act of discrimination in breach of the equality act. but does this get to the heart of the liberal paradox that liberals can't tolerate? illiberalism. in the the attempted the aftermath of the attempted police shut down of the natcon conference, many have shown their colours, including their true colours, including their true colours, including the diversity and the head of diversity and equality oxford university. equality at oxford university. more proof of what we already knew. don't believe in knew. liberals don't believe in free speech for those with whom they disagree. plus in the latest defeat for the green lobby, global demand for electric vehicles is falling, with the likes elon musk with the likes of elon musk having sack io% with the likes of elon musk having sack 10% of his having to sack 10% of his workforce. it our workforce. is it time our government recognised petrol cars are here to stay? state of the nation starts now. also be joined by an incisive panel associate commentator at the telegraph, mumtaz ahmed, and the telegraph, mumtaz ahmed, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop . as always, i want tessa dunlop. as always, i want to hear from you. it's a crucial part of the programme. email me mailmogg@gbnews.com. now mailmogg@gbnews.com. but now it's part of the

it's your favourite part of the day. the news with polly middlehurst. >> jacob thank you and good evening to you. well, let's bnng evening to you. well, let's bring you up to date with fairly dramatic events once again concerning the government's flagship migration policy, the rwanda it suffered another rwanda bill. it suffered another defeat the house of lords. defeat in the house of lords. tonight, our political editor, chris hope, watched it all unfold. and, chris, what's happened now? our apologies chris. we can't quite hear you whilst we're just fixing that audio problem. there has been a response from the home secretary tonight, james cleverly, he has said and gone on record as saying, reading off my screen. so forgive the glasses if you're watching on tv, he's gone on record as saying terrified that the rwanda scheme will work and desperate delay or disrupt desperate to delay or disrupt over 100 votes about stopping the boats, labour have acted again to block the passage of

the rwanda bill. he says it's been another politically cynical effort by them who have no alternative deterrent and no plan to tackle illegal migration to frustrate the solution only further. i believe we fixed a sound problems with chris hope. as i said, dramatic events in the house of lords. chris watched it unfold. chris bring us up to date. >> that's polly. yeah, we're back on monday now with the government had hoped to get this bill onto the statute book tomorrow. the safety of rwanda bill. this bill would wish to allow the government to take these people from the uk , these these people from the uk, these asylum seekers, and fly them to rwanda to break the business model of these people traffickers. but two amendments have overturned , again by have been overturned, again by the of lords tonight, one the house of lords tonight, one from hope , the senior from lord hope, the senior judge. wants to make sure judge. he wants to make sure that must be a report that there must be a report saying that rwanda is a safe country and one from des brown. lord brown, the labour lord brown, the former labour defence secretary. he wants to ensure that those who help uk forces afghanistan be forces in afghanistan can't be

flown to to, rwanda. that means we're back again on monday. it's a setback for the government. they were they were targeting tomorrow, thursday for this to become law. even even talk of a pm press conference with david, with james cleverly, the home secretary , that now is unlikely secretary, that now is unlikely to happen. instead we move on and we carry on and it is now threatening or will start to threatening or will start to threaten if it carries on like this. the pm's target to get the first flights off by the end of may. end of spring, which falls on june 21st. >> chris hope, thanks very much indeed for the coverage of and analysis. would add, from analysis. i would add, from chris patrick's show coming chris in patrick's show coming up at 9:00. meanwhile, the uk has signed a new agreement with vietnam to increase cooperation on tackling illegal migration. it's as vietnamese nationals overtake other nationalities as the predominant nationality on board those small boat crossings trying to get across the english channel. from 2018 to the end of last year, there were just over 3300 boat arrivals . bring you up

3300 boat arrivals. bring you up to date with events from earlier on. today in the house of commons, sir keir starmer was busy accusing the prime minister of dodging questions on cutting funding on the nhs and state pensions to cover the cost of eventually scrapping national insurance. the labour leader criticised the conservatives for what he called their obsession with wild , unfunded tax cuts. with wild, unfunded tax cuts. rishi sunak said it's always the same with labour, with higher taxes and working people paying the price. the exchange continued, with sir keir starmer pointing out that no politician has put up taxes more times than the prime minister. take listen. >> i was a lawyer long enough to know when someone's avoiding the question. so i'm going to give him another chance. will he now rule out cuts? the nhs , cuts the rule out cuts? the nhs, cuts the state pension or putting up taxes to pay for his unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance? which is it? >> will the punch up continued ,

