 Keir Starmer has followed up his conference speech with a tour of TV studios in an attempt to prove to the public he's not left-wing. And on BBC Breakfast that meant, once again, arguing against nationalisation. Common ownership can be cooperatives, can be all sorts of different models. But the principle being you take it out of private ownership, is that right? Before we go any further, I honestly don't think that nationalising the energy companies right now in the middle of a crisis which is the government making is the right way forward. But what we've got to focus on for the next few months, and I think most people viewing with me, is the energy supply going to be good for the next six months? And how's the government got us into this ridiculous situation where the energy, we've got an energy crisis, we've got a fuel crisis, we've got no drivers for lorries, we've got empty shelves. I think most people say, well rather some philosophical discussion. We want to know in practical terms what is the government going to do to keep the lights on, keep the energy there and get our fuel pumps back in action because lots of people are going to be scratching their heads and say, how am I going to get to work next week? How am I going to get to a hospital? Or how am I going to visit a sick relative, a teacher or a nurse getting to their job? These are the issues that we need to address head on and they are all banded together and characterised by a lack of planning, by a government that campaigns in slogans and is learning that governing in slogans just doesn't work. That was Keir Starmer arguing against nationalising failing utility companies. Just to remind you, this was Starmer during the leadership race. First of all, raise your hands if you're into scrapping tuition fees. That's everyone. Renationalising water and electricity, yeah. They need to show that clip anytime Keir Starmer says, I said common ownership, not nationalisation. I didn't mean nationalisation. You put your hand up when they said nationalisation. Aaron, I saw you reacting to that BBC Breakfast clip online. I suppose, aside from the dishonesty of it all, what did you make of the actual argument put forward by Keir Starmer there? Well, it's a typical lawyer's answer, isn't it? He's saying, well, look, common ownership doesn't necessarily mean nationalisation, somewhat true. Does that mean he now supports a model like workers' co-operatives for the big six energy companies? Well, that may work for some things. It won't work for public monopolies. And no, I don't think that's what he means. This is a man who lives by rhetoric and elusive lines, which he can backtrack on later in a court of law that works in the court of public opinion. And more importantly, in the world of public policy and actually solving real world problems, it absolutely doesn't work. It's a catastrophic failure. My question to you, Michael, and our audience is, what has to happen before it calls for nationalisation of energy companies? Will the lights have to go out? Will we all be freezing cold? Because it clearly is one potential answer. You know, in 2008, we had the financial crash. What was part of the response from government by Gordon Brown, by a Labour Prime Minister who wasn't particularly left-wing, was to take banks into public ownership. Does that mean that Keir Starmer won't do something similar with energy companies? And he's saying, well, it's an academic exercise. You can imagine 1945, Michael, we just come out of the Second World War. People are calling for a national health service and to bring energy and utilities and water into public ownership. And Keir Starmer says, now is not the time for vain and vague intellectual exercises. What we need is pragmatic common sense. We would never have got the national health service, Michael. When something doesn't work and it's broken, is actually the best time to talk about, well, systemically, what do we need to change to restructure it? It's the best time, Mr. Starmer, not the worst time. So, yes, what does this tell us? If you think the fact that he's a mendacious man who actually has no idea about the kinds of policies he'd want to enact as Prime Minister, that's one thing. Secondly, it tells us something quite troubling, which I think actually confronted with the facts, the Tories are more likely to nationalise things than the Labour Party. Over the last seven days, we've seen another rail franchise brought back into public ownership in the southeast of England. We're seeing it, I think, in the next couple of months, likely with energy companies, too. I think that's it's looking increasingly probable. What are Labour going to say? He's saying, we need planning. We need a plan. The government should get their act together. What does it mean? What does it mean? You're not offering an alternative. You're not offering anything substantial. And look, positioning for the next general election is fine. Maybe that's all you care about. But in the meantime, we've got two years. And particularly, we've got this winter, I'd quite like Christmas. I'd quite like to not be freezing cold on the 25th of December here. So please, please offer some substantive solutions. How Starmer did Brexit, how he did COVID-19, won outliers, won anomalies. That's how he does politics, Michael. It's about winning some sophisticated debate in a courtroom, rather than actually addressing people's problems and trying to infuse them behind what you're arguing for. He's not a politician. God knows how he got this job. He's uniquely ill-suited to be leading a political party, particularly at this moment. God help us. I think the point about the Tories, you know, they would nationalise the utilities before Labour is a prescient one. Because Quasi Quarteng has made it clear that if one of the big six fails, they might have to nationalise it. Because the alternative of bringing it into public ownership is to bail them out with public money and say, oh, okay, we'll cover your losses, but you can still run it as a private business. Even the Tories admit that would be an unpopular thing to do, whereas Keir Starmer's saying, nope, no, no, in the crisis, we won't change the ownership of anything. Does that mean you'll give them a bailout? No, it might have been sensible to explain that sometimes nationalisation is whatever your political ideology, the most sensible thing to do in that situation. I want to talk about the internal politics of this. The nationalisation issue seems like it could tear the Shadow Cabinet apart. In particular, it's creating tensions between Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband. Miliband argued in favour of common ownership a couple of weeks ago on News Night, and the Times are now reporting that Starmer is being urged to sideline the former Labour leader, Aaron. Do you think this could actually happen? Do you think he could be next to go? Well, he's Labour's most popular politician, and Keir Starmer specialised in doing stupid things, so presumably he will, yeah. I mean, that's basically... We should call it Starmer's Law, which is a scientific law, whereby the worst possible decision that could be made by the Labour leader is the one that he takes. I think, generally speaking, whatever happens to Miliband, I think he will go. Whatever happens to Miliband, I think, in the medium term, is that we won't see any of the Templars which is informing party policy in 2024, or at least the leader will try his damnedest to stop it. And I think that's an important background variable to consider when you think he's got the GMB on side, he's got Unison on side. All the things that they tell their members they want, the leaders of these unions, or we want a higher minimum wage, 15-pound minimum wage for care workers, we want to end fire and rehire, we want to end outsourcing. Very little of this would happen under a Labour government. Now, you might think that's great. It means a Labour government gets elected. I want the problems to be solved, Michael. You know, in the last couple of weeks, we've heard a lot about the Labour family. My party's back. No, 95% of the public doesn't care about my party's back or the Labour family. Can I afford to pay the rent? Can I get on the housing ladder? My mortgage payments? The future for my kids? My kids going to university, university that gang in loads of debt, elderly care, climate change, law and order, sure. These are all big issues. Nobody cares you've got your party back, nobody cares. And so my commitment, Michael, is to things like, yes, climate change, housing crisis, inequality. It's not just about getting the Tories out, it's about getting a party in, which will do something about those problems, actually address those challenges. And so, yes, it's all very good talking about, oh, we need to get the Tories out. Well, if Keir Starmer is literally pitching to their right when it comes to public ownership of energy, what for? This isn't a game of football. This is about whether the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years of your life will be better or worse, where the life chance and opportunities of people will be richer or poorer for the presence of a Labour Party in power. Right now, Keir Starmer's not making that case.