 This is Keir Starmer addressing the felling of Edward Caulston this morning, speaking on LBC. Yeah, it shouldn't have been done in that way. Completely wrong to pull a statue down like that. But stepping back, that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. You can't in 21st century Britain have a slaver on a statue. A statue is there to honour people. And you can't have that in 21st century Britain. That statue should have been brought down properly with consent and put, I would say, in a museum. This was a man who was responsible for 100,000 people being moved from Africa to the Caribbean as slaves, including women and children, who were branded on their chests with the name of the company that he ran. Of the 100,000, 20,000 died en route and they were chucked in the sea. He should not be in a statue in Bristol or anywhere else. He should be in a museum because we need to understand this. I mean, that should have been taken down a long time ago. So the majority of that clip was Keir Starmer explaining why he thinks that the statue of Edward Caulston should have been taken down a long time ago. But it's that first sentence which has caused some controversy, at least on the left. I'll lay my cards out on the table in a moment. First of all, I want to go to you, Belle, for your reaction to that video. Was he right to sort of say it shouldn't have been done in that way? But the statue should have come down a long time ago? I mean, definitely. Obviously, we all agree on the fact that the statue should have come down a long time ago. But it not being done in that way, I don't think any of us are in a position at any point in time to say it shouldn't have been done in that way. Because it's in this particular context, how people have jumped on the fact that these individuals have committed some sort of criminal damage or they've done something wrong. And I think about the fact that when people die in police custody, again, there's always some sort of explanation. There's always, oh, actually, it's alleged, nothing has actually happened. So it's not alleged that somebody has committed criminal damage. People are insisting that these individuals have committed criminal damage. And I don't think that's necessarily right to say that until any sort of investigation has been put forward. But also, I don't know if it's appropriate for there to be an investigation. When we think about the fact that there are people genuinely still fighting for justice for their families and in need of police resources to do that, be it through actually having contact with the police and having died in that way, or people like Belly Majinga or Chukri Abdi, those individuals who need police resources to find justice. And instead, we're going to use those to look into what's happened when a slave trader's statue has been put into the harbour. I just don't think that's the best use of resource at all. Not just that. Bristol Police actually probably had the best explanation when you heard what happened. Because I saw that statue rolling down. I thought, gosh, aren't there any police there? It's nothing happening. And one of them actually came on TV, explained, look, we understand what the history of this statue is and what a contentious issue it's been for black people in the city. And because of the type of protest that's happening, and because of public safety, we saw it happening. Yes. And we thought that the best thing to do was let it happen. So the police thought that the best thing to do was let it happen. And just generally, what happens after a while in history, people don't judge things the same. I think about a group of people throughout the beginning of the last century who were frequently accused of criminal damage. They were also fighting for civil rights. They were a group of women. They were called the suffragettes. I don't believe anybody would condemn them today. In fact, a couple of years ago, Millicent Fawcett's statue was put in Parliament Square, the same woman that was accused of criminal damage in her civil rights struggle for women's rights. And a few statues down from her is Nelson Mandela, another individual who this government called a terrorist. So I just think to myself, we need to think about things in the current context and just be a bit more mindful of what we say about individuals when they commit, when they do certain things. And just the fact that it was a statue of a slave trader, it wasn't an individual. It wasn't an individual that has been killed. It wasn't a man. It was a hunk of metal, which symbolized racism and shouldn't have been there in the first place. And the fact that it's at the bottom of the harbour now is something that people may disagree with. But if there is any attempt to use public money, especially after years of austerity, to try and fish that thing out of the harbour at an expense to something else, there are going to be a lot of questions to answer. I agree with all of that on a personal level. I'll go to Aaron in one moment. My thought on this was that, yes, I celebrate what they've done. I think they were absolutely right to do it. But I also think that as the leader of the Labour Party, you want to be careful what battles you choose. And I feel the Tories don't want to have a conversation about racism and slavery. We saw that today when their