>> will the punch up continued, with the prime minister saying he made no apology for wanting to end the unfairness of double taxation on work in the nhs. >> is receiving record funding under this conservative government, pensioners have just received a £900 increase. under this government . but if he wants this government. but if he wants to talk about tax, let's have a look at what labour's brand, newly appointed tax adviser has to say. this adviser, this adviser thinks that supporting pensioners is a complete disgrace . disgrace. >> the scenes in the house of commons today. >> the scenes in the house of commons today . for the latest commons today. for the latest stories do sign up for gb news alerts. scan the qr code on your screen right now or go to gbnews.com slash alerts . gbnews.com slash alerts. >> well, yesterday the lords insisted on its amendments to the safety of rwanda bill, only for the commons to push it back this afternoon and then for the lords to push it back once again this evening. so it's now the

fourth time the lords has rejected the will of the elected chamber, begins to raise chamber, and it begins to raise serious constitutional questions about the role of the house of lords. the house of lords is not there to block the public will, as expressed by the lower house. the parliament act 1911 was introduced because in an increasingly democratic age and bearin increasingly democratic age and bear in mind, in 1911 there wasn't universal suffrage, women's didn't have the women's didn't didn't have the vote, as did quite a lot of men. but even then it was thought the peers had gone too far when against convention, they rejected lord lloyd george's budget, and after two years of constitutional wrangling, it then had its powers cut down dramatically. incidentally, the preamble to the parliament act says it's a temporary measure , says it's a temporary measure, and here we are, 113 years on and here we are, 113 years on andifs and here we are, 113 years on and it's still there . and it's and it's still there. and it's still reform is a sort of damocles holding over chamber that if it exceeds convention without any mandate, risks being reformed more fundamentally. and it has evolved over the years,

the decades, the centuries to be a reviving chamber , secondary to a reviving chamber, secondary to the commons, entitled to ask the commons to think again, but not to block . currently, it's to block. currently, it's seeking to block by passing wrecking amendments to the rwanda bill. now the bill has two main purposes one to declare rwanda a safe country and two to disapply some aspects of human rights laws where they might otherwise take effect. and the lords is attacking both of these efforts . one amendments insists efforts. one amendments insists that the safety of rwanda bill should have due regard for international law, but this merely keeps deportations hostage. the increasingly erratic interventions from the european court of human rights, even the issue in relation to the afghanistanis or to the committee that would be set up, would bring the lawyers back in to undermine what ministers have decided now , the amendment decided now, the amendment insists on the status of rwanda being subject to the independent monitoring committee. but

parliament is allowed to declare facts. indeed, parliament has the right to declare facts and has done since the tudor period . has done since the tudor period. it is an essential component of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which makes the king in parliament the supreme authority and arbiter in the land on any issue on which it chooses to legislate . in this chooses to legislate. in this instance, the bill aims to settle a matter of opinion. ministers think rwanda is safe , ministers think rwanda is safe, but some judges disagree. who should decide the elected or the unelected? you or the blob peer versus the people never ends well for the peers, so they should have backed down earlier today. should have backed down earlier today . they must back down next today. they must back down next week as ever. let me know your thoughts mailmogg@gbnews.com. but i'm joined now by a proponent of the lords amendment, crossbench peer lord alton, as well as a friend of the program, fadi farhat, the legal consultant and human rights lawyer. david, this is very awkward because you are one

of the peers i admire most and you're a friend of my father's. we've known each other a long time. don't you see that the lords is stretching its legitimacy by voting down something that has such a strong mandate and big majorities from the democratic house? let's be clear , jacob. clear, jacob. >> i spent the first two decades of my political life in the house of commons. ultimately, i'm a house of commons man. house of commons. ultimately, i'm a house of commons man . and i'm a house of commons man. and yes, the house of commons must get its way in the end because it's the elected house. but i have great respect for many colleagues in the house of lords who have done their duty by scrutinising this legislation. you a long list of things you gave a long list of things but have been removed from the agenda. only two amendments were before the house of lords tonight, most of which didn't concern any of the issues that you just raised. well, they did, because mentioned the because i mentioned the afghanistan the afghanistan one and the monitoring exactly so monitoring committee. exactly so those the two issues. all those were the two issues. all the other you mentioned the other things you mentioned have of. so we're have been disposed of. so we're not blocking anything take not blocking anything but take those issues. it right

