 So I'm joined by Chris Williamson, the Shadow Minister for Fire and Emergency Services, Derby North. That's right. Yeah. You've just finished a session. You said that we should have mandatory reselection in the Labour Party. Can you go into why? Well I think if you look, as I was saying in there, any organisation, any elected position in this country is subject to the endorsements of their membership periodically, whether it be a trade union leader, a councillor or the chair of the local boss club or secretary of the Allotment Association. And I don't see why MPs should be any different. And furthermore, I think, that by introducing a mandatory reselection process, it would actually enhance the role of members of parliament and stop them floating away into the Westminster bubble. Why isn't there so much resistance from a certain wing of the party to the study of mandatory reselection? I mean, you in particular, because you're, I think you're just honest and you're sincere, you're a person of integrity, you believe it. But it's drawn a lot of aura, hasn't it, from moderates, let's say. Why do you think that is? Well, I think people feel perhaps threatened by it. I mean, it's a change and people often threatened by change. And I think there is a fear that some people might lose their seat. But I think people MPs who are honest and upfront with their membership, even if they disagree, I mean, you know, Labour Party members will respect that. They don't expect the MPs to be automatons who just simply do everything that the membership wants them to do, because the membership is not going to speak with one voice, is it? There will be a multitude of different views. And I think the important thing is that MPs keep their feet on the ground. They respect and take into account the views of the membership. And I think most MPs would be reselected if mandatory reselection was introduced. I mean, we did have it before in the Liverpool party 30-odd years ago. And very few MPs were deselected under that process. But I do think it keeps MPs, it would keep MPs rooted. And that has got to be a good thing. Because let's remember that as a mass party now, the members are the eyes, ears and mouths of the party. They are in touch with the communities that MPs represent. And by actually, you know, making yourself subject to the endorsement of those members and being more accountable to those members, I think it's going to make you a better represented and better representative and more in touch with the electors in your constituency. So you also talked about, I think you called it common sense socialism. What does that mean? Common sense socialism. You said it's not about left and right. It's about right and wrong. And the current direction is very wrong. What does that mean? Go into a bit more detail. Well, what it means is common sense is where the vast majority of the British people are. It's common sense, isn't it, to have a situation where people aren't penalised for getting an education. We need an educated workforce in a modern western economy if we're going to compete in the world. So we need educated people. We should be penalising people going to university. We shouldn't, in the fifth richest economy in the world, have people sleeping in shop doorways. A common sense socialist approach is to regulate the housing market, build council houses that people need and make home ownership affordable again to working class people like it was for me in the 1970s when I was an apprentice bricklayer able to buy my own home. It's common sense socialism to say, let's have public services that are fit for purpose. There are actually a cash cow for the private sector that actually genuinely reflect the needs of the communities that they serve because public services define a decent society. And we want decent parts. We want streets kept clean. We want child protection to be a function that is fulfilled properly. We want a national care service, so that people, older people who have scruncher saved all their lives and then fall ill perhaps in old age, forced to sell their house. That's completely wrong. We shouldn't be forced into a situation like that. And obviously as we did in the 1940s, 1948 when we introduced the national health service where we provided care free at the point of need. We should have a care system free at the point of need. So it's those kind of things that the vast majority of the British people actually support because it's playing common sense and an economy that works for ordinary people where we have at least a 10-pound minimum wage, where we stop offshoring jobs to low wage economies, where we make the corporate sector pay their way, where we have our current utilities and railways owned by the people. So the interests of the people, not the interests of global corporations. That's all we mean by that. The people support that approach. And that's why I call it common sense socialism because that's what it is. Scala 1 to 10. How dead is terrorism? 10 being very dead. 10. It's dead. It's dead, completely dead. I mean, you know, there are one or two people, you know, thrashing around in their death rows, but they're gone. I mean, it's coming back. It was never fit for purpose, frankly, and it actually led to a situation where people became very cynical about politics. So it was a great deal of hope in 1997 where people thought that a Labour government would transform society and transform the economy. Now, there was a lot of investment put into public services. That's true. Satisfaction, the National Health Service, had never been higher when we left office. So yes, we did some good things, but we didn't fundamentally transform the economy. And so consequently, we found ourselves in a situation where inequality continued to grow, where good quality, decent jobs continued to be offshored to low wage economies, where privatisation continued apace. And, you know, those are things I think that people felt, you know, very disillusioned by, disappointed in. And that's why I think a lot of cynicism grew in politics and disenchantment with the Labour Party. And let's remember that between 1997 and 2001, we lost 3 million votes. And by 2010, we had lost 5 million. Under Jeremy Corbyn, we got the biggest increase in vote share since 1945. And had we not had some of the difficulties inside the Parliamentary Labour Party in the 2016, then I believe that we would have won this election. We are now very close to winning in 76 seats around the country, where there's a majority, a majority of less than 4,000. If there was a general election tomorrow, I'm absolutely certain we would win. And I think whenever that general election comes, we will win. Because we're now offering a common sense to this programme that people support. And they now realise and recognise that that agenda can win, that Labour is competitive in every, well, virtually every seat in the country. And I think more people will turn out and vote for us. Put a number on it. If there was a general election tomorrow, what would Labour's majority be? There's not going to be, so nobody's going to hold you to it. But in your opinion? I think we'd be looking at a majority of around 20 or 30. When you're looking at the sort of 44, 45 percentage in the polls now, toys on around 40%, looking at how close we were in, you know, as I say, 76 seats. There's a job for us to do in some areas, clearly in Scotland still, although, you know, people are coming back to Labour in Scotland. There's a job for us to do in parts of the Midlands. But again, I think with a common sense socialist approach, genuinely embracing the agenda that Jeremy Corbyn's set out, then, you know, I think people will rally to the cause. The future belongs to us. The future belongs to common sense socialism because young people are rallying to the Labour cause in numbers that we've never seen. Certainly in my lifetime, probably ever. And that obviously bodes incredibly well for the future. Thank you very much, mate. Keep it up. Mordew, all the best. Cheers. People's Chris Williams. Thank you very much.