 Good evening and welcome to a Friday night edition of Tiskey sour now if you follow Twitter as much as I do you might have seen there are increasing numbers of people who seem pretty worried that we're going to have another lockdown. Now personally I don't think that's the case but I do think there is some reason to be worried the latest data from public health England has suggested or shown. The delta variant is more transmissible causes more severe disease and has some resistance to the vaccine so that causes some serious problems for our plans to remove all restrictions as I say I don't think this is the end of the world but definitely something we need to be worried about we'll be explaining it all to you tonight also on the show probably the most ridiculous story I've seen on news night. Since Jeremy Corbyn stop being you with the Labour Party was every other night when when he was but this is this is up there with with the worst ones and a story about the Napier barracks the government were found to have acted on lawfully again. Tonight usually I have Aaron Bustani but he is away and I am delighted privileged to be joined by Ash Sarkar. How are you doing Ash I'm good I'm fully vaccinated now Michael I'm so jealous. I know you know what what feels really good is Bill Gates always knowing where I am yeah and I'm magnetic now that's great I get my first on Thursday and I'm hoping it's going to be Madonna because I want Dolly Parton to know where I am yeah that is more fun. If you're new to the show do hit the subscribe button and if you've already hit the subscribe but sometimes you get super disappointed when you accidentally miss a live show then make sure you turn on notifications using the bell icon. Now public health England have released new data on the COVID variant first identified in India and which is now known as the Delta variant. It's not looking good so the data confirms that the Delta variant is more transmissible than the alpha variant which was previously known as the Kent variant now PhD estimate is roughly 50% more transmissible. The imperial epidemiologist Neil Ferguson probably the most respected epidemiologist in the country he told radio for this morning it could be anywhere between 30 and 100% more transmissible. Now this explains why it has been able to out compete other variants quite so quickly. This is a chart from the PhD report which we're taking most of most of our data from today. And this shows quite how quickly the proportion of the Delta variant have has increased so the light pink you can see that's the Kent variant or the alpha variant which made up almost 100% of cases until the end of March. The Delta variant shown in purple now is the dominant one that now makes up 71% of cases sequence so you can see quite how much more transmissible that is then the Kent variant. Remember the Kent variant was already a lot more transmissible than the original that's the one that that caused us to have 60,000 cases per day at the start of January so this is it's significant that this variation has come into being. The report also suggested that the Delta variant caused more severe disease this is what we didn't know already so in terms of the greater transmissibility we're getting a bit more accurate data as they collect more but this idea that it causes more severe disease is new. And it's pretty worrying actually they found that controlling for age, sex and underlying health conditions the study found that people caught the people who caught the Delta variant were over twice as likely to end up in hospital as people who caught the alpha variant or the variant first identified in Kent. That's a very significant degree of greater risk lots of uncertainty there but again significant again to think of what India had to go from that they did this without the vaccines with a with a virus which was way more transmissible than our Kent variant and also twice as likely to get you in hospital seriously seriously, seriously worrying. Finally on vaccines. Yesterday's PHE report had no new information on the effect of the Delta variant when it comes to vaccines, but we know from a previous report that after one dose that az and Pfizer vaccines appear to be 17% less effective against the Delta variant than the one first identified in Kent that's after one dose after two doses that difference gets slightly less significant effectiveness than the one first identified measured in terms of symptomatic infection. It could be for all we know 100% effective against severe disease it's too early to say in any case what we have is a triple whammy the Delta variant is more transmissible causes more severe disease and has some vaccine resistance. So as you know dominant in the UK and all of this means that some experts are doubtful England will be able to go ahead with removing all restrictions on the 21st of June, as was originally planned. Anthony Costello is the director of the UCL Institute for Global Health and a member of the independent sage group. This is what he said on BBC Question Time last night. Do you think we should lift restrictions on the 21st of June because we have a Delta variant the what was called the Indian variant, which is now thought to be 50 to 70% more transmissible. Evidence comes out today that you are 2.7 times more likely to end up in hospital with this variant compared to the Kent or alpha variants and it's got evidence of vaccine escape. So if you have had one dose of vaccine, you are only 34% protected. If you've had two doses, you're only about two thirds protected. So that means that the real figure is that only 40% of our populations had two doses. That means there are millions and millions of people who could be infected by this virus. Now, many of them will be younger and death rate should be much, much lower, but many people could end up in hospital. The NHS could be thrown into another surge. We just don't know. So what do we do? I think at the moment what we have to do is to watch the data extremely carefully. Now, I think probably Anthony Costello should have been a bit more clearer than when it came to the vaccines because whilst he is correct, you know, after two doses, you're only two thirds protected from the Delta variant. It might be the case that that's much higher when it comes to serious disease, which is ultimately what we care the most about. But his general point there, I am very sympathetic towards. Essentially saying we should vaccinate more people before we take away the final restrictions. And the reason I'm sympathetic to that is because I don't think the arguments against delaying are particularly strong. And for me, these come in sort of two, two forms, which on the face of it, you know, they're not ridiculous. I just don't think they're that strong. So one is to say the costs are too high. You know, so even though this risks more hospitalizations or more young people getting long COVID, we can't go on any longer like we currently are. Now, for me personally, I feel like at this point in time, life is actually fairly tolerable. You can meet lots of people outside, you can drink in pubs, you can eat in restaurants. The only thing that will be delayed is nightclubs and mass events indoors, right? I can live without those for a month or so. The second argument potentially more significant is when people say, if we postpone this now, we will inevitably indefinitely push it back. So there's always going to be one excuse after another. Now, this is potentially a more nuanced argument. Again, I don't really buy it. And that's because whilst there is a degree of vaccine escape with the Delta variant and indeed the Nepal variant we're going to talk about in a moment, against all of these vaccines work to some degree and against most of them with most vaccines to a really large degree. So we're going to be in a really, really different situation when the vast majority of the population are vaccinated. And that could happen quite soon or at least among the adult population. I think we could very in a month or so have almost universal coverage. These are some stats about the current take up of the vaccination rates, which shows you, I suppose, how much hope there is that we will have super, super high rates of vaccination within a month or so. And then we'll be in a qualitatively different situation. So you can see from here, among the 80 pluses, there is 97% uptake of the vaccine between people aged 75 and 79. There's 100% uptake. There's probably some rounding going on there because I presume there are some people in that age group who haven't been vaccinated between 70 and 74, 98%, 65 over 95%. People 60 to 64. Super, super high numbers all the way down until you get to those age groups where people are only just getting offered the vaccine. So this was in midweek, by midweek, people between 35 and 39%, they had 68% coverage. Now, I imagine that will be going above 80% in a week or so as all of those people get invited for those. So to my mind, it