spokesperson was unwilling to say whether or not Boris Johnson thinks statues of slave traitors could come down. They're desperate to have a conversation about law and order, about whether or not the law should be enforced and people should follow laws. And I think if Keir Starmer had come out and said, oh, yeah, no, it is fine in some exceptional circumstances to break the law, then we would have had a week-long debate about that. And I've heard people say, well, he could have just not condemned it or he could have just sort of sat on the fence. When you're sitting next to Nick Ferrari, he actually doesn't normally let you sit on the fence. So he would have been pushed on that question. And then we would have had a headline about whether or not it's fine to break the law instead of a headline about racism and slavery. Maybe I'll put that straight back to you, Belle, before going to Aaron. Yeah. But I mean, the main point is whether or not they have actually broken the law. And I think perhaps it was difficult because of the fact that the media and the government have betrayed it in the fact that they have broken the law. They've come out right and said, these people have done something and they've committed criminal damage. But the point I'm trying to make is it's not even necessarily about whether it's right or wrong. It's the fact that when black people die, we need to look into the situation when the statue of a slaver is thrown into the harbor, you know, we can instantly label people as criminals. And that's not necessarily what we do in this country. It's innocent until proven guilty. But why when it comes to black people, it's one way when it comes to a hunk of racist metal, it's another way. What they did was probably criminal damage. I wish I had been with them. I wish I had done, you know, if I had done that, the people involved in taking down that statue would never be involved in a more righteous, morally just action for the rest of their lives. But it was probably against the law. But guess what? So was Rosa Parks, you know, what she did was against the law, having an interracial, you know, marriage in the United States in many states before the 1960s, the local miscegenation laws, that was against the law. You know, often things can be against the law. It doesn't mean it's about right or wrong. So in a way, you know, what we need to say to people, what we need to communicate is there is a bit, and this is true, there is a big enough movement here that if that happens to you, there'll be support. If they're illegal costs, they would be backed. And I think BLM now has had such good will from BLM UK, it's raised a lot of money, it has so much good will. If there are people who are arrested and charged, they will get the appropriate legal backing. It's criminal damage, ultimately, you know, what the suffragettes did was criminal damage. I think it's justified. So then you need a conversation around justification. Now, if they were charged with something like violent disorder, that would be a political charge because it's not violent disorder, it was just a piece of inanimate metal, which was taken down and put in a river. Nobody felt endangered. Nobody felt their personal safety was compromised that they might be subject to violence. So it all kind of depends, you know, if this was being subject to political, you know, sort of if this was a political fight picked by the government, picked by the Crown Prosecution Service, they would be charged with violent disorder, then it becomes a very political, contentious debate. If it's just criminal damage, you know, that'd be fascinating. If they were found guilty of criminal damage and then they were being sentenced by a judge, I'd be intrigued to know what the judge would do. If it was just some old, funny, duddy, oxbridge educated 70 year old white judge, sentencing some young black people to a really harsh sentence for criminal damage for taking down the statue of a racist. Well, that would tell us a lot about the limits of our criminal justice system in this country. I mean, it's also, I think you should encourage leniency, right? I mean, there's a difference between saying it wasn't against the law and just saying, well, it probably, I mean, it looked like criminal damage, didn't it? But I think the judge should take into account the fact that they were doing this for a pretty good reason and hopefully they get off with a suspended sentence or something. In all cases, if something happens to an individual and they die, it's not necessarily murder. And that sounds like a terrible thing to say, but some people may have done things in self-defense. So it's not as clear cut as they've definitely done this. And some people have been having a discussion about that as well, and just thinking to themselves, how interesting it would actually be to go to court. Not that I wanted to get there, but it would certainly set a very interesting precedent. And I'd hope that if it did, people would be very, very clear and clear about the fact that whereas something may have happened, and it might not have been what is within the current law at the moment, that doesn't necessarily mean at the end of it that anybody should face any prosecution. So you, Gov, did a poll Britons on the removal of the Edward Colston statue. Can we get this up? Approve of the