those two issues. is it right for patriot to be in favour of for a patriot to be in favour of sending someone to rwanda who served the crown and put their lives on their line? but you know perfectly well that people who've people who've who've served, people who've served afghanistan have other who've served, people who've served of afghanistan have other who've served, people who've served of coming stan have other who've served, people who've served of coming into have other who've served, people who've served of coming into this; other country. >> they don't need to come on small no one needs to small boats. no one needs to come on a small boat. >> we have safe and legal routes. >> and i agree, no, no. but the afghanistan people can come via safe routes. they are available to this is just to them. jacob. so this is just this is why a wrecking this is why it's a wrecking amendment. well, not amendment. well, it's not because on because you're picking on something where there route something where there is a route for people. anyway, when for those people. anyway, when the former defence minister, who is lawyer, is also a lawyer, there are a lot defence ministers, possibly. >> but des browne is patriot >> but des browne is a patriot and he is someone who stands alongside people serve alongside people who serve the crown. alongside people who serve the cro'but not a democrat, is >> but he's not a democrat, is he? well, because wants to he? well, because he wants to stop the democratic will. >> and you see, you said it yourself. if this was blocked again next time around, we would have exceeded our powers under the 1911 parliament act. >> is not not, not quite. >> that is not not, not quite. actually, the rules on double insistence unclear . and

insistence are very unclear. and all done is offer all you've done is offer amendments in lieu as a means of keeping the ping pong going. the amendments of ipswich accepted by the travel office, and so double insistence was met. so thatis double insistence was met. so that is a double insistence isn't clear. anyway ping pong can go on as long as both houses want to do it. >> we're not going to do that. and i would agree with you. i would think it would be going beyond where we should be. but let's let's now but amendment amendments lieu are merely amendments in lieu are merely a means of continuing to frustrate the commons. means of continuing to frustrate the you commons. means of continuing to frustrate the you thatnons. means of continuing to frustrate the you that perfectly well >> you know that perfectly well on two small issues, one on these two small issues, one being by a former being championed by a former british a european british judge, not a european judge, hope judge, and lord hope of craighead be a he's an craighead may be a he's an incredibly intelligent man. >> he may be lot of things, >> he may be a lot of things, but he's certainly not some revolutionary and supported by the wing baroness . hale. >> and we know that, you know, she's no friend of the government. so the judges are not friends of the government, but they were ulster unionist mps, former mps who are now in the with me in the lords, who were with me in the lords, who were with me in the this evening because

the lobby this evening because they by people they wanted to stand by people who'd served the crown. >> don't let's not confuse >> so don't let's not confuse the issues. i'd you to the issues. i'd like you to answer one question from me, which the that was in which is the report that was in the telegraph on monday. the rwanda is going cost rwanda bill is going to cost british some £5 british taxpayers some £5 billion the next five billion over the next five years. not going years. now, we're not going to solve problem by doing solve this problem by doing things got 114 things like that. we've got 114 million displaced people in the world, overseas aid world, half our overseas aid budget is going on looking after people this country . people in this country. >> and that's about 3.5 billion a we're spending. well, we >> and that's about 3.5 billion a agreed spending. well, we >> and that's about 3.5 billion a agreed sp that1g. well, we >> and that's about 3.5 billion a agreed sp that 5. well, we >> and that's about 3.5 billion a agreed sp that 5 billion we both agreed so that 5 billion over years is much less over five years is much less than billion every year. i'd than 3.5 billion every year. i'd better bring 40. i'm sorry better bring 40. and i'm sorry that getting into the that we've been getting into the nitty of parliamentary nitty gritty of parliamentary procedure, i think it's procedure, though i think it's very important, more fundamentally, we do have a problem with illegal migration. this a way to try and stop this is a way to try and stop it. what wrong with that? it. what is wrong with that? well i'll, i would i would say, jacob, that the situation you had 113 years ago with the rejection of the budget such matters are matters of high policy, whether the government, you know, the rate of vat. >> let's say, or the, the rate

of income tax , those are matters of income tax, those are matters of income tax, those are matters of high policy. the issue here and the amendments proposed, even the initial ten amendments by the lords, these amendments involve legislation and provisions that involve the interplay with current legislation, such as the human rights act and current provisions , as that is where provisions, as that is where i would say the distinguishing factor is, is that this isn't a sort of the policy issues at play sort of the policy issues at play involve interpretation and how they and how they. >> yes. but the key issue seems to me to be that ministers have made a decision that rwanda is safe. and that's what the bill is aiming to do , and that the is aiming to do, and that the reason the amendments are wrecking amendments is because they open up that decision by creating another body that will decide whether rwanda is safe, and by saying that certain categories of people can claim that they've got a different set of rights and that it gets it all back to the courts, who have