could easily be the case that in a month or two, we're in a really, really strong position to loosen these. Final restrictions. I don't really see the rush. There are, however, intelligent people who think the 21st of June probably can go ahead as planned. Intelligent people we should take very seriously. Jeremy Farah is director of the Welcome Trust and sits on Sage, he told the Daily Mail. There is a danger of not opening up. This infection is now a human endemic infection. It's not going away. Humanity will live with this virus now forever and there will be new variants this year, next year, the year after. There will be new variants and we will have to learn to cope with that. Lockdowns are awful. They are a mark that you haven't been able to control the virus in other ways. They have very profound consequences on mental health, on education, on job opportunities, particularly affecting people on lower incomes. Societies can't stay in that mode forever. He also said, if hospitalisations have remained low and deaths have remained low, I would accept a degree of transmission and I would open up. I think this is the hardest decision, frankly, of the last 18 months, actually. I am optimistic in the sense that I do believe that vaccines are incredibly safe and very effective. Now, for me, as I say, I think this is an argument we should take seriously. I'm not actually sure what the restrictions we currently have. I don't know if they are having that bad an effect on mental health because, as I say, I think we can do most of the things which are essential to our wellbeing. Obviously, we need to provide certain businesses with support if this is delayed. Let us know what you think in the comments on this question of the June 21 reopening. Ash, where do you stand on this question? Michael, I actually find myself in agreement with you, which is that we can do most of the things that really add to our quality of life. We can travel around the country. We can stay over and visit our friends and our loved ones who we've maybe not been able to see very much for the past year. We're able to do a lot of socialising outside and now with the weather improving a bit, that's actually kind of quite a pleasant thing to do. And we can do some indoor socialising as well. So I think delaying this next step, it certainly doesn't make me feel as abysmally awful as when Christmas was cancelled and all these other things which felt like a lifeline were being pushed back and further back. So I think that delaying in this instance isn't a huge deal. But I do have a lot of sympathy for the Jeremy Farrell argument, which is that lockdowns are a sign, a mark that you haven't been able to control the virus in other ways. And so I think it's really important that as we're reaching this other point of going, okay, so what amount of transmissibility do we accept as we unlock and as we ease restrictions even further that we still maintain in our heads this question of like, okay, so what does effective virus control look like within that context? The fact is, is that the government has been nowhere near as agile, responsive or reactive as it ought to have been in controlling the spreads of the Delta variant. So you had those weeks where India wasn't put on the red list. You have, I think also a real failure of test, trace and isolate. These are measures which should be able to identify outbreaks of new variants very quickly and manage to contain them within quite tight localities. And that's not something that happened. And I think there's also an issue that where there are local measures being put in, it was very, very light touch. So when the Delta variant was contained to a few towns, there wasn't a sense of, okay, well, things are going to be different there. So we can stop that becoming the dominant strain nationally. So there are all these ways in which the government was slow, sluggish, and it doesn't explore the options that it has available to it to avoid national restrictions either being delayed or indeed imposed. So I think that that's a really important thing for us to bear in mind, which is, well, why did this spread in the way that it did? Could that have been avoided? And also when we do eventually get to the great unlocking back in the club, Notting Hill Carnival back on, red stripe all round, what is it going to look like with monitoring the spread, the transmissibility and potential risks? And how will the government react to that in such a way that manages to preserve freedom for as many people as they ultimately can? And I think that those questions being ignored at this point kind of fills me with a little low rumble of dread. Because it sort of says to me that we're not taking seriously that unlocking the easing of restrictions, perhaps even the end to social distancing, won't mean that we behave as though the virus doesn't exist anywhere anymore. I mean, I think that take that you have and your approach is similar to mine is actually very common. I haven't heard anyone in the real world sort of say, I am so desperate, everything rests on nightclubs opening on the 21st of June and me being able to queue for a pint because that's one of the things you'll be able to do. You'll have to stand up in a pub instead of it being table service. But what frustrates me is that the media and the BBC especially are really reporting this like it's a life or death thing. So it's this constant headline thing of will they won't they unlock on the 21st of June? The scientists are still deciding we're still looking at the data. Oh, this new variant has come and this could completely throw us off course. And my problem with it is that they don't because it sort of talked about in such life or death terms. That's where I think lots of people get this impression. Oh, that we're about to go into a new lockdown because if they're taking it this seriously, it must be a really big deal. And I think it really needs to be put in context that look, what we're debating is whether or not we stay with what we've currently got, which isn't that bad, or we go to something even better, right? And I feel like the way it's reported is more the other way around. Are we going to have to go back to lockdown? That's why everyone's incredibly stressed. I just think everyone this 21st of June date, everyone should just chill out. I think we should learn about these these these variants because I do think, you know, they're worrying and important. But I just wish the mainstream media would just chill out about this particular day. And, you know, I understand there are people who work in hospitality for whom this is a very serious issue when it comes to their businesses. But then that should be reported as an economy story. And it should be a question of does Rishi Sunak have to cough up a bit more money in case these these businesses can't open for for two more weeks. You know why it's being reported in that way. I mean, you're you're right. Of course, there are considerations of delaying, you know, reopening the clubs and putting on mass events. Me learning how to dance again actually really hinges on that because I've forgotten what my hips are for that completely forgotten what my hips are for. But of course, a lot hinges on that. But the reason why it's reported in this way is because it animates and speaks to an internal division within the Tory Party itself. So it is this Taylor's oldest time, which is the minute you've got some kind of conflict between a Conservative cabinet and their back benches or even rifts within cabinet itself. And quite often it speaks to, you know, to what extent should the state intervene in something. Then that ideological difference, that difference in political orientation within the Conservative Party is presented as the fundamental dividing line for society at large. We see that again and again with Conservative Party stories. And one of the things that's I think worth bearing in mind is that according to polling that's been done of the public, 50% of people wouldn't mind that much if the unlocking on June 21st was deferred, right? It had a minority of people saying, look, I really, really want this to happen by hook or by crook. But again, the story isn't reported in that way. The, you know, split within the Conservative Party is presented as though it's indicative of, you know, a much deeper division within society and it's not. It's an ideological difference within the ruling party. No, I think that's such an important point and actually an assessment of so many of the news stories that we face. It was exactly the same with lockdown when, you know, when it was clear we needed one in January, the overwhelming majority of the public were like, please do something. We can see this is out of control. And the media were reporting it like, oh, will Boris Johnson U-turn and upset his back benches? And it's all like this is just a completely irrelevant debate. Variants, let's go back to variants. As I say, I don't think any