 Liberal democracies should allow for effective protests. And effective protests tend to cause a nuisance. Yet if Boris Johnson and the Home Secretary Pretty Patel have their way, a protest which causes a nuisance could soon become illegal. Can the policing bill, which passed on its second reading yesterday, be stopped? Also some more bad news for you. And we've learned today that in Britain, vaccines for under 50s are being delayed for a month. We are hopefully, you know, still all have our first vaccines before the summer, but a month later than the most optimistic projections, which I've been very excited about over the previous week. We don't have too many details on that at the moment. Just a downer to begin the show. We'll also be talking tonight about plans for undercover cops to patrol bars and Boris Johnson pledging to increase Britain's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Before we get going, you know, the score, do share the show link. Tweet on the hashtag Tiskey Sour. Put your super chats under the YouTube video and comment on the Twitch stream. Now yesterday, the policing and crime bill had its second reading in parliament. The bill, which threatens to outlaw protests for causing an annoyance or even threatening to cause an annoyance, has sparked an enormous outcry, particularly in light of the police's heavy-handed response to a vigil in memory of Sarah Everard on Saturday night. Now, as the bill was debated, protesters were out in force on Parliament Square. That protest was organised by the group Sisters Uncut. Inside Parliament, Labour, after a U-turn on the weekend, also spoke powerfully against the proposed law. This was Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammey's speech. Instead of tackling violence against women, the government has prioritised giving the police the power to prohibit the fundamental freedoms of protests that the British public hold dear. And by giving the police this discretion to use these powers some of the time, it takes away our freedom all of the time. The government's bill targets protesters causing too much noise and says that those who cause annoyance could be jailed for up to 10 years. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm thankful that the draconian limits on the power to protest were not in place during the great protests of the 20th century that led to real change. I won't give way to them. When the suffragists marched for the right to vote, some of them were prepared to break the law, to make their point just outside the House of Commons. Does the Secretary of State believe that those women who shouted noisily should have been arrested too? Protesters marched from Jarrow in Tyneside all the way to London to demand the right to work in 1936. Does the Secretary of State think the police should have had the power to stop them before they even passed York? The anti-apartheid movement of which I was part marched continuously on Chafalga Square for black and white people to be treated as equal. Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that they should have been arrested because they caused an annoyance? Very powerful speech from David Lambie there to give him credit for that. We do know as we discussed on the previous show that that U-turn probably only came because of that action organised by Sisters Uncut on the weekend. So it could have been quite a different story this week in Parliament if there hadn't been that popular mobilisation. So a lesson to us all there. In the end the bill did pass its second reading by 359 to 263 and it went completely down party line. So every Tory voted for the bill and every other MP voted against. But not all is lost because this is only the second reading. So on a second reading MPs vote on a bill in principle. So they're saying do we think of bill of this sort needs to be passed? But by passing it it doesn't yet become law because there's already or there now will be a process where people can attempt to amend the bill. That will be in the committee phase. And then it comes back for a third reading. And then if it passes in the Commons it goes on to the Lords. Now of course for it not to pass and for it not to pass in the Commons we would need some Tories to rebel. And from I mean the whole Brexit process I suppose we know that often Tories talk a good game. And but when the when push comes to shove they don't really vote with their hearts and souls. But there was you know some signs at least of disquiet. There's some hope that some Tories could rebel. This was Theresa May in yesterday's debate. I absolutely accept that the police have got for certain challenges for example when people glue themselves to vehicles or the gates of parliament. But freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy. However annoying or uncomfortable sometimes that might be. And I know there will be people who will have seen scenes of protests and will have said why isn't the government doing something. To which the answer in many cases may simply be because we live in a democratic free society. So I do worry about the potential unintended consequences of some of the measures in the bill which have been drawn quite widely. And we it has to be protests have to be under the rule of law but the law has to be proportionate. So the first area I would mention is the bringing of giving police the powers to deal with static protests in the way that they have been able to deal with marches because these have always been differentiated in the in the past. The second is around noise and nuisance because some of the definitions do look quite wide. And I think they I would urge the government to look at those definitions. And finally my point is about the power for the Home Secretary to make regulations about the meaning of serious disruption to the activities and organization or the life of the community. It's tempting with Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable because we all think we're reasonable. But actually future Home Secretary's may not be so reasonable. And I wonder if the government will be willing to publish a draft of those regulations during passage of the bill so we can actually see what that's going to be and make sure that it is not also encroaching on the operational decisions of the police. So there are very important elements of this bill but I would urge the government to consider carefully the need to walk a fine line between being popular and populist. Our freedoms depend on it. That was Theresa May there. I would say a powerful speech but to be honest it was kind of I got a very strange feeling inside when she was having that little in-joke with Pretty Patel because they were both Pretty Patel currently as Theresa May was very authoritarian Home Secretary. It's not the kind of people you would like to have the kind of discretion that this bill would give them if it is passed into law. But the reason I showed you that is because there were signals there that Theresa May could be the kind of Tory who would vote at least for some amendments potentially to take away some of the most draconian elements of that bill. I have to admit I'm not holding my breath. Aaron, what do you reckon? Is there any chance that this bill will ultimately be blocked, will not pass? No, I don't think it will be blocked. You know, we really should have James Butler on here talking about this because he is the Navarra media resident constitutional expert. But my sense is maybe you'll disagree with this. It's just enough Tories have to disagree. It's not a constitutional issue. Will there be enough Tories to rebel? Well, no, but it's about, no, I was about to talk about a constitutional issue. In other words, the right to protest in law and whether or not the Tories care about it, which is to say I kind of, I don't actually understand much of this debate if I'm Frank because we already have causing a public nuisance in this country. It's already been used for decades in undermining protest as has violent disorder, as has a bunch of public order crimes. You more remember Trenton Oldfield, Michael remember him? Chap who got involved in the Cambridge. Cambridge Oxford boat race, I think 2011, 2012. Yeah. Do you remember that the guy that interrupted the boat race? Yeah, I do. What did he get charged with? Public nuisance. Six months in prison had to leave the country. So I don't really understand. You know, we like to say to ourselves, we have a right to protest. Actually, we don't. There are a bunch of laws where the police can use a great deal of latitude and discretion to stop the protest, which is what everybody is saying is the case with this new legislation. Yes, it's not good. Yes, it's clearly a deterioration of where we already are, but I feel like people are overreacting the extent to which it marks a shift. So in essence, why would the Tories kind of back away from it? It's a slight modification of where we already are. And again, maybe our audience disagrees with that. Maybe Jim's butler disagrees with that or yourself. That's my personal feeling. You know, I feel like this is the resistance to this is being based upon a myth of right to protest, which we don't have. We don't. I mean, legally, we have it. But in practice, in terms of how the police enforce laws, which exist in ways they shouldn't be enforced, probably, yeah, I don't really see it as a huge departure. Well, I