already made it clear that they don't like the rwanda bill. and this occasion, the high court of parliament wishes to express its final and that's why the final view. and that's why the amendments are wrecking. >> but they are not wrecking in a free standing fashion. they are, by reference to legislation already on the table, which parliament itself has introduced. >> but you know the principle as well as i do of implied repeal. and so if you are clear that you're appealing and that you are overriding existing legislation, that's a right parliament always has. and that's the point of this to get this this work through. yes >> but if that's the case then it's a, it's a it's a, it's a, ifs— it's a, it's a it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a repeal by reference to , to certain reference to, to certain elements, not a full repeal in that you've suspended the, the framework on modern slavery or you've suspended the framework in the human rights act, which still affects other areas. so that needs to be scrutinised. >> except that then >> well, except that then completely undermines the point of saying rwanda safe. and of saying rwanda is safe. and that's why the government so that's why the government is so

determined these routes determined to block these routes that any change to the bill changes the fundamental decision that this should be a ministerial matter of judgement , ministerial matter of judgement, rather than a judicial matter of judgement. that's what the bill's really getting at. >> yes, but it's a ministerial point judgement as to a fact point of judgement as to a fact on the ground, whether rwanda is safe or not. yes. should the situation change? but would it be parliament, a matter of opinion and parliament can always legislate again. >> but david, before we go, i want one final question. are you saying to me that if the common sense is back again , you will sense is back again, you will back down? is this your last stand? >> back down? isn't the word i would use, but that's what will happenin would use, but that's what will happen in effect, because we know i would. i would argue that the house of lords does understand and its constitutional duties and propriety. the house of propriety. if the house of commons wanted a vote, but the sun comes up in the west, then it can vote to do that. it can change the facts as it wishes, wishes to change them, and it will get its way on those

things. is it wise to do it? that's another matter. what is the job of the house of lords? it's to scrutinise you and i share the view. >> i think that the origins of this were with thomas moore when the of parliament decided the houses of parliament decided the houses of parliament decided the decided the king in parliament decided what was . now, had we what a marriage was. now, had we been around then, we might not have enough oppose have been brave enough to oppose it have been. we, in it or we might have been. we, in fact, might ourselves fact, might have found ourselves on but since then, on their green. but since then, parliamentary has parliamentary sovereignty has allowed decide facts. >> and as someone who was elected to the house of commons several times, passionately several times, i passionately believe of the believe in the supremacy of the house of commons and believe that in the last analysis, when we've in we've done ourjob in scrutinising and second guessing and , we're spending and questioning, we're spending vast of taxpayers money. vast sums of taxpayers money. we've got 114 million people displaced the world. why displaced in the world. why isn't the uk leading the charge in the international community to track down the traffickers and to do something? >> i'm glad you're fundamentally a commons whatever a house of commons man. whatever he alton is he is, lord alton is fundamentally a good man. so thank to lord alton and thank you to my lord alton and safadi coming on as a friend safadi for coming on as a friend of the program. as always coming

up, you be forced to be a up, should you be forced to be a feminist? well, one judge thinks you getting you should. we'll be getting into the left is into that. and the left is cheering the jackboot cheering at the jackboot of state no, state repression again. and no, i'm talking about some i'm not talking about some irascible bolshie the irascible old bolshie from the stalin in a mariners stalin society in a mariners cap, but senior labour figures and oxford university leaders have it.

well, we've been talking about rwanda and their lordships, and dave says. and not dave cameron. i don't think. but dave says the house of lords was far better when it was just hereditary peers. and carol says, don't reform it. abolish it. blair shouldn't have got rid of the hereditary peers. so it's very reassuring to know that gb news viewers very favour viewers are very much in favour of the predatory principle . will of the predatory principle. will they much in favour of they be so much in favour of being forced be a feminist? being forced to be a feminist? and judge in employment and a judge in an employment tribunal peterborough tribunal in peterborough has said to be said that claiming not to be a feminist could act of feminist could be an act of discrimination. i the discrimination. i quote the