of these variants are going to take us back to square one, but we do have to be alert to them. And there is potentially one more, which is even more worrying than the Delta variant. This is currently known as the Nepal variant. Maybe they'll give us a name for it that doesn't involve a place at some point soon. But for now we'll call it the Nepal variant. This has all the characteristics of the Delta variant we talked about because it mutated from that one. But it also has a mutation which could make it even more effective at evading vaccines. So it would combine the transmissibility of the Indian variant with the Delta variant with the vaccine evasiveness of the South African variant or the Beta variant. So it would be worrying if this would become widespread. Again, it wouldn't take us back to square one, but we really don't want it to become dominant. That is why the government have taken Portugal off the green list because they know that this Nepal variant is present if not widespread there. And that's upset some people traveling in Portugal because they're going to have to quarantine when they get home. Speaking on Sky News, the community secretary, Robert Jenrick, explained the decision. I appreciate this is very disappointing and frustrating for some people. But we were always said from the beginning that we would do everything we can to protect the UK from infection, from new variants. And if circumstances changed in countries that are on the green list, then we would review it and take action accordingly. Two things have occurred in Portugal. Firstly, the amount of positivity has increased significantly. It's doubled in the last three weeks to a level that's much higher than we have here in the UK. And then secondly, and perhaps more importantly, although both countries have prevalence of the Indian variant or Delta variant as it's called, we're also seeing in Portugal now growing evidence of a further mutation being called the Nepal variant. We don't yet know how much of a problem that is, how transmissibility is, whether it might be too difficult even for our vaccines. But it's important that we take a cautious approach and so we take action now whilst we do research and learn more about that variant. It's of course good to hear Robert Jenrick talking about a cautious approach. Probably would have been helpful if the government did that in March when we were importing hundreds and hundreds of cases of the Delta variant, which is causing us so many problems now. I'm going to go to a comment here in Buckley with a five or two questions. Do you think this will be the final COVID wave or more to come? And do you think we will get out of all restrictions this year? Let's take those one by one. So do I think this will be the final COVID wave or more to come? I presume we probably will have more to come. I mean, we are having one in a way now. I mean, cases are rising both because of the spread of the Delta variant and because we have fewer restrictions than we did a month ago. At this point in time, it seems like that could cause a spike. It won't cause a wave as we had in January because most of the vulnerable people are vaccinated. And even if you have a variant which comes along, which can evade those vaccines, we think probably it will have some effect at least at stopping hospitalizations. You've got to think that the real big problem with COVID-19 when it arrived is that we were all completely was called naive to this infection. We hadn't seen it. Our immune systems had no idea what it was. We were all completely taken by surprise. The we here is all of our collective immune systems. If we've had the vaccine, even if there is a bit of a variant, we're not going to be completely surprised by this virus, which means that the effects of it shouldn't be quite so severe. So probably we'll have some more waves, especially if we get a new variant, which is more evasive of the vaccine. So it might, you know, spread even if it doesn't cause serious infection. The final question, do you think we will get out of all restrictions this year? I've got no idea. I've got absolutely no idea. The issue is will. I think there's a degree of confidence we need to have about how much the current vaccines protect us against the new variants. And the government might decide that we need to do a booster system in autumn, et cetera. And potentially there will be some new sort of minor restrictions. I don't think we'll have anything like a lockdown at all, but potentially you could have some fairly not particularly problematic recommendations. Work from home, don't go to big indoor nightclubs, things like that. I can imagine restrictions being in place, but not particularly onerous ones. Let's go on from COVID-19. In fact, actually COVID-19 is very relevant to the next story. Before we go on to that, do like the video if you're enjoying the show. The High Court has ruled that the government acted unlawfully by housing asylum seekers in ex-military barracks during the pandemic. 200 people contracted COVID-19 at the site where residents slept in dorms and were unable to socially distance. Public Health England had told the Home Office that Napier Barracks would be unsuitable accommodation during the COVID outbreak, but the Home Office did not listen. Now, I think we can see some images of the site now. It's located near Folkestone in Kent. You see some ex-army barracks. The conditions inside it are, according to the lawyers, squalid, according to the people living there appalling. You've got up to 13 people to a room, and that was the case even at the height of the second wave. So we're all being told limit your contact of other people. If you're sharing a room with 13 people, that's pretty goddamn difficult. There was also a massive fire there in January, I think partly started due to protests because of the conditions. As I've said, over 200 people caught COVID-19. Now, the core of the judgment from the High Court was about the failures of health and safety guaranteed for the residents in Napier Barracks. Now, the judge, Mr. Justice Linden, said, whether on the basis of the issues of COVID or fire safety taken in isolation or looking at the cumulative effect of the decision making about the conditions in the barracks, I do not accept the accommodation there ensured a standard of living, which was adequate for the health of the claimants. So very damning there. The Home Office said this is good enough for these asylum seekers. The judge has said no, this was not adequate putting 13 people to a room in the middle of a pandemic. It's obviously not right, right? You're not taking the necessary precautions there. He didn't just stay with those health effects. So he also criticized the detention-like facilities the men were held in. So of those, he said they were supposed to live voluntarily pending a determination of their applications for asylum. When this is considered a decision that accommodation in a detention-like setting, a site enclosed by a perimeter fence topped with barbed wire, access to witches through padlocked gates guarded by uniformed security personnel, will be adequate for their needs, begins to look questionable. In concrete terms, he found that from 15th of January, when an instruction was given that residents were not to leave Napier Barracks without permission, he said that meant, or in that instance, the claimants had been unlawfully detained. Really, really horrific story. Ash, I want to know your take on it. In the middle of a pandemic, sharing a dorm with 12 other people in a base surrounded by barbed wire and no escape. I mean, this is all, I mean, it's, it's disgusting and it's really quite dystopian. Yeah, I mean, it's utterly dystopian. And I think one of the things that we've got to do is take a step back and look at the context in which this emerged. So one of the things that I think that the Home Office has tried to do is tread a line between technically fulfilling its statutory obligations in terms of housing and looking after asylum seekers by law. The Home Office has to do that while also pandering to the most reactionary voices within the immigration debate. So if you cast your mind back to earlier this year, this issue of asylum seeker accommodation had become really quite poisoned by the efforts of the far right. You had the likes of Britain First barging into these empty hotels which had been requisitioned for use to, well, not requisitioned, contracted for use to house asylum seekers while there was, you know, zero tourism to speak of because we're in a pandemic. So Britain First go in and film and it was all very sensationalized. You also had Nigel Farage following suit. And so one of the things that the Home Office acknowledged in their own Equality's report on Napier is that, well, yeah, housing asylum seekers in Barracks is far from ideal but there's a case to be made that by, you know, appearing to be less than generous that essentially you can make you can make it all right with