statue being removed and the way in which it was done, 13% of people agree with that. Approve of the statue being removed, but not in the way in which it was done. 40% of people agree with that. Disapprove of the statue being removed, 33% of people agreed with that and don't know 14%. So I mean, what I was saying on Twitter today was that I'm 100% in that 13%, but I completely understand why Keir Starma wouldn't pick that particular battle. Ash, what are your thoughts on this matter of the polling? And I think this kind of speaks to the situation that Keir Starma was in, because I understood the point that you were trying to make, Michael. But for me, I want a Labour leader who wants to change people's minds about certain things. And I want a Labour leader who is able to articulate a position of solidarity with racially oppressed communities. And I don't feel that Keir Starma has done that so far in a way which feels powerful, authentic or real, or likely to, I think, be a strong enough bulwark against this kind of rising tide of nationalism and racism that we're seeing in this country. And so when it comes to that 13% approves of the circumstances in which the statue was taken down, 40% doesn't think it should be up, but doesn't approve in the way in which it happened. We get to the really sticky point about how we in this country think of our own history. When we get the opportunity to learn about it, which is often at a point which is far too late, we go, oh yeah, that's quite bad. But because it's too late, we don't actually get the chance to do the thing that we could have done before, which is demonstrate that our legal system is capable of delivering justice, or demonstrate the fact that we have an education system which is able to, rather than trying to whitewash colonial history or minimize colonial history is actually going to deliver that kind of confrontation with history that you see in other countries, in particular Germany. We have a sort of condemning of the means by which people express themselves when all other avenues have been closed off to them. And so that's the place that Kierstahmer finds himself in, which is does he go along with this quite pacified political population? Or does he try and change it? Does he try and shape the common sense in some way? And I think what was demonstrated in that Nick Ferrari interview today, and this is also why I called Kierstahmer a neek, is that he backed off from that. Now it might be a pick your battles thing. And I do understand that you cannot hold Kierstahmer to the same political standards as you would, you know, an editor on Navarra, for instance, two very different kinds of political jobs. But I wish, I wish there had been some acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the anger that led to that act. And there was none. There was only, oh, wish we'd taken it down sooner. Well, you didn't. And now Edward Causton's in the harbor. Sorry about it. David Lamy gave a intervention on GM, what's it called? Good Morning Britain, which sort of basically took the same line as Kierstahmer, but emphasizing what you just said there. I think that's a very good point. Aaron, what's the come in? I agree, actually, but with your point, Michael, the essential point is I don't think Kierstahmer should be apologizing for potential criminal damage charges. I don't think the Labor League should be doing that. I don't think it's for social movements to do that. Now, two caveats to that. Firstly, he could have said everything he said, and then finished it with basically what Leyla Moran did by saying, but look, it's now outrageous in the 21st century, we have citizens who feel they have to resort to this. Within six months of becoming prime minister, I would do XYZ. We would review XYZ in regards to accelerating expediting the process whereby democratic process for removing something as objectionable as a statue of a slave trader can happen. Clearly here, the normal bureaucratic process was inadequate. We have to ask why. He could have done that. So he could have done the critique. He didn't have to go all in, and he could have said, you know what? I'm doing something nobody else in the political sort of establishments doing here. I'm offering a long-term solution, and he didn't. It was just purely an instinctive, I don't want to get my hands caught here in the mangle by Nick Ferrari and RBC. It was purely defensive posture. That's concerning. Look, he's only been leaving for a few months, but I do think that would have been the best way to go. And then finally, people will say, well, he can win a general election. Corbyn can't possibly. Possibly. Maybe. That's the bet. That's why he said what he said. But at the same time, we need to understand that, well, okay, I think without any shadow of a doubt, a Labour leader being as overtly supportive of immigrant rights, LGBT issues, BAME communities, as Jeremy Corbyn has moved the dial in this country's political conversation significantly. Now, the question is, if Keir Starmer doesn't win in 2024, to what extent will he have moved the dial himself? You know, judging from this, you know, not very fast. There's a trade-off going on here. You don't do that so you can have a Prime Minister who can win a general election. But if he can't win, well, then it's been a complete and utter disaster.