mean, I suppose the reason it is being brought in, I mean, the ones I the charges I know that normally get thrown at protest are aggravated trespass, which is when you trespass on some property and then stop people going about their daily duty. And that's the one I often see protesters get done for. And then violent disorder, as you say, I'm not I'm not sure about the case of the guy who went in front of of them. Can I come back in? Yes, sure. You know, David, David Lammy says, Oh, what would you have done about, you know, the Jaro marches coming down to London? Would you have stopped them at York? Honestly, the police probably today would do them for traffic violations, obstruction of traffic. That's probably what they would stop them on. Yes, that's exactly what happened over. It is important to note, though, that the reason these are being brought in is because there were some protests which were very effective, which Cressida Dick, who is the Met Commissioner, asked or told the Home Secretary that she did not have enough powers to stop. So especially Extinction Rebellion, which really changed the narrative on climate change in this country, incredibly effective protest. And the way they changed the narrative was by making sure that climate change was a top story in the newspapers and on talk radio for days and weeks at times. And that was because they caused a real nuisance. They got inroads, they blocked roads, and they stopped people going about their normal daily business. Sometimes you had to walk across the bridge instead of getting the bus out for it. I always found that quite enjoyable. I'm sure some people found that irritating. And the reason the Met couldn't stop that, couldn't clear people off that bridge is because in law, there was no laws that were being broken there. And so this is being brought in specifically to stop people protesting like that. So it is being done for a reason, and it is being done to stop the kind of effective protests that have been taking place over the past five to 10 years. I'm not disputing that, and I think what's really concerning about this legislation isn't that it's new. It's the fact that it's already stuff that could be sort of enforced by the police. But as you're right to highlight here, Michael, the whole point here is to actually offer a very streamlined set of legislation. And it's far more punitive, right? Obstruction of traffic isn't going to land somebody in prison for 18 months. Whereas this May, that ultimately could have applied also to Extinction Rebellion when they were blocking Waterloo Bridge. That is a traffic fence. But you're right, that's not really going to land enough people in prison. It's not going to create the disincentive for people to not do it, which is of course what they're trying to do here. So the idea that this law would stop, technically stop forms of protest which are already permitted, I don't think that's accurate. What it's about doing is actually, right now we have some very sort of ambiguous permeable laws, like aggravated trespass. Yes, it's a criminal offense. You know what, you're probably going to get a couple of hundred quid fine or maybe a bit of community service and actually saying, no, we're going to make this a really serious offense and you're going to think twice before you do it. So I think, you know, that's not to say it's good. It's clearly very bad. But I think, you know, we need a bit more precision when it comes to analysis here. These are not things we can presently do, but we won't be able to do when this legislation passes. No, it's about an escalation by the state in the extent to which they want to use coercion. You know, hitherto, they've used a bit of consent and a bit of coercion and people could do effectively, illegal forms of protest and the overhead wasn't too massive. That's about to change. So I think that precision is needed in this debate. No, I suppose that, so you're saying that Extinction Rebellion potentially were breaking some laws, but they weren't breaking enough laws that the Met Police could act in a way that they wanted to act. Just saying it wasn't necessarily that these were legal per se, but they are being made, yep, the law is being made more punitive, so they will be able to more effectively dissuade people from taking the kind of actions that Extinction Rebellion would take. You can't imagine the CPS going to the Met Police and going, we don't want to charge 600 people with obstruction of a highway. You know, that's a complete waste of our time resources and so on. If you say, well, look, we can take all these activists off the street, we can put them on police bail and they can't protest within five miles of London for months on end, great for them. It's a very different calculation. So I'm glad we're of a mind on this, Michael. Good, good. I'm relieved. Who haven't, we obviously haven't heard from the Free Speech Union. We haven't heard from Toby Young. No one's come out and said, oh, this is a real problem for our democratic freedoms that there is going to be this law which stops us annoying people. Everyone who's made their career out, saying we have the right to offend people, we have the right to annoy people when it comes actually to a law which will be imposed and prison time is being threatened to people. They all go silent, which isn't particularly surprising, but it does emphasise the point that what they have always really been about is not free speech. People who are, as I've sort of already mentioned, organising against this are sisters uncut. They have a meeting tomorrow at 7pm, apparently online, organising what happens next. So if you check their Twitter, that will probably be worth attending. What am I saying? It will definitely be worth attending. And we have almost 2,000 people watching do share the stream. We want to get that to at least 2,000 and then hire again. We have a first comment as well from Anne-Marie Menon with two 10-pound superchats. Thank you very much. Got my first vaccine today, so quite happy about that. Been a long-time listener, first-time contributor. Hope to make more regular contributions when I'm finally off furlough. I hope you do make more regular contributions when you're finally off furlough. And I'm incredibly jealous that you got your first vaccine today. I'm sure I'll spend the evening getting over the fact that I might have to wait another month for mine. But it'll be okay. Now, the horrific murder of Sarah Everard has shone a light on the need for stronger measures to challenge violence against women. Campaigners have been calling for numerous changes to be implemented, including reforms to how rape cases are investigated and prosecuted, or rolling out better relationship education to teenage boys. However, instead of taking these changes up, the government has announced a policy no one had been asking for. Undercover cops in nightclubs. Yes, the Times reported on Tuesday morning that bars and clubs will be patrolled by plainclothes police officers at night to protect women from sexual harassment and assault. They report Boris Johnson announced measures last night in an attempt to reassure women after the killing of Sarah Everard. Pilot schemes will be run across the country with more patrols to identify predatory and suspicious offenders. The government is doubling a fund that provides deterrents such as better lighting and CCTV to 45 million pounds. We've been in lockdown for a long time. People have really been looking forward to going out and being able to go clubbing again. No one wants to see that undercover cop mingling at the bar to discuss this terrible idea I'm joined by Bryony Beynon from the Good Night Out campaign. Thank you so much for joining me this evening Bryony. Good evening, Michael. So I'm going to get your opinion on this particular proposal in one moment. First of all, can you explain to our audience what it is that you do? What the Good Night Out campaign? Yeah, absolutely. So we started as a kind of grassroots project in about 2014. We do lots of work to build community around safer nightlife. One of the main things that we do is we accredit venues, pubs, bars, clubs, event organisers to reach a certain standard in terms of safety and preventing sexual harassment and assault. So that might look like talking to workers about the issues and experiencing harassment and they weren't seeing it. And then the main thing we do is offer specialist training around that that understands the gendered nature of this but also includes things like what are the issues in terms of making sure the queer community is safe. Things like safe, inclusive bathroom access, disabled access for everyone and really just challenging a lot of the myths that are out there around this obviously in an environment where places are serving alcohol. Like that's one of the key myths about how alcohol interplays with this. Yeah, I've trained more than 2000 nightlife workers on this topic and something that I have never heard is you know what we really need that would really help us with this? Couple undercover officers in the place. That would be fab. That would make all the difference. So yeah. So I mean you say that no one's been asking for that. If this were to happen, if it were to be the case that you're in these clubs where you've been training staff members, where you've been thinking about how do interrelationships work