the taxpayer that we're having to look after these people anyway. So this issue of horrific conditions in the accommodation, it's not a glitch. It's a feature. It is definitely intentional because the Home Office thinks that that's how you can do the hostile environment pandering to the far right and fulfilling statutory obligations at the same time. And then shortly after that fire, which you mentioned, which occurred back in January of this year, one of the things that Pretty Patel said wasn't, oh, by the way, this is deliberately awful because that's what you want to do. She pinned the blame sort of squarely on the asylum seekers themselves and said, look, it is entirely insulting to the taxpayer in a sense that you'll spit in their eye and complain about the conditions here when they're the ones footing the bill. Oh, and also how dare you say that barracks aren't good enough for you when this was where we'd put our armed forces, personnel and soldiers, right? So that was the case that was being made. It was on the one hand, be grateful you've gotten anything on the other. I think the sense of pandering to the far right, perhaps using terrible accommodation as itself a deterrent. And what was being lost in all of this is of course the humanity of the asylum seekers themselves. So you had some reports going as high as up to 28 people sharing a dormitory during the pandemic. And we're saying a dormitory, it's not like a dorm in a hostel. If you look at the pictures, there are these horrible kind of platform beds, really dirty, really squalid conditions, absolutely no capacity to socially distance whatsoever. You're also housing people in a barracks, some of whom have experienced torture and persecution in the countries that they've just fled from. So it really is a distressing environment to put human beings in. And so what had happened is that the asylum seekers had raised complaints that their access to legal advice and to healthcare had been delayed or inhibited by the home office, that they couldn't socially distance that there were these coronavirus outbreaks that the accommodation itself was not fit for purpose. And that's what led to this protest and the fire that followed. After the fire was put out, the staff were instructed not to go back in, but the asylum seekers were made to go back into these buildings, which didn't have electricity or heating or hot food. So after this fire, these really vulnerable and deeply traumatized people were made to go back in. And so this ruling is significant in a legal sense. It means that the home office will have to agree damages with these six asylum seekers. It also perhaps opens the door from more cases to be brought against the home office. But in the political sense, I don't think we'll see anything looking like accountability. Priti Patel knows that part of her political position comes from being extra nasty to migrants and particularly asylum seekers, particularly those asylum seekers who have arrived in a small boat crossing. Boris Johnson has spent political capital before in protecting her and shoring up her position when she breached the ministerial code and all those bullying accusations made against her. So I don't think we're going to see anything like her resigning. However, if there are more court cases, the home office could find itself in a really tricky position. Does it choose the optics of looking nasty to asylum seekers over and above being in breach of the law, over and above having to make what could be quite costly payments? I don't know. It's really disgusting. I mean, as you say, this is not an accident. This is a political decision, isn't it? I do think a large part of this is Nigel Farage going around saying how you've put up these asylum seekers in hotels and then Priti Patel thinks, well, we better put them somewhere disgusting now, which is disgusting. It's a political decision, it's a political logic to take. We're going to move on from this story. And before we go on to the next, Navarra Media's store relaunched recently. You can now get your hands on some Navarra merch whilst also supporting us in the process. We can bring you up some images of that now. Gorgeous wares. If you go to navarramedia.com, navarra.media.shop, you'll find Navarra Media long sleeves and loads of other items, including for the first time, Evertisky Sour merch. There are also water bottles, hip flasks, and just added today the Navarra Media tracksuit. All clothes are organic and ethically sourced. I'm particularly excited about the tracksuit. So that's at navarra.media.shop. When Labour was led by Jeremy Corbyn, senior staff members sought to undermine the party during a general election. How did the BBC react to this news? Silence. However, this Thursday, Newsnight set aside a whole 20 minutes to expose the scandal of Unite the Union organising to deselect a few right-wing MPs. A movement founded with the highest of ideals. A movement always bedeviled by profound differences. And in recent years, a movement laid low by bitter divisions. It's the honour of my lifetime to lead this great movement. A new era now with the leader pledged to restore unity. But as Keir Starmer experiences a tough period, divisions are bursting into the open. Foul play comes to cry from adversaries of the left as Newsnight sees evidence of the depth of planning on the left to challenge established Labour figures. I think up and down the country, there were attempts to destabilise Labour MPs, just to get rid of them. I think if people had known that these conversations were taking place when they were taking place, there would have been real shock. I think even Jeremy Corbyn would have condemned that kind of behaviour. So you've got the gloomy music. Nick Watt, the host, is talking about the depth of planning on the left. Tom Watson is saying the plans were so scandalous, that Jeremy Corbyn would have opposed them. This was all people trying to destabilise Labour MPs. Let's take a look at what this sinister plot amounted to. It's explained by Nick Watt via some leaked emails. A new flare-up of old embers after Newsnight saw emails by a West Midland Unite activist outlining plans to try and unseat leading Labour figures. In an email dated 12 February 2018, addressed to a senior Unite official, Howard Beckett, the activist Steve Price outlined plans to influence the selection of councillors and to put the skids under the former minister, John Speller and Tom Watson, who was then Labour's deputy leader. Newsnight has also seen internal Unite emails in which officials discuss Mr Price's first email. One said that one hour may not be enough time to deal with all the issues he had raised. In a second email on 15 March 2018, addressed to Howard Beckett, Steve Price wrote of how his networking was vital in building up trusted left-routes in 59 constituencies. Finally, Steve Price wrote that it had been agreed that he would be paid, but he needed a form of words to describe what he was wait for it not doing. All of that sinister music and all of those tones of voice of what were the left organising to do, it all amounts to, in 2018, a trade union, Unite, organising with an activist who wanted to deselect some MPs who the trade union weren't politically aligned with. That included people like Tom Watson and John Speller. Now, this is not a big deal. Trade unions are supposed to have an influence in political parties. Trade unions have always tried to influence selections. If you want to influence who is an MP in a Labour seat, what you're first going to have to do is deselect a Labour MP. This is all completely normal and it's especially normal considering that in 2018 you had Tom Watson actively working to undermine the electoral chances of the Labour Party. You don't understand how they've managed to get a story out of this, but they have. And they've employed all the old usual suspects to essentially pretend to be outraged that anyone could possibly fight battles within the Labour Party instead of battling the Tories. It's outrageous that a time when all our focus should have been on defeating the Conservative Government in the interests of the people whom we're elected to represent, that unite, our biggest union, that there was a discussion going on about how to undermine sitting MPs and get rid of them in something like 59 constituencies, that there was a discussion about getting rid of councillors who didn't meet the political agenda of the few people at the top of unite. There was a discussion about sacking key officials at the Labour Party, the General Secretary, and the official in charge of looking at anti-Semitic complaints. And there was a discussion about placing people in seats where MPs were retiring or those seats were seen as marginal. It is appalling to envisage that all that was going on when we were all trying to defeat the Conservative Government and as a trade union, never has it been more important for them to do their day job, which is to defend their