judge who would appear judge who said it would appear that feminist is simply about that a feminist is simply about all equal rights all genders having equal rights and opportunities as men, the judge confessed. the tribunal was perplexed by the defendant's non feminist views and suggested such opinions would be in breach of equality laws. i was perplexed as the judge by his statement. the feminism relates to all genders, implying more than two. i thought feminism was about women, not the transgender ideology, but discrimination must require action rather than a lack of belief. as long as others are treated equally under the law. is there one definition of feminism that must be believed? it seems an extraordinary intrusion into personal as opposed personal belief, as opposed viewing discrimination as an active decision. well, with me now is my panel associate commentator at the telegraph, mumtaz ahmed, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop . and broadcaster tessa dunlop. tessa, is it compulsory basically to agree with you? you may think it should be, but is that a sensible way of the law to go? >> isn't that why you have me here? it's your token feminist so that you aren't entirely shut

down by a tribunal . the down by a tribunal. the establishment that is gb news, no. i looked up the definition of feminism for you because i thought you might need some help in this area. it is the advocacy of women's rights. people like me, on the basis of the equality of the sexes. so that is baked into law. last updated as we discovered. >> well, hold on, baked into law, the equality. >> and i'm all in favour of that . but advocacy to say that it is compulsory to advocate kate something is very different from saying that something is the law of the land. >> it's good to see you. your your usual pedantry self. >> that's what you'd expect. first of all, viewers and listeners expected indeed it's listeners expected indeed, it's important that important to say that this manager, was an environmental manager, he was an environmental agency manager. >> therefore he had a level of agency within his agency, they were contesting his maintenance of a non—feminist view. they suggested that was discriminatory, i.e. as a manager, by maintaining

non—feminist views, that impacts on your ability to treat your employees and your co—workers equally, does it? >> if he treated everybody equally, fact he didn't equally, the fact that he didn't believe feminism was surely believe in feminism was surely his choice. >> he maintaining his >> he was maintaining his non—feminist stance, which is counter to equality. it runs counter to equality. it runs counter to equality. it runs counter to what if you didn't do anything about it? >> muthas feminism is not about equality it's about equality anymore. it's about crushing patriarchy . it's crushing the patriarchy. it's about women gaining the upper hand over men. that's not equal. >> are you another beleaguered male? >> i'm not a feminist. you can believe in equality , right? but believe in equality, right? but you don't have to be a feminist to believe it . and if this man to believe it. and if this man is saying he's not a feminist, he might well be saying, i don't believe in crushing the patriarchy. i don't believe in creating that's creating an environment that's negative creating an environment that's negltive creating an environment that's negl understand that you're >> i understand that you're actually half my age, and you perhaps haven't been around quite long enough to understand what means in what feminism literally means in its legal, defined context. what's happened since you grew up is that the culture wars have

taken words like feminism, and they've injected them with all kinds of potency, which actually are deeply unhelpful to the cause of equality and the cause of overcoming. >> if i don't identify with that word, then which has been injected with all, with all of this politics, am i being discriminatory? if i say in the workplace believe workplace that i don't believe in die, i saying that i don't in die, am i saying that i don't believe in racial equality? of course i'm not. i'm not. i'm saying that i don't believe in the politics of dei. i don't believe in the politics of feminism. how is that discriminatory? >> well, i think what we need to do is divorce. the definition of feminism from the way in which you clearly some individuals you clearly see some individuals as it as a tool to whip as using it as a tool to whip the likes of you with and your rights with. i will go back to read the diction , the oxford read the diction, the oxford dictionary definition of feminism, advocacy of feminism, the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. >> very interestingly, when i looked up in the oxford looked it up in the oxford dictionary, it says should dictionary, it says you should pronounce it feminism, which seems to have gone out of

fashion. i that's fashion. and i think that's well, that before even i was well, that was before even i was born. i think that's born. but i think that's mumtaz's that mumtaz's point that words evolve. actually what you're evolve. and actually what you're saying about a dictionary definition is all perfectly fair and true . but mutaz point is and true. but mutaz point is absolutely spot on. it has become political advocacy of become a political advocacy of something i'm all in favour of, strongly in favour of equality before the law. i think it is the most fundamental principle of but that doesn't of british law. but that doesn't mean that i believe that there is equality of all genders. i don't actually think there are more than two genders anyway, and judge is on about there and this judge is on about there being a whole slew of genders. that's very isn't it? that's very odd, isn't it? >> i'm. judge is i didn't >> i'm. this judge is i didn't i didn't catch that. >> he said that his definition of feminism, or as we're all now going to pronounce it, feminism, is that it relates to all genders. now, once you say all genders. now, once you say all genders , all implies more than genders, all implies more than two, it's only both genders , two, it's only both genders, isn't it? we would say. i mean, i'm delighted we're having a discussion about the correct use of english, but it's both