in clubs and how does abuse happen and what are the social dynamics that happen when people are drunk? I mean what difference would it make? Positive or negative to have an undercover cop sort of you know lurking or I don't know what they'd be doing. They'd just be standing awkwardly at the bar or something like that. Lurking for sure. Just more men staring, wouldn't it really? Yeah, you have to wonder like what planet people are on, you know? I really like I'm assuming they're not inviting undercovers into the strangest bar in the comments, right? Like it's clearly a total distraction tactic and it always was and part of me almost doesn't want to give it too much air because it's so ridiculous. They've clearly tried to say something totally deranged and take the chaos approach so that people forget that officers had their hands all over women without their consent at the bandstand on Saturday. I would say yeah, like having thought and done a lot of work out about this over the years that it also you know if we took them with their word that they did think that this was a good idea it's predicated on like a fundamental a misunderstanding of how this stuff works, right? Like firstly, there are lots of behaviors that are not unlawful but that are in most places totally socially unacceptable, right? So the idea that an undercover police officer is going to be the appropriate person to challenge those and de-escalate those kinds of things makes no sense not least because they're also undercover. There's that aspect. I guess it also would undermine staff and securities role in creating a safer environment. Most people probably know that door staff are regulated by the Security Industry Authority which provides some training that not enough around this area but they have a role to play and that could be a very strange dynamic. And I think the most important thing that seems to have been completely not gotten around this is that like predators in venues, premises, clubs work quite hard to create like plausible deniability around this. So they'll often coerce somebody into appearing to leave willingly. So this often isn't something that you can like observe from the outside. So the idea that undercovers would be able to somehow like be able to read people's minds in effect. Like the solution obviously is about creating an environment where people are able to name what's happening and seek support around it from staff, from security or even just from other people at random, right? That's what we want in clubs and bars. We want that feeling of conveniality, community. Well, it's also, I mean, it creates also one of the first things I thought was it creates another way that people can claim plausible deniability which is you're a creepy guy in a pub staring at people. Someone's saying, what the hell are you doing? You're like, I'm an undercover cop, you know? Yeah, yeah, I mean, yeah. Freaks me out. You've said I think quite rightly this is probably a bit of a distraction. I can't imagine undercover cops being allowed in many of the clubs I frequent. What then should we be focusing on? Because I mean, I assume in your line of work you do recognize that, you know, there are still very serious problems when it comes to sexual harassment out at nightclubs. What should the government be talking about and focusing on? Yeah, I mean, of course, that's why we started the organization. So the real, this is all about cultural change, right? And people have been saying that a lot over the last few weeks, over the last few days, I guess, sometimes I think we need to really zero on what that looks like. I think in practice when workers who are often very precariously employed, zero hours, et cetera, when they do feel like they've got the confidence and skills to be able to challenge stuff, whether it's happening to them, a colleague or a customer, that makes a big difference. Strong, like consistent policies, you know, just like a venue might have, you might have to have like a glass safety policy or like, you've got to know where the fire exits are, right? Everyone who works there should also know, what do I do if someone discloses sexual harassment or assault? Customer education in terms of that, it's okay to ask for help around this and that people have been trained and you will be supported, like sending that message. I think community building around like being active bystanders, right? So taking care of each other and making sure that, yeah, we don't leave it up to sort of an apocryphal possible undercover in the corner wearing bootcut jeans to be the person to sort of act because clearly they're not going to be. I would, yeah, just say I suppose that it is a, well, I joke because I just think this is so ridiculous. It's very frustrating that the government just isn't listening to a very established like community of practice, obviously beyond our like specialist organization, but just generally like the women's sector and the gender-based violence sector more broadly. There is the research out there. There are like incredibly experienced, like specialist practitioners and academics who know how this stuff works. And have been trying to, you know, get that advice out there to the government. And this just feels, I suppose, like a bit of a slap in the face and like, could the stakes be any higher? You know? And Brian and Bynum, thank you so much for joining us this evening. That was all incredibly clarifying. I would much rather you were in charge at safety in clubs and the Pretty Patel, I can say that for sure. Thank you very much. We're going to go straight on to our next story. Before we do that, do hit the like button. It helps us on the algorithm. On Tuesday, Labour's MP for Hartlepool resigned, triggering a by-election in the now-marginal seat. Mike Kill was facing a tribunal for sexual harassment allegations, which he denies. And according to Politico, resigned following pressure from Keir Starmer. The by-election will pose a challenge for Labour who have held the seat since its creation in 1974. That's because it voted heavily for Brexit and the combined vote share of the Brexit Party and the Conservatives was 6,000 above that of Labour in 2019. We can get up those results from that most recent election. You can see there Labour won three and a half thousand votes above the Conservatives. But at the same time, the Brexit Party, their candidate was Richard Tice who was the leader of the party, he got 10,000. So if all of those Brexit Party voters go towards the Conservatives, that would be big trouble for the Labour Party. That's not necessarily going to happen though because we have had a similar situation before. So in 2015, there was another situation and where the combined vote share of UKIP and the Conservatives was higher than Labour. I think we can get up a graphic now about the history of the vote there. You can see in 2015, UKIP and the Tories have a combined vote share, which is higher than the Labour Party. But then in 2017, when UKIP's vote collapsed, Labour gained 17 points. The Tories only 13. So you can see that there wasn't this one-to-one transfer between a pro-Brexit Party and the Conservatives. Obviously, that all changed in 2019 when Labour went into that election on proposing a second referendum. Let's quickly look at what the 2017 results were. In fact, so you can see here, Mike Hill at that point won 21,000 votes. 52% of the vote, that was up 16 points on the previous election. So that is a reminder, quite how phenomenally successful in many ways that 2017 election was. Aaron, what do you make of this? It's not exactly the by-election the Labour Party would want, a seat they hold, but in strongly Brexit voting territory. Do you think they can cling on to this? I mean, they can. And it's not often you say that a by-election is particularly instructive as to broader patterns that it has predictive power for what may happen. You know, there was the Copeland by-election not long before the 2017 general election. You know, I think it's like that was the fifth by-election a government had won since the Second World War. And then, of course, the Tories, you know, their vote collapses in a general election, just I think a month later or six weeks later. So, you know, they're not particularly indicative of much, but I think Labour having problems particularly in the Northeast since 2019, but also obviously since Brexit. The fact that this is a seat where we've seen their vote share go down, you know, year on year on year with the exception of 2017. And the possibility that Labour will run a very sort of pro-remain candle. I won't talk about who they are. We may be talking about that in a second. What I would say is this is a really, this could be a really insightful by-election purely on the base of the candidate that runs. And that's why I think it's important to keep an eye on it. Normally, I wouldn't say that about by-elections, but I think this time it's different. So, let's talk about that candidate. We have some Keir Starmer ratings we can show you in a moment, but first of all, I want to talk about that. Very immediate question, which is who will Labour put forward to stand in Hartley-Paul? Now, Sebastian Payne from The Financial Times, he got hold of an email from the local Labour Party secretary on Sunday. So, that was two days before Hill's announcement. And that email suggests they already have