members' interests against all the changes that come from the gig economy, from insecure Labour, and from the challenge to employment rights. Now, if I had any more hair when I was... When watching this, I would have teared most of mine out because watching Margaret Hodge complain about people who dared to organise inside the party instead of battling the Tories, because the only priority should be battling the Tories, it's bananas, quite frankly. Margaret Hodge spent the past five years at every opportunity undermining the electoral chances of the Labour Party by going on the radio and calling the leader a racist. She had a vote of no confidence in the democratically elected leader. She had no interest in Labour winning any elections during those whole five years, yet she's allowed to go on Newsnight and claimed to be outraged that anyone did any completely legitimate organising within the Labour Party. She even made it sound sinister that MPs, even in seats where the sitting MP was resigning, no one in their right mind thinks that's remotely sinister. I'm obviously in favour of mandatory de-selection. I think it's perfectly within any activist's right to try and de-select a sitting MP who they don't feel is properly representing them. But she made it seem like even placing an MP where someone is resigning is a problem. I mean, you've also got to take some of those examples. They were trying to get rid of the person who was in charge of anti-Semitism complaints. Now, you've got to remember Margaret Hodge and the anti-Semitism complaints were dealt with so poorly. Why do you think they were maybe trying to get rid of that guy? Just as they were trying to get rid of the general secretary. We know from the Labour leaks that the general secretary partook in conversations where people were incredibly disappointed that Labour had taken Theresa May's majority off her. So for Newsnight to allow this to be pitched as there were some left-wingers who were too distracted to win elections when literally talking to some of the people who were most obsessed with undermining Labour's chances is very, very bad journalism to say the least. The story doesn't end there because Hodge didn't just sort of take pride of place in this Newsnight segment. She has also used this story of these leaked emails which I find very inoffensive to notify the police. She's told the police on Unite the Union in particular Howard Beckett. Why is this a police investigation? Obviously, they might complain about MPs getting deselected from their jobs for life. That's not a police issue. Her claim is what's dodgy is the funding of this or the potential funding of this. So let's look at her explanation of what she thinks was unlawful. She says, I have recently seen emails suggesting that Unite top officials have been covertly funding political activities, keeping this secret from its hardworking members. If true, this is unlawful. Now, the emails in question were shown in the Newsnight report there from an activist, Steve Price, who suggested that Howard Beckett, who's the Assistant General Secretary of Unite, had agreed he would be paid for the organizing he did. Now, this would be problematic if it happened and was not declared when trade unions do political campaigning with their money, which is perfectly legitimate. They're supposed to say they've done it and say how they spent it. So if this happened without being declared, it would be problematic. But there is no evidence that happened. All there is evidence of is one activist saying, oh, someone told me I could get paid and no one replied. On Newsnight, Howard Beckett, who is the person who these allegations are essentially being targeted towards, he responded to the allegations. Yes, Steve made a proposal to me and I decided to go in a different direction. There was nothing wrong with the proposal that Steve made. The idea that Tom Watson is shocked by this is quite extraordinary. But I decided to go in a different direction and treat our political officers. So no, the arrangement never was formalized with Steve. But as I said, there's certainly nothing wrong with the suggestions that was made in New Zealand. You say never formalized. You went in a different direction. But it is very odd language. For instance, can you explain what's going on here? I need a form of words to describe what I am not doing. If there's nothing wrong with that, why does he need a form of words to describe what he isn't doing? No idea. I have no idea why Steve chose that language just over three years ago. But obviously Steve is an activist in the West Midlands, a good activist. He obviously had ideas in his own mind as to how he could generate activism around the West Midlands. And he wanted some financial remuneration with it. I decided in the end that I would go with our political officers. And I wanted to see that activism that Steve talked about organically grew, rather than have a fiduciary relationship. But there was nothing wrong with Steve's suggestions at all. And there was nothing shocking about it. So first of all, he's saying quite rightly, well, he said he thought he was going to get paid, but we never paid him. Maybe a misunderstanding happened. These things happen all the time. By the way, I have no idea if they did. I just think it's ridiculous that this story from 2018, which at most, I mean, how much money could this have involved if it actually happened? How is this worth a big deal, news night story? Also, it's worth saying, she's saying, well, why would he possibly, unless this was deeply sinister, why would he have said, I need a turn of phrase to explain what I'm not doing, right? And I mean, for me, it's obvious what that would mean, which is that unfortunately, despite lots of campaigning that we did on the left, to campaign to replace your sitting MP, you have to do lots of negative campaigning because we don't have open primaries. You have to deselect them first before you get to select someone better. Now, obviously, trying to deselect a sitting MP at the very least, it's a little bit awkward. You don't normally say, oh, I'm organizing in this CLP to deselect a sitting MP because people will look at you a bit funny, right? So it's quite natural that you're not going to necessarily say that that's your explicit plan. And the reason that's necessary is because the structures of the Labour Party are so awful. The thing, though, ultimately, because we're getting into the weeds now, because the big picture here is this is all from 2018. The amount of money, I assume, is involved. If there is any money involved, doesn't say there's no proof that all of these denials from Unite would be tiny. This is being dug up now because there are general elections going on in the Unite, or sorry, elections for the general secretary of Unite going on now. Howard Beckett is one of the candidates and members of the PLP don't want him to win. So they've leaked these pretty innocuous emails to Newsnight, and Newsnight have decided to do a whole 20-minute piece on it, interviewing all of these people who spent five years wrecking the Labour Party as if they're serious authorities on questions such as this. And why I find it so shocking is because we had another report that was full of leaked emails of people who were actually very willing to undermine Labour's electoral chances. We know that when Labour actually performed surprisingly well, there was a conversation, including the general secretary, including head of elections, that they were all incredibly disappointed that Labour had done well. That was a scandal, right? There is no evidence that Unite didn't want Labour to win a general election. There is tons of evidence that many top staffers had no interest whatsoever in Labour winning a general election. As far as I know, Newsnight never covered that, right? Newsnight never covered that. That was actually scandalous. There was actually evidence of wrongdoing. Here, you've got in 2018 a trade union organised to deselect some MPs. Give me a break. Ash, I want to go to you on this because this is just infuriatingly ridiculous. And I don't know what's more embarrassing. Actually, I do know what's more embarrassing because what's most infuriating here is listening to Margaret Hodge talk about how dare people not be 100% focused on Labour winning a general election. What I find most embarrassing here is Newsnight thinking this was worthy of a 20-minute segment. I mean, you're completely right. 