah, blah, blah. Do you know what I mean? You can have a sort of wishy-washy one. But this isn't wishy-washy. This is coming down very concretely on the side of the Modi government. Yeah, this is not fence-sitting, you know? Fence-sitting has its place in politics. You know, ultimately the argument could be made, this isn't gonna be the policy. It's just, you know, it's to placate a certain interest group. By the way, labor friends of India aren't even affiliated to the labor party, which I just find absolutely remarkable. And then this press release earlier on stairs, and we have to regain the trust of British Indians. I mean, BAME community has just voted in two elections and overwhelming numbers for the labor party. Labor's strongest vote in this country is BAME voters. And of course, you have to delimit various communities. But I have met very few people from, very few people from South Asia saying I'm not voting for labor because of this issue. And I'm sure, well, I know for a fact, it was a major issue in several seats, but regain the trust. And it's just the way it's been said in regards to British Jewish community, understandably there's a huge issue there, but it's just the way it's kind of cut copy paste onto this issue. I was like, this isn't the same thing. And it just seems so politically unstrategic and tactless, as well as the policy itself being in a suit, and I think just plain wrong, and actually just plain odds with the best bits of labor foreign policy over the last 30 years. Even if, again, Blair was a liberal interventionist, right? Blair would say we should go to Kosovo, we should go to Sierra Leone, we should go to Iraq and Afghanistan because we believe in these universal rights. I think that's a terrible way to conduct foreign policy. But that was how he did things. But this idea that, oh, well, look, you can oppress this minority and it's purely about bilateral relations, and then you have the temerity to say, at the end, well, actually we're in snatches to care about human rights law. Well, you patently don't. The substantive content of that declaration is no different to what Donald Trump would say. And I'm not saying that to be facetious, clearly Kirsten was a much more progressive, intelligent political operator than Donald Trump. But in content, the policy is no different. And that has to be really concerning, because like you say, it's one of the first sort of foreign policy tests. And if you're coming down on the side of Modi, confronted with that first test, just to placate a small group of people who aren't even affiliated to the party, you have to worry how much backbone has this guy got to stand up for something which he believes in as a politician. We haven't seen it. It's something we talked about previously. He was director of public prosecutions. We've had a sort of an audition for a guy being in an incredibly important national role where he'd be scrutinized in a way that almost nobody will ever understand as director of public prosecutions. How many risks did he take? How many big calls did he take and push back against perhaps the received wisdom? None. This clearly is just taking the easy route for the sake of placating somebody for the short term. And actually in politics, that rarely works, particularly on the left. You're gonna need a big strategic vision. Okay, foreign policy isn't the most important pressing issue right now, but it's gonna be a big one. And more missteps like that, and he's gonna lose a lot of his base.