someone lined up. So, in the section of that email, titled, Securing our Candidate, the secretary wrote, Should things progress as expected with John heading for PCC, which is Police and Crime Commissioner, and Paul accepting the offer of the parliamentary candidature will need to act to secure these arrangements with a single candidate shortlist being fairly controversial and with certain factions in the party certain to try to make a grab or call foul. Lotto, that's the leaders of the opposition office, require a formal letter from us to the NEC requesting that Paul be our candidate. The left will make a big deal of this and paint the selection as a stitch up by Starmer. We need to make it absolutely clear that these arrangements are local and that in the absence of a full selection process and the choice of a local candidate, Paul is the choice of the CLP. Now, the Paul in question, the Paul who the secretary of that CLP wants as their candidate is Paul Williams. He was a Labour MP in Stockton South before losing the seat in 2019. And now apparently he has recently been busy deleting tweets in support of a second EU referendum. In terms of how certain it is that this particular person will be selected, we will find out very soon because this process is running enormously quickly. So according to Sienna Rogers from Labour List yesterday, applications will now have closed because it was supposed to have closed by 5pm today. The National Executive Committee will then be long listing and short listing candidates tomorrow. So that's Thursday and then an online selection hustings will take place on Friday or Saturday. Aaron Bustani, the powers that be are not messing about on this particular one, are they? They're getting their candidate in quick and how well do you think Paul Williams will do? I don't want to make any predictions but I think he sounds like he could be just about the worst kind of candidate you could have in Hartley Paul. There are two kinds of candidates I wouldn't want to see in Hartley Paul. The first is a pro, well it doesn't matter what I think I'm not a member of the Labour Party but in terms of Labour's rational self-interest. The first would be an ultra-Romano like this chap. I think he broke the whip from Corbyn's soft Brexit position six, seven times. He was a hard core Romano. It wasn't like, I think leaving the EU is a bad idea. You can say that. He was one of these kind of hashtag people's vote people. It didn't go quite as far as Emily Thornberry by getting the kind of the EU stars out in a necklace but it was pretty close. In a place which is 70% leave I believe in 2016 that's probably not a smart idea. Also I've seen some people say oh well he was previously representing Stockton. That's half an hour away from Hartley Paul. That's like saying oh well this person represented Southampton. They can go represent Portsmouth or Bournemouth or Brighton. That's not how it works. So somebody who's not local somebody who had a very distinct position on Brexit which really isn't in keeping with the rest of the area. And then also I think going back to your previous question about we've been here before with UKIP and also of course there was the stoke by election which Paul Nuttall lost. Labour kept and it was kind of seen as this really important moment for Corbyn. This isn't the same because you know Labour aren't confronting UKIP led by Paul Nuttall or by Nigel Farage even. They're confronting a Conservative party with an 80 majority built on precisely this kind of seat and the Tories are only gaining in popularity in the last six months in particular really. Last three months particularly this year but in the last six months there's clearly going to turn around in fortunes. Now on the one hand if you look at National Polling we'll talk about that in a second and you extrapolate that to Hartley Paul. Labour should win this. They should win this but I think if you're looking at Labour in mid 30s nationally and then they lose Hartley Paul something very strange is going on and I think that's the kind of worst-case scenario Labour would be looking at. I saw a I saw an electoral map I think it was based on I think it was based on a poll which had Labour on 30 through 32 nationally maybe you saw this too Michael which had Labour on 180 circa 180 seats. Now what was really interesting was that Ilford North could lose that West Reading I think it's Ilford North it was West Reading seat I don't want to get Sam Terry you know Mike Gates successor wrong here it was West Reading seat that was looking dodgy Angela Reiner's seat that was looking dodgy the Shadow Home Secretary's seat in South Wales that was looking dodgy but Labour kept Canterbury kept Portsmouth South which were seats they literally never won until 2017. So I mean that tells you something really profound which is Labour even under Starmer and again you know we need to wait for this by-election result to come to fruition it could be that Labour win 34-35% of the vote at a general election and still lose seats and again that's why this by-election is so instructive about broader patterns I think it would be very close I think it would be very very close if I had to bet on it I would say the Tories would win but I think it would be very close I think it's probably too close to call. I think I mean I'd bet that Labour would win for the following reason which is that 2019 was the Brexit election so people it was called the Brexit election on Sky News the two most important policies of the party were that Labour was going to have a second referendum and the Tories were going to get Brexit done so I can't imagine that Brexit has any more salience now than it did then you know it should have less salience if anything which I would have thought would would go against the Conservatives now obviously people are worried that would will that Brexit party vote switch to the Conservatives that would be the problem there will be reform that's the reform UK part that's the new Nigel Farage outfit but I doubt they'll do particularly well but I'd have thought that because Brexit is over Covid is now on on top of people's agenda and also the candidate is a doctor that's what's going for him and he's an NHS doctor so he would have been working on the Covid front line I would expect that if they kept the seat in 2019 they should really do the same again I want to end the section by just looking at some new stats that we're out today which is the the ratings for Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer which for the first time in a while Boris Johnson is doing better when it comes to favourability ratings than Keir Starmer neither of them are doing amazing I think we can get this up it's graphic 11 Fox so Boris Johnson 41% have a favourable attitude towards him which is up one 52% unfavourable and Keir Starmer 31% favourable and 49% unfavourable 3% less on favourable and five five points more on unfavourable so net rating of minus 11 for Boris Johnson and net rating of minus 18 for Starmer not particularly impressive but it could actually you know this could actually be quite good for Keir Starmer right if he wins back Hartley Paul then he can and potentially with a with a bigger mandate then he can say look I'm I'm a success I mean that's true Mike I love how the camera just comes to me and I'm looking at Mike that's true you know look polls don't matter ultimately elections matter that's what matters if you know we can talk about Keir Starmer's personal approval ratings then people think this and that it's all speculation if Labour do well in the local elections if they don't complete I mean they're going to do terribly in Scotland if they do not as bad as possibly you know they could do in Scotland if they do well in Wales yeah all of a sudden people say Keir Starmer has a real short of being Prime Minister I don't think I don't I personally don't think that's going to happen actually for a bunch of reasons not necessarily in Keir Starmer's control so for instance everybody over 55 has been vaccinated they're the people most likely to do postal votes they're the people most likely to vote Tory so you know ultimately this is always going to be a very difficult set of elections for Labour but I do think Michael there's too many variables here look you're saying that well the vote was split in for Harlepool the vote was they won in 2019 they won at this time well yeah they won in 2019 because like the vote was basically split in half for the people running against them I think why Harlepool is really interesting and important is it's and again it's all been speculation you know to what extent was Brexit a cipher for broad discontent or broader a broader change in the sort of electoral coalition that Labour had historically based its success on and you know Harlepool's going to be really instructive about that Corbynism kind of put a cork in that for a couple of years because they had high turnout get the vote out of campaigns and so on that's no longer there with Starmer so it's going to have to be something different you know I think it's really too close to court but you're right you know logic and the head says it should be Labour but those approval raisings Michael are are calamitous you know for Keir Stamers be minus 18 Paul Mason, one of the people who backed him you know in January 2020 said that any leader that gets below minus 30 has