20 minutes for a really flimsy piece of journalism where there isn't a smoking gun where you can point to it and go, okay, money did leave, you know, how I'd beck it or unite and did pay this activist. And here, we've got to prove it wasn't declared. Then you've got 20 minutes, essentially, of speculation based on an exceptionally boring email thread in which there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing. And so the idea that that amount of journalistic time, and I use my journalistic here quite loosely, has gone into something which doesn't even deliver the coup de grace. I just think aren't there better stories to cover? Was this a slow news day? Could you really not think of anything else? If I was an editor at Newsnight, I'd be saying, well, go back and get me that missing piece of evidence which proves beyond the shadow of the doubt that there was wrongdoing and not declaring payments, right? It's a really bad, flimsy, insubstantial piece of journalism without that. It's also incredibly boring. But let's also talk about how it's put together, all right? The BBC is supposed to be balanced and what that balance is, we all know is fiercely contested. There are guidelines, but there's also something in the eye of the beholder. One of the things that I thought would involve being balanced would be putting, I think, tougher questions to Tom Watson and to Margaret Hodge. So when she's coming out and she's saying, this is when all of us should have been focused on defeating the Tories, then you, I think, quite fairly go, but didn't you put a motion of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn the year before? I don't even think Jeremy Corbyn would approve of such behaviors. Wouldn't there have been a conversation about, well, hang on, momentum, the campaigning organization close to Corbyn was trying to make open selections of reality. It was yourself and many others who put the kibosh on that. So the very basic forms of stress testing that you would expect from journalists to be put to these figures didn't happen. So for the BBC, I think, it's worse than embarrassing. It's actually undignified and I think raises serious questions for the credibility of all those involved. But let's get back to the kind of, when you've got a story like this, which is essentially so bureaucratic, tedious and flimsy that it doesn't have a killer blow, you kind of have to squint at it to see what the picture is. It's kind of impressionistic. Essentially what this is trying to achieve is an overall, I think, smear of Howard Beckett, who is one of the left candidates in the race to replace Len McCluskey as General Secretary of Unite. But it's also, I think, serving this purpose of trying to, you know, delegitimize the role of unions in the Labour Party. Now, the Labour Party came out of the trade unions. It came out of the Labour movement and obviously, as a lot has changed in terms of trade union membership, trade union militancy and also the decline of industrial labour, of course there have been huge changes in terms of that historic role of the trade unions within the Labour Party. But essentially the principle is that the party is itself the political expression of organised labour. That's still supposed to be the point. Now, you do have a tendency, a wing within the Labour Party, you know, kind of most perfectly encapsulated by Peter Mandelson, who thinks that shouldn't be what the Labour Party is about. That they should essentially be a kind of technocratic, managerial and sort of bit more redistributive party which from a lofty distance operates in the interests of those who it deems to be the less well-off. But, you know, fundamentally isn't about empowering them or anything like that. And the Peter Mandelson theory is that if you do break the reliance of the Labour Party on its trade union funding, then, well, you just rely on big money donors. The problem is, is that under the leadership of Keir Starmer, there has been a decline in trade union funding and there hasn't been a huge return of the big money donors that the likes of Peter Mandelson would like to see come back to the party. So in terms of political strategy, this is, I think, entirely counterproductive because, one, one of the broad brushes that the public emerges where there's like, oh, this is another Labour infighting story. None gives a shit about 2018. You know, a few people could tell you the real difference between Tom Watson and Jeremy Corbyn, all right? These aren't things which anyone other than, you know, really like, clued in politicos will care that much about, right? The bigger picture is one of our, oh, Labour's a bit of a mess again. Two, you're alienating one of the party's biggest funders without an alternative stream of funding in place, right? These big money donors are not coming back. And three, what you end up with, I think, is a strange thing to do, which is if you're the Labour right and what you want is for Howard Beckett to be drummed out of the United Leadership Race. Well, at the moment, there are multiple left-wing candidates, right? And if you keep all of them in the race, you have an increased likelihood of someone who is, you know, kind of more affiliated with the right of Unite, you know, coming through as the left-wing vote gets split. So I think doing a big hit job on Howard Beckett is, you know, what if he did, you know, leave the race? Well, that's actually a bit worse for your guy because you still get another lefty coming through and perhaps winning the general secretary position. So yeah, just embarrassing, poorly thought out, unstrategic. And I just, like, I was watching that segment mostly because you told me to, Michael. And I was like, how is this going on for so long? You can go and watch that on iPlayer if you want, Thursday night on Newsnight. I laughed out loud a few times just because of how ridiculous it was. One thing I do want to mention, right? So there are two ways that story could have been relevant. So one, it's the whole sort of, like, deselection is an illegitimate thing to do, which I've explained enough times, why I think it's ridiculous. The other is this is a bad story of money being used illegitimately in politics. Now, you've got to think here. I've got no idea if this money changed hand. Obviously, Howard Beckett's denying it seems like their evidence is very, very weak. But the amount of money you'd pay an organiser to help deselect some people is not much money. You know, you're talking a couple of grand or something. Again, this is completely hypothetical. Now, yesterday, another story about money in politics broke, which was that a Lord, who Boris Johnson gave a peerage, despite objections from the House of Lords ethics committee, gave the Conservative Party half a million pounds three days after being sworn in to the House of Lords. Now, that's a genuine story about money in politics. That's a lot of money changing hands, and it's a lot of money changing hands between an elite with vested interests and the party in power. This was a trade union whose job it is, or one of their key jobs is to organise to make political change and who have every right to organise in selection campaigns. Potentially, they've denied it, but the allegation is paying one activist a bit of money to tide him over while he's organising. It's completely ridiculous. We've got one more clip of it for you because I want to show you how biased the host was in the discussion afterwards. Before we do that, if you are enjoying tonight's show, please do subscribe, because we don't do arbitrary hit jobs on trade unions with no evidence. Let's go to this clip from the show, from Newsnight, and I think what's important here is it really shows you basically how much disdain Emma Barnett, who's hosting Newsnight in this instance, has for trade unionists and how much deference she has towards MPs. You completely see the different way she speaks to Howard Beckett, the different way she treats what Margaret Hodges said to what anyone at Unite has said, and then the different style of question she asked to McDonough, who is on the panel with Howard Beckett. Let's take a look. You think Margaret Hodges is going to the police because she doesn't want you to be in charge of the union. Do you genuinely think that's why she's doing it? Of course she is. She's got no other reason to go to the police. There's nothing unlawful. She's just listed all those reasons that she said in the film. Well, I'm not sure what she listed them. You must have heard something said that I didn't hear say because what I heard from Margaret Hodges was we should all have been working to defeat the Tories in 2017. Well, she called it appalling. She called it appalling and she's concerned about third-party payments and potential criminal activity. Can I just bring it on to you, though? I suppose if you're watching at home... Emma, that's language. Emma, just as soon as I can just say because this is ridiculous language and this is the BBC. There is no criminal activity in respect to this. If we wanted to engage someone to generate activism within the region or if we wanted to ask a third-party to sponsor someone to engage in political activity in the region, that is completely and utterly appropriate. And that is democracy in places of criminal activity. Let me... Margaret Hodges is making a political stunt here. As you have said. Let me come back to you. And the hypocrisy of her making a political stunt whenever she undermined the efforts to get a switch of government in 2017 is raisable. Howard, I'll come back to you in just a moment. Siobhan, to bring you in at this point. There's nothing wrong with this, according to Howard Beckett. This is what unions do. Now, all of those questions whether or not they were put towards Howard Beckett or Siobhan McDonough were hostile towards Howard Beckett. So first of all, she says, do you really think... Are you really suggesting that Margaret Hodges could call the police because of political reasons? Almost implied in her voice that this is an outrageous thing to say. He says, I don't know what her reasons were. She listed those reasons. She called it appalling. She's really challenging Howard Beckett. How could you possibly question the motives of Margaret Beckett? Then when she goes to Siobhan McDonough, her question is essentially isn't what Howard Beckett's saying ridiculous. She says, they say it's completely normal for trade unions to do this. Do you think this? Now, that's not a challenge to Siobhan McDonough. That's an invitation to trash trade unions. As I said, we haven't showed you the whole piece. You can go watch the whole thing yourself. This is definitely a fair reflection of the tone of the whole piece. But I just find the open disdain for trade unionists and especially left wing trade unionists compared to the deference towards MPs appalling. Asha, I want your take on that. And I suppose how Emma Barnett gets away with it. Michael, if I speak, I am in very big trouble. I prefer not to speak. Let me put it this way. I do not think that what was conducted was a fair interview which upholds the standards that the BBC is meant to uphold. I have no problem, by the way, with Howard Beckett being subject to a hostile interview. He is putting himself up for a very powerful position within the labour movement. He should be scrutinised and put through the ringer. That's what I think everyone in politics should be put through. And that's the standard which should be applied evenly. I also don't have a problem with the principle of trade unions' political participation being something which is put under the microscope. There are no sacred cows. That is something which should be interrogated because actually I think it's so easily defensible that it stops being a conversation and a point of contention quite quickly. But these standards which are being applied to Howard Beckett, which is that there is evidence of his wrongdoing by virtue of having received an email, is not a standard of morality or integrity that I think that Emma Barnett were she to be held by those standards would have the kind of career prominence or success that she does. And that's all I'm going to say. This is all a matter of public record. You can Google Emma Barnett father emails and you can see what I'm talking about. Because if we say that the emails that you receive is evidence that you know that wrongdoing is going on and therefore you are not deserving of a role in public life. That's not something that I think would be a standard that would mean that she would end up with a career that she has had. Put it that way. That was a very enticing way to end that segment. We won't go any deeper into that, but you can use Google if you are interested in learning more. If you are enjoying tonight's show and you haven't already, please do consider becoming a regular supporter. You can do that at navaramedia.com. We ask for the equivalent of one hour's wage a month if you do this already. Thank you so much. You make all of this possible. A couple of comments. Fruitback with a fiver asks, Ash, we love your mini Marx bust on the windowsill. Any tips on where you bought him from as he would make a perfect gift for a comrade? Do you know something? So this is Karl. He lives with me. So what happened was, is years ago, Eleanor Penny and our lovely head of video, Gary McQuiggan, went to shoot a documentary about Rosa Luxemburg and Gary bought Karl to live in the Navara office. And then what happened is that because Gary didn't have space in his luggage, Elle took it and then Karl was living with Elle for a bit. And then for a while last year, I was also living with Elle and Gary then clocks that Karl was still in the possession of Elle. So then Elle was like, okay, you take Karl and give it to Gary. In the meantime, Gary had bought another one of these for the Navara studio. So I've ended up with this one. So it has gone through the hands of many Navara staffer and he's in my custody for now. Sounds like you'll have to at Gary McQuiggan to find out where to purchase that delightful bust. It's to be for Demetagoda with 4.99. Over that NM track suit, let's get one million subs. Yes, let's get one million subs. I'm also all over that Navara media track suit. Dom Graham with a fiver was my 44th birthday yesterday. You guys do a great job. This lifelong socialist is grateful we have indie press like Navara wish I could donate more. We appreciate any amount you can donate to us and thank you so much for it and all of our best wishes for your birthday. Yesterday are a belated happy birthday from all of us. Let's go on to our final story. When the government announced its first lockdown in 2020 they recognized that people who are unable to go to work might struggle to pay their rent. Now to that end they implemented an eviction ban. Communities Minister Robert Jenrick promised that no one would lose their home because of the pandemic. It was all very good rhetoric. The ban was of course welcome. However, now that ban has come to an end and according to the Joseph Roundtree Foundation 400,000 renters have already had eviction notices or been told to expect them. So the government in their traditional fashion they implemented an eviction ban but they didn't sort out the underlying problem which means at the moment they remove that ban. There are lots of people now at risk of becoming homeless. This of course could be catastrophic for private renters. It could also be catastrophic for local authorities who have to work out how to house so many people who are being kicked out of their privately rented homes. However, despite the social catastrophe that could be about to befall on us some of the noisiest voices on our airwaves have been from landlords complaining about people who haven't paid rent and who they haven't been able to kick out for the past 12 months. We've had many of them call into radio stations have their quotes in the newspapers or on the evening bulletins. They're all very, very annoyed that there was an interruption to their passive income, the income they get for essentially doing nothing. Here's one calling into LBC. Hi, Andrew. I'll fed up the back teeth hearing about these poor hard done by tenants. What about hard done by landlords? Some tenants are very good. A lot of tenants are playing the system for all it's worth. Now, I went to house tenants. I'm actually in the process of evicting the tenants. I've actually got a call date. But these tenants have been playing the system for the past year plus. What does playing the system mean, Michael, to the own initiative? They can't be evicted. You can't be evicted? Yeah, but what does playing the system mean? Whatever they do, they can't be evicted. Right, so you've got people in properties and they're not paying their rent and you can't get... But they'll have a personal reason why they urgently need to sell that house. So I'm actually using the section 21 notice. But the fact you make is what tenants seem to not understand and what people like Shelter don't seem to understand is this is the landlord's house. It's up to him what happens with it. Now, I need to actually apologise there because in my introduction, I was saying we've heard loads of landlords on the airwaves saying that they're upset and pissed off that their passive income was interrupted because they had tenants who couldn't pay the rent because of unforeseen circumstances. The COVID pandemic and they haven't been able to kick them out in the middle of the pandemic so they're all very, very upset about this. That's not what was actually going on there. This was a landlord whose tenants were paying their rent but he's still calling in to a national radio station really upset because even though throughout a pandemic his tenants were paying their rent, he couldn't kick them out onto the street anyway. He, for whatever reason, wanted to sell his house and he thought, look, it's the middle of a pandemic nothing to do with me, whether or not my tenants will end up homeless in the middle of a pandemic. I want to kick them out. It's my house. I can dispose of it how I want to. I always think becoming a landlord has the tendency to turn people's brain into mush. I think that was really an example of it. Let's watch a little bit more of that call. I'm truly appalled at the way the Tories have carried on over this. They have made it difficult beyond belief to get more landlords. Once I sell up and I'm sure I won't be the only one, there'll