to resign so I don't agree with that by the way I think that's a really stupid way to carry on but you know clearly he said that thinking that Keir Stamers the person he was backing would never find themselves in that situation so minus 18 is is huge and the collapse and support particularly from Labour voters is I think almost entirely we've seen this in the data repeatedly almost entirely from oxo last year you know this is not because he's going too far left this tanking in in approval ratings it's because people are seeing from the left a man who's been an opportunist who's attacked his own side and who frequently doesn't appear to have many principles you know he needs to change that if he wants to get that number going back up again we've got a couple of comments Simon Garrett with 1999 thank you very much can you please I don't know what happened to my words there can you please say happy birthday to Julie Batterson she is the best socialist I know and a wonderful person happy birthday Julie Batterson you sound great I'm going to throw this question to Aaron actually although I want quite a quick answer Joe Buckley with £5 asks what do you think of the northern independence party's chances in Hartlepool oh and I can answer that can you interview them please I'm sure we'll get them on soon yes we will but Aaron I know you've been thinking about how well they might perform yeah no we're going to get them on I'm actually going to interview somebody for Tuesday so there you go Michael about the politics of the politics of northern independence you know the sort of ultra banter timeline scenario is that the Tories win by a smaller margin than the vote for the northern independence party and again that that's again that's that could be really instructive because one of the possibilities of the Starmer leadership is a Balkanisation in the Labour vote that's one of the possibilities right two or three trans rights activists running against Rosie Duffield in Canterbury that's that's highly plausible and you know if you're looking at people that are winning by margins of 1000, 2000, 3000 like 2019 that becomes a major issue even if just the Greens bump up independent left activists sort of bump up local candidates and so on and the northern independence parties in that it's in that ballpark if they stand 20, 30 candidates in the next election and they get 1000 votes each that's going to that's going to really hurt Labour in a couple of places probably and that's a worry for them and so I think the northern independence party or parties like that or candidates like that are going to be a variable you know and it's going to be really interesting to see you know if they keep their deposit I don't I mean I don't want to be mean but keeping their deposit would be remarkable but if they got a couple of hundred votes I mean that would be I think a real accomplishment and they're in the national media they were in the local media the Hartley pool mail I think it was they launched the campaign they're registered with the electoral commission they've got a press operation they've got money they're getting a candidate they're getting policies good luck to them well we will definitely make politics more interesting if they do do well I look forward to your interview on northern independence Aaron on Tuesday Britain's Tory government published a long-awaited integrated review into the country's security, defense, development and foreign policy now it's billed as a manifesto for a global Britain in a competitive age which is obviously a reference to the international role the Tories promised for Britain after Brexit now the review includes a commitment to an Indo-Pacific tilt with a goal that Britain will be the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific committed for the long term with closer and deeper partnerships bilaterally and multilaterally laterally that will include seeking power status at the ASEAN group of East Asian states and increased involvement in free trade agreement between East Asian countries Australia and parts of the Americas it also labels Russia a direct threat with China a systemic challenge and links the so-called levelling up agenda with security by Britain aiming by aiming for Britain to become a leader on digital innovation most controversially though and the element of the review that surprised most people was the announcement on nuclear weapons and so the government announced that they are reversing plans to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpile and instead will be raising the cap on nuclear warheads to 260 they had been due to drop to 180 under previous plans that was from 2010 and to discuss this move this about turn on nuclear weapons I'm joined by Kate Hudson general secretary of the campaign for nuclear disarmament who I know joins us directly from a big rally that CND have been have been organizing so thanks for making time for us this evening pleasure Michael nice to be here yeah we had 500 on the actual zoom and then thousands across the platform so it's a shame that Boris Johnson has to do something so terrible has increased the nuclear arsenal to get us a really big audience but that's how it goes yeah that's how it goes was it a surprise for you so I mean I think many journalists they didn't you know this hadn't been trailed in advance I certainly didn't have on you know on my wavelength that the Tories were going to plan to increase the number of nuclear weapons we had were you taken off guard by this yeah completely because this didn't the integrated review has been trailed for ages you know then because of the pandemic it was postponed and because Boris Johnson has made his big defense spending announcement in the autumn you know 14 and a half billion extra kind of thing everyone thought oh well that's that's not the stuffing out of the integrated review it's not going to be much because it was about money and they've done that and then hey presto you know as well as things you might expect like the Indo-Pacific tilt and do more on cyber and so on you know suddenly massive increase in the nuclear arsenal and as you say no one thought that that was going to happen the great thing is that pretty much everybody thinks it's crazy and someone on on our rally just now was saying that they don't normally quote the sun in public meetings but actually the sun thinks it's a crazy idea so does the times and so does pretty much everybody you know including cross-party opinion on it so I mean why that's got to be the big question out of the blue and no real rationale behind it so can you spell out the significance of this because I mean you could think look the the limit was supposed to be 180 nuclear weapons it's going up to 260 nuclear weapons I mean how much more damaging is 260 nuclear weapons than 180 I feel like you know you can do enough damage with 180 so what is the significance why does it matter if we're going to have 260 as a limit instead of 180 what's what's the significance of this well the the trend since the end of the Cold War has been down it's been down globally I think we had about 70,000 at the end of the Cold War globally now there's about 14,000 globally Biden and Putin have just renewed the new start treaty one of the first things Biden did when he came in that's their bilateral nuclear reductions treaty so they're on track to continue reducing their nuclear arsenals and Boris Johnson turns around says actually we're going to increase our arsenal even though we've been on the same downwards path and as you said in 2010 the government then the Cameron government said okay we're going to reduce our arsenal down to 180 by the mid 2020s and that was completely all of a piece with post Cold War policy here and globally so he's kind of turned the whole thing upside down really so in terms of what it actually means in terms of the nukes we we've got at the moment we've got about 195 we're sort of on the way down to we're on the way down to the 180 each of those nuclear weapons is around about eight times the power of the Hiroshima bomb which as you know killed over 200,000 people so kind of ballpark calculation given that they're dropped usually on cities and dense population centres we already have the capacity to kill over 300 million people so it's like kind of let's have kill another 100 million people so to speak you know so it's kind of you already we already have enough to deal with any conceivable risks if you see it even in their own argument in terms of their own argument they have enough they have they have more than enough so why do that particularly at a time when the MOD even with the extra spending it's strapped for cash they've got these huge big budget things there's the new aircraft carrier they're going to send that off to the the South China Sea which is another complete piece of madness you know all this kind of ratcheting up tension so why are they going why are they doing that now there's there's one kind of debate around it which is sort of a bit esoteric for normal people which is that the Americans haven't been wanting to spend money on a new nuclear warhead to replace our existing one which would be standard replacement so they've been holding back Britain's been putting huge pressure on the U.S. Congress actually to build new nuclear warheads so there's some idea this is trying to shame the U.S. into actually going ahead with the new warhead that may be the case but it doesn't doesn't seem quite right to me maybe it's more to do with the whole kind of global Britain positioning wanting to show that Britain's still a force to be reckoned with you know the kind of punching above our way idea which I mean Blair had that idea around the Iraq war prime ministers tend to have some notion of that kind it's a status thing as well so maybe he thinks it's a way to re-put Britain on the map bit of a crazy way to do it one of the first responses and you said you know that the message this sends and I think it is very clear the message it sends if you're increasing the number of nuclear weapons you have and one of the one of the first responses to that announcement was from Iran's foreign minister who on Twitter tweeted in utter hypocrisy Boris Johnson is concerned about Iran developing a viable nuclear weapon on the very same day he announces his country will increase its stock pile of nukes unlike the UK and allies Iran believes nukes and all WMDs are barbaric and must be eradicated it's undeniable that he has a point there I want to look up or get up the number of nuclear warheads held by each country at the moment so as a reminder Russia currently has 6,372 these are all estimates the United States 5,800 China 320 France 290 Britain will be increasing the cap from 195 to 260 Pakistan with 160 India with 150 Israel with 90 and North Korea with 35 and I suppose my final question for you is is sort of a broader one which is where are we in terms of multilateral disarmament I mean obviously you know since the decline of the Cold War it has become or to most people less of a political issue that's at the top of their agenda but are we in general other than this announcement from Britain moving in the right direction or do you see that actually tensions are being increased and the danger of some sort of nuclear blow-up is on the increase it's a kind of it's a bit of a mixed bag because as I said the weapons are coming down of those big stockpiles with the US and Russia most of those are in mothballs in the cupboards somewhere and are going to be got rid of so they've only got about one and a half thousand each actually ready to use so to speak so it's kind of it's sort of less bad than it might seem on one level you know but at the same time all countries with nuclear weapons are so-called modernizing which means they may have less but they have state of the art kit because they've modernized them you know so there's a kind of of a difficulty around that but definitely there is a very strong trend globally for nuclear disarmament there's a new treaty that's come to the United Nations it was ratified come into force in January which is led by the countries of the global south which is called the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons otherwise known as the nuclear ban treaty and they got so sick of no progress being made by the nuclear weapons states that the nuclear on for refrigeration treaty and other you know tedious things like treaties and stuff like that they got so fed up that they introduced the new UN treaty just to ban nuclear weapons and countries one after the other signing up to it you know so there's kind of trend it's like the global south and the countries without them are trying to take matters into their own hands and really push for nuclear disarmament so globally it's not kind of some weird thing which CND is just interested in it's actually the majority of the world and the whole of the global south and other parts of the north they're already self organized into nuclear weapons free zones you know it's only in places like Britain that people think oh they're very important we have to have them for our security everyone else thinks well you know just get rid of them you know so we are really out of step on this Kate Hudson Hudson thank you so much for for joining us this evening thank you thank you very much the other part of the integrated review which has generated opposition is the stance the government took when it comes to China namely many Tory backbenchers and it's being repeated by some people on the liberal side of the aisle as well are complaining it wasn't hawkish enough it wasn't tough enough on China and let's first look at what the integrated review said about relations with China this is in the summary section of the document so they write we will invest in enhanced China facing capabilities through which we will develop a better understanding of China and its people while improving our ability to respond to the systemic challenge that it poses to our security prosperity and values and those of our allies and partners we will continue to pursue a positive trade and investment relationship with China while ensuring our national security and values are protected we will also cooperate with China in tackling transnational challenges such as climate change now they've called China there a systemic challenge which gives it different status to Russia which is characterized principally as a security threat the commitment to engagement with China has prompted backlash from Tory backbenchers including Julian Lewis Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee he accused the government of naivety now though there are strong analytical aspects to this review it's suggested on pages 62 to 3 that our adversary communist China quotes is an increasingly important partner in tackling global challenges like pandemic preparedness if you please and that we want deeper trade links and more Chinese investment in the UK doesn't that unfortunately demonstrate that the grasping naivety of the Cameron Osborne year still lingers on in some departments of state so the naivety of the of the Cameron and Osborne years apologies was when they were reaching out to try and create stronger trade links with China because they saw it as the new growth region of the world now people are saying actually that was naive things like the deal and to be building nuclear power stations and 5G etc the government have been pulling back from some of those Aaron I want your your thought on the broader point here though which is the clamor from Tory backbenchers and some people on the left for a more hawkish approach to China to sort of see China as this big threat to our values which we should be proactively confronting oh yeah it's ridiculous I completely disagree with that they're they're insane they're deranged they are completely out of touch with the real they're completely out of touch reality Michael the People's Liberation Army is 2.2 million people the British armed forces including the territorials I think is 150,000 and includes like cooks and stuff 2.2 million 150,000 you know their defence budget is enormous compared to ours this is Britain couldn't defend Southeast Asia couldn't defend Singapore against Japan in 1942 what hope is there go against China in 2021 come on this isn't the 19th century anymore Britain wasn't capable of projecting power in East Asia 80 years ago right when it had an empire when it had South Asia when it had India come on this is ridiculous but that's not to say China is a wonderful country you know you know good luck to the People's Liberation Army it's just about an objective assessment of facts no I mean that's why we develop nuclear weapons because ultimately you know conventional warfare is incredibly expensive and that's the argument for nuclear weapons I don't agree with it but it's a coherent argument which is you know we don't want to spend huge amounts of money and resources and people on a large conventional army to compete with China Russia India the US so we'll do this thing instead I get that but you know Britain can't have nukes and go for the big conventional army as well we've got we're a country of 65 million people it's just ridiculous that's why NATO was set up this isn't even like a nostalgic for like the 50s this is like going back 100 years come on I mean that's the real politic argument for why it would be you know ridiculous to say let's let's confront China because you'd lose and all those I mean with America you're gonna have very you know well matched militaries but it's going to be hellish if anything does break out I mean what frustrates me is that both from the right and the left the way people talk about China and the rise of China is that it's just a challenge it's a challenge to our abstract violent sorry our abstract values that this country is having such success and I think what that just completely overlooks both on the left and the right is the fact that yes there are there are many things about the the communist regime in China the CCP regime which I would disagree with especially what's going on in Xinjiang but the rise of China in itself is actually really good it's a phenomenal achievement it's lifted 850 million people out of extreme poverty I want to bring up a graphic here which is showing you how the number of people in poverty has changed over the last 30 years and you can see there you've gone from having hundreds of millions of people in China in extreme poverty to none and that is not how the rest of the world looks if you look at India it's declined but it hasn't declined by nearly as much if you look at the rest of the world it's barely declined so you have a mode of governance which has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty yes there are things to criticize yes we should be putting pressure in in different places on specific issues but to just posit this as oh it's a it's a threat to our liberal values that they've had such success I mean the threats are liberal values should be the fact that the places where they have a liberal democracy haven't succeeded very well because we have either overthrown their governments or we've imposed unfair trading systems on them which means that they languish in poverty so I think to say ah this country's being so successful what a threat to us when you know what success in practice means is that people are moving from lives of poverty to middle class lifestyles which you know everyone wants I want to live a little middle class lifestyle most people do that I just think it's so myopic and it really frustrates me I want to bring up another clip because this is from Dominic Raab which and again I think the discourse around this has been quite ridiculous this was leaked to the Huffington Post it's been doing the rounds now the video is not brilliant quality but the subtitles will show you what the foreign secretary said on his call to staff so I've squarely believed we ought to be trading liberally around the world if we restrict the countries with ECHR level status human rights we're not going to do many trade deals with the growth markets of the future now if you missed any of that I'll get up the the quote just so you're clear about what he said because the call quality wasn't great so Raab said and when it comes to Britain negotiating trade deals if we restrict it to countries with ECHR that's European convention on human rights level standard of human rights we're not going to do many trade deals with the growth markets of the future the journalist there was some pushback from Dominic Raab about that that particular tweet being shared the journalist from the Huffington Post who broke the story later tweeted following that pushback we understand that Raab also used the meeting to say he can think of behavior that would cross the line and render a country beyond the pale and that he was pursuing a calibrated approach of engaging to try and exert positive influence now why do I think that some of the pushback about this where they say oh this is completely outrageous how dare we sign trade deals with countries that don't have there's exactly the same standards and levels and concepts of human rights as the European convention of human rights that's not because I think human rights should have no role in our trade policy it should that's why we shouldn't sell weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia which commit war crimes it's also why we shouldn't block countries like India and South Africa when they push for open patents on Covid-19 vaccinations because they want to be able to vaccinate their populations without waiting for Pfizer to get round to it but the idea which I think has come across much of the backlash I'm going to show you the worst example here that we shouldn't trade with countries unless their political systems conform to those in Europe is just nonsense it's also led to some pretty ahistorical takes this is the dumbest one I saw this is from James O'Brien he tweets the European convention on human rights was Churchill's dream in the center of our movement stands the idea of a charter of human rights guarded by freedom and sustained by law 1948 they promised to protect his statue whilst destroying one of his most precious legacies now one James O'Brien Churchill was a colonialist with direct responsibility for three million deaths in the Bengal famine please do not hold him up as an advocate for human rights in the global south second only trading with western states is not progressive that's not a progressive position I think there's so many people want to bash the Tories say how dare you trade with this country of 1.5 billion people across the world because they have some policies which quite rightly we object to that's not a progressive position Aaron I know you'll have loads to say about this I first want to ask you though when will James O'Brien get round to reading a history book oh my god why don't you say Michael he's on the radio three hours a day so perhaps he doesn't have time and he does he does tweet a lot I mean you know guilty as charged the rest of us as well and we read fortunately so I think it must be down to the radio but yeah now this was that claim I mean my god I just want to sort of roll back a bit you know the the single biggest failure of western foreign policy in the 20th century was failing to dismantle China and failing to stop the Chinese revolution that's the single greatest failure they didn't you know the intention was to balkanize the CIA wants to balkanize China that's what they wanted to do and that's why the debate around Xinjiang and Tibet can often be quite toxic because it's both points are true that on the one hand yes there are labor camps in Xinjiang I shouldn't I'm not chuckling about this there are labor camps in Xinjiang there's been effectively a clear clamp down on freedom of religious expression a clear clamp down on on civil liberties all undeniably true right but at the same time we know that for 70-80 years the United States has sought to balkanize China and it's sought to elsewhere use liberation movements to undermine you know increasingly assertive governments in the global south we know that both of these things are true that's a really important and on the left if we if we want to be smart and informed we need to be able to hold two different things up at the same time really really important you don't have to believe one which necessarily means you can't believe the other now with that in mind about China being where it is today it was never meant to be this successful you know it's seen its GDP triple since 2008 they've built in the meantime 35,000 kilometers of high-speed rail you know these are remarkable achievements it's going to be a superpower in AI in genomics in a plethora of technologies CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing and so on it's already going toe-to-toe with the U.S. it's certainly ahead of the European Union in these areas in these huge growth areas of the next several decades that was like I say never meant to happen and the Western powers are very happy for China to be a low GDP country not move up commodity chains it was absolutely fine for Nike and Adidas and Apple you know to have factories over in Shenzhen and to make products that would then be sold in markets in Europe and North America that was fine because most of the value was going back to our people when they move up the commodity chains when they start to make their own electric cars when they start to make their own lithium ion batteries when they start to make build companies like Huawei which actually is the global leader on 5G technologies well all of a sudden they're showing something we've not seen for 250 years which is strategic leadership in technology and strategic leadership in technology tends to precede strategic leadership in terms of military affairs and so that's the thing that's got the Americans most spooked is that companies like Huawei are effectively competitive with the US and they may have a strategic advantage in robotics and AI and these other areas which is also why the UK for instance did what the US wanted to do by not allowing for Huawei to participate in procurement contracts and I think ultimately they want to get Huawei out of the UK altogether and that's because it's a particular area that the Americans want to really clamp down on so James O'Brien is talking from a place of utter ignorance you know is he aware of what for instance we did to the summer palace in the 1860s, 70s in the mid 19th century for no particular reason we destroyed an incredible part of King dynasty you know architecture and civilization and when you walk around Britain you go to various antique shops you go to auction houses you'll often see a little Chinese vase and people say oh yeah this is from the King dynasty that's literally because we ransacked the country for several decades destroying it it was a miracle it wasn't dismantled and taken apart it's a miracle there wasn't a scramble for China like there was in Africa it's a miracle and people involved in the national liberation movement in the 1930s and 40s knew that and it drove them forward and people today aren't thick right Michael and this is the thing and you keep on appealing to the statistics there is a great deal of consent for the Chinese Communist Party there is and this is data that's there in you know this isn't like Aaron Vestani and Michael Walker said it on Tiskey Sauer this is like you know Pew Research Top Top Research Top Data which we trust normally which says that actually levels of public satisfaction with the government in China are consistently higher than there would be in any country in the EU I think and the United States and that's something we have to take really seriously now why because they look at sub-Saharan Africa they look at South Asia and they look at the accomplishments they made in the last 30-40 years and it's pretty obvious that they've achieved something they weren't meant to achieve and it's pretty obvious they've managed to turn around I think they call it the center of humiliation