be less houses to rent because it's just not worth the egg roll and you don't make a fortune over it. People think if you rent houses out, you're rich. You're really, really not. Once you've paid out all the exceptions, I've had tenants who've phoned me up to complain about the batteries and the smoke alarm they've been placing. People can't make it up and charge it themselves. Isn't that your job, as a matter of fact? Or does that fall down to you or to them? Well, I would say it's down to them. It's like a battery in the talks going. But I'm a good landlord. I've done everything that's ever been asked for me to be done. A lot of tenants, there are some good tenants about, don't get me wrong Andrew, there are some good tenants about, but there's an awful lot who aren't. This is what I mean by becoming a landlord. Now I want to get rid of all landlordism. I don't necessarily think every landlord is a bad person. I don't like to cast dispersions like that, but I don't think the job was not a job. I don't think they should exist. But they all think universally they're a good landlord. Now this guy is saying, look, I'm a good landlord. I'm not like the other ones. You'd previously heard he wanted to kick out his tenants who were paying their rent in the middle of a pandemic. He's not a good landlord. I'm sorry, that guy is not a good landlord. He also said, I'm not rich. People assume I'm rich. Now, lots of private landlords aren't rich. They're not super rich at least. 45% of private landlords own just one property, which means they're not necessarily going to be in the realms of the super rich. However, even though they might not be super rich, they're probably going to be richer than their tenants, and that's because they're taking half of their tenants' income without doing anything. That's why they're called passive income. That means you get to sit on your ass while someone else goes out to work and then pays you a third of their income, a half of their income every month. Then you're complaining that you can't kick them out on the street in the middle of a pandemic. He's also like, I have to change their batteries. I change the batteries for someone's fucking fire alarm. If I've got two grand a month to do it, I'll change batteries for every device if I get some nice passive income that I can sit on for my pension pot. It's just phenomenal how you can have people who they're just receiving a third of someone else's income and they still feel sorry for themselves. Ash, I want to go to you on this. I'm worried I've offended some people by saying that being a landlord turns your brain into mush, but I do really think that it's often the case. Look, I think regardless of whether or not it turns your brain into mush, landlordism is a social disease. I think it's a social disease. That's a better way of putting it. That's what I think it is. Look, this guy is obviously so obnoxious and lacking in self-awareness that I'm astonished that he can get out of bed every day without just simply falling over under the weight of his own delusions. You know, what he's saying is patently ridiculous. One is the idea that you can be a good landlord when you want to kick out rent-paying tenants. And two is this idea of, oh, what's the landlord's house? He can do what he wants with it. Well, if that was the case, you should have kept it empty because when you do have sitting tenants, there are rights that they have because it would be completely absurd to have a society in which people could rent and have zero rights to remain in that place when they're fulfilling all their obligations. So what he's saying is just completely wrong. But the third thing, which is, oh, well, if there were no landlords, then there'd be fewer properties to rent. It is the existence of a buy-to-rent market which contributes to the value of his asset going up and up every year, right? So the value of housing is outstripping increases in wages to the extent that we have this completely absurd situation where by virtue of having a house, you essentially have a hand on financial stability for the rest of your life, whereas if you're a tenant, you know, every month you pay rent, you're further and further away from achieving that kind of buy-in to the economy and a sense of stability for your own future. It's the existence of the buy-to-let market which drives the value of his property. So that's the thing that I kind of also want to bring up is that you're talking about, well, you know, not every landlord is going to be rolling in it. Of course, that's true. You know, the majority of landlords own an individual property, not huge portfolios. But the fact is, is that whether or not the income that they generate from owning this property and lending and, you know, renting it out is a huge amount or whether or not they have to carry on another form of work in addition to being a landlord. They've still got a whole asset at the end of it. If they're already a home owner, you know, an owner-occupier, then it's a second asset. And when you have a situation like ours where, you know, people are seeing the value of their pensions decrease as the state pension age goes up, where you've got huge problems in terms of the availability of, you know, social care for the elderly, having that extra asset at the end of your working life is a huge deal, right? It is a huge deal. So even if you're not filthy rich, even if you're not cocaine champagne every weekend, you know, you are significantly better off in terms of your future if you are a landlord. And I think maybe the third thing that I sort of want to add to this, you know, sort of taking a step back and thinking about what it is the existence of landlordism has done, as well as generating really fucking annoying phonins to LBC. What landlordism has done is that it has shifted power in quite a profound way away from working-class people, right? What social housing did was that it operated as this wonderful engine of class consciousness. You know, it sort of generated in its own way, you know, radicalism, political organization, but also the availability of cheap social housing meant that you could have working-class people participating in the arts and creative endeavors, you know, without thinking like, okay, shit, I've got to work three jobs just to pay for the rent on this terrible fucking flat, right? It made society better in all sorts of ways to have available social housing. It's not just the fact that that social housing is no longer being built to the extent that it was. It's not only that the social housing was sold off under Thatcher. It's that the manner of it being sold off under Right to Buy then consolidated a huge amount of economic power in the hands of landlords themselves. So four in 10 of every property that was purchased under Right to Buy is now a Buy to Let. So you had this huge transfer of power away from social tenants, a huge, I think, erosion of the social safety net for working-class people and, you know, an increase in housing precarity because of it and, yeah, it was essentially, you know, fertilizer for the social disease of landlordism. The social disease of landlordism where working-class people work all day to pay someone else's mortgage. That's what you always hear like, oh, look, no, it's not easy being a landlord. The rent and the rent barely covers the mortgage. It's like, yes, but then you get to keep the house at the end of it, right? If I'd be less bitter about the rent I paid, if I got to keep the house, right? I wouldn't mind paying the rent I pay if I got to keep the house at the end, but the landlord gets to keep the house. I cover the mortgage, he keeps the house, right? It's not... And then they're phoning in feeling sorry for themselves. So I always get especially bitter when we talk about landlordism because I just think it is the most unjust feudal relationship we have in society. I don't think there's any justification whatsoever for it. There's no economic benefit to having working people pay the mortgage of people who were lucky enough or rich enough to buy an asset in the first place. No social good comes of it whatsoever. Abolish landlordism, build council homes, and that crybaby calling into LBC can get a real job. Michael, are you a secret Maoist? I am. I'm quite into that kind of stuff, actually. You know what, I think when it comes to landlords, we're all Maoists, baby. We are all Maoists. Exactly. I think it's in some places, but landlordism, get rid of it. All right, let's end tonight's show there. Ash, it's been an absolute pleasure being joined by you this Friday evening. Great. Loving it as always. I like seeing your face, especially when you've caught a bit of the sun, Michael. Oh, I'm glad you mentioned that. I was glad it ran today because it made it a joy planning this show. Thank you for watching and for your super chats and comments. As ever, we'll be back on Monday at 7 p.m. You've been watching Tiskey Sour on Navarra Media. Good night.