they've turned around that center of humiliation where you had Macau and Hong Kong and you had all the major European powers the French the British the Germans the Italians the Portuguese the Americans were all trying to nibble away at the sort of at the Chinese market and so on so James O'Brien has no idea what he is talking about you know we we were Britain was at the British Empire was a narco state selling opium in order to you know retain a trade surplus with China that's why we sold them opium it was because for thousands of years Michael the Chinese didn't need anything from Europe they didn't want anything they never you know they never they never pillaged or took anything they had a large country with everything that they need I mean they've got various tributary states and so on but I'm talking about what we did going to Africa and South America and North America and so on as Europeans they never did any of that they never entertained any of that repeated instances of Europeans trying to open up the Chinese market the Chinese just weren't interested Commodore you know I think was it Commodore Perry with with Japan that you know the Toca going Shogunate the Japanese didn't want to be involved in this but they weren't as large as China and they said look we've got to open up and we've got to reform we've got to be a part of this which is why the Japanese were the first kind of developed power in East Asia and of course the first colonial power in East Asia you could one might argue the only one and now anyway I'll conclude with this because I've been going on for so long Michael Europeans have to have a bit of humility when we talk about what's going on in China right now both from a perspective of political economy and yes taking 750 850 million people out of poverty and also the historical context hugely hugely important you know what we did to that country was horrific also important to say China and India you know according to the Angus Madison GDP statistics these are the two largest economies for 18 of the last 20 centuries this is a return to normal Dominic Rab this is a return to normal James O'Brien China for almost the entirety of you know documented history has been one of the most advanced civilized affluent economies on earth and we had a blip for 150 years and now we're going back to business as usual that's the world we now live in you know get used to it adapt to it but you can't ignore it and you certainly can't stop it I think I think that thing you say about they weren't supposed to succeed is really important because that is why you know hawkish people on the left and right or the liberals or whoever see China as a threat because I mean yes they're doing some bad things the human rights abuses in Xinjiang seem terrible but the human rights abuses in Kashmir also seem terrible the human rights abuses that America committed in Iraq were terrible should we campaign against all of those terrible policies yes but only one of those policies leads western analysts and liberal columnists to say oh then that whole system should collapse right and the reason people see China as a challenge when they're abusing human rights but they don't see India as a challenge when they're abusing human rights is because China has a median income now of 10,000 and India has a median income of 2,000 even though they started from the same base right so and I think the word I come back to most on China are in is humility which is that it's really really difficult to bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty especially when you have the west constantly overthrowing democratically elected governments if they dare to go against the interests of foreign companies who are coming in and trying to gut their systems I just think people need a bit of humility and the people like James O'Brien say oh no we can't we can't trade with with these countries because they've got because they're not they don't have our values it's just completely ahistorical and doesn't pay any attention to the history of the global south over the last 50 years over the last 80 years over the last 200 years we should probably end there any final thoughts on that it's a huge topic yeah I know you know I'm trying to get hold of Martin Jack when China rule the world to get him on the very media to talk to him about this at length you know I I think Michael and I'll say this you know also oh we don't want to buy things from China well you know where about 70% of the world's photovoltaic cells are made if you want to decarbonize affordably we're going to need to buy them from China sorry about that or how about rare earth metals if you want to build you know large capacity for electricity storage again kind of a bit of a problem there James if you don't want to trade with low GDP countries or countries you know who's whose political systems you don't like the single worst thing the single worst thing that could happen to humanity right now would be regime change in China the single worst thing the balkanization of China in terms of broader instability in terms of inhibiting progress with regards to decarbonization come on let's grow up we have huge challenges to face the 21st century first and foremost climate change is the chinese communist party perfect is the people's republic perfect no was the american republic perfect when it was founded in the 1770s no but ultimately improved while it's still far from perfect by the way but ultimately improved over the subsequent 200 years to be more inclusive and democratic and that's the only way a polity a society can improve it has to be driven by the people within it themselves and china has accomplished incredible things in terms of social goods and also in wealth as well and like i say the worst thing that could happen the worst thing that could happen and which would represent a major obstacle for us to address the challenges of the 21st century would be the collapse the balkanization of china you know a repeat of basically what we see with the ussr in the 1980s that's the i think you know worst-case scenario we would see mass nuclear proliferation you would see a collapse of the kind of balance of power in east and southeast asia and northeast asia it could be terrible really you know think carefully about what you want think carefully about china's role in the world we could really go a lot worse than where we presently are and also in terms of the domestic security situation there would you want to coup d'etat by a right-wing nationalist government in china what would that necessarily mean you know i really feel like again we go back to the word michael humility westerners we really need to learn it and i still feel like even after iraq even after global financial crisis even after covid-19 we somehow can't do it remarkable mm no i completely agree with with that closing statement let's go to a couple of five comments michael deglock says i'd love it if you could arrange to talk with james o' brian i i i'm hoping there's going to be a long-form interview soon i'm sure there'll be some outreach going on that would be interesting i mean the guy can talk he has a lot of wrong opinions but he clearly can you know spend some time with the microphone he's an engaging speaker graham so we'd love to have him on and disagree i have invited him on twitter actually ignored me graham french with 40 quid thanks for being a much needed voice of reason can you please give a birthday shout out to my dad rod he'll be 81 tomorrow and watches every show happy 81st birthday tomorrow rod i'm so glad you watch every show i hope you have a great day bail ali with a fiver thanks for your work can i get a shout out for my house mate prince moona shout out to prince moona aron you want to come back in one statistic i want to leave up i've got one statistic i want to leave our audience with can i say it michael you can say i want to know it yeah the united states has 800 overseas military bases 800 how many does china have it i've got no idea actually is it zero two two wow where are they two but two versus 800 ones in africa and one is one is in uh south america i believe well and it's kind of like a listening post but anyway they've got one proper military base it's in um in chad or in nigeria i think uh but it's in africa one of these countries in sub-saharan africa i say one of these countries but i believe it's a landlocked country but in any case in you say well that's one too many sure the united states has 800 overseas military bases so uh i think that really tells us who's the threat to global stability here i'm glad we got that statistic at the end there also think of you know what other state became a global superpower without invading anyone we're not here to stand the ccp we're just saying have some have some humility have some perspective here in this whole i'm not into it this whole ramping up of a new cold war on both sides of the political divide in this country we are going to end it there if you are already a supporter of navara media thank you so much you make this possible if not please go to navaramedia.com forward slash support and donate the equivalent of one hour's wage a month to make sure you subscribe to the channel we go live every monday wednesday and friday at 7 p.m which means i'll be back at 7 p.m on friday for now you've been watching tisky sour on navaramedia good night