genders. now, actually, you're a feminist . genders. now, actually, you're a feminist. how many genders. now, actually, you're a feminist . how many genders do feminist. how many genders do you believe in? >> well, in the eyes of the law, they're protected characteristics of different individuals. equates to more than just two sexes. it includes more than two genders, so i would say so sex from gender. and i would say that while i recognise two sexes, there may be more people identifying with two genders. >> are feminists protected or endangered by a man in a frock going into the ladies loos ? i've going into the ladies loos? i've silenced tesla. that's the first time i'm getting it. and mutaz what are the other genders? >> what are they? >> what are they? >> well, i'm not somebody who identifies out with my gender, which is female, but i know that there are those with protected protected characteristics , you protected characteristics, you know, transsexuals who have a different idea of their own gendered identity. and who am i to quibble with that? i really think what what concerns me greatly is that the likes of jacob rees—mogg, who's more likely in the sort likely to be found in the sort

of house or the gentleman's of golf house or the gentleman's drinking ever is drinking club than he ever is campaigning equality and campaigning for equality and women's rights, and worrying about safety suddenly gets about our safety suddenly gets very under the collar. if very hot under the collar. if a man wears a woman's frock and says he's a woman then goes says he's a woman and then goes into female space, i mean, in into a female space, i mean, in any other context, do you ever get worried about female saying no? >> this is something that women are concerned about. and i think and andi are concerned about. and i think and and i think and i think women and i think they're entitled. >> reason we're hearing >> the only reason we're hearing so about this is because so much about this is because men you have jumped on men like you have jumped on their bandwagon. >> we're hearing so much about it because feminists. it because of feminists. ironically, people like jk rowling. agree, it's rowling. yeah i agree, and it's a rabbit that i wish a rabbit hole that i wish feminism, which has got far greater causes to fight like equality, justice, economic greater causes to fight like equalitforustice, economic greater causes to fight like equalitfor women economic greater causes to fight like equalitfor women econ�*having greater causes to fight like equalmomentarilycon�*having greater causes to fight like equalmomentarily silenced g greater causes to fight like equalmomentarily silencedg now been momentarily silenced is now making it. been momentarily silenced is now ma but it. been momentarily silenced is now ma but thank it. been momentarily silenced is now ma but thank you to my panel >> but thank you to my panel coming up. the left is applauded. brussels police and mayor for shutting down a conservative conference. why are the to the the pinkos so wedded to the truncheon jackboot? i'll truncheon and the jackboot? i'll give that . plus, give you my view on that. plus, hmrc staff aren't turning up to work . find what we need to work. find out what we need to do it.

well, we've been having a feisty discussion about feminism , and discussion about feminism, and you've been sending in your male mugs. jamie says feminism is dead. and it paved the way for authoritarian gender politics, embodied by the equality act. it ought to be scrapped. and jeff says, surely the judge just meant that it would be unkind to be a feminist. jacob i'm not sure that's what meant, but sure that's what he meant, but there go. it's times like there we go. it's times like yesterday's disgraceful behaviour mayor yesterday's disgraceful be brussels mayor yesterday's disgraceful be brussels , mayor yesterday's disgraceful be brussels , when mayor yesterday's disgraceful be brussels , when the mayor yesterday's disgraceful be brussels , when the natcon r in brussels, when the natcon event featuring nigel farage and suella braverman faced being shut down by the brussels version gestapo , in which version of the gestapo, in which people show their true colours, not did normally estimable not only did normally estimable shadow health secretary wes streeting make fun of streeting appear to make fun of the whole thing, and, of course, a source close to the right honourable member for fareham, who here today with who couldn't be here today with us, deputy speaker, because us, mr deputy speaker, because she currently brussels she is currently in brussels surrounded by the who are surrounded by the police who are trying shut down the event

trying to shut down the event she's attending with some far right fanatics she has right fanatics with whom she has much common. much in common. >> she said that she is not a fan of the bill. well, now she knows how the rest of us feel about the right honourable member for fareham too. >> but oxford university is head of diversity and equality grown? yes, job exists , chimed yes, such a job exists, chimed in and said i applaud the mayor and police of brussels for their decision to down this decision to close down this conference. take long for him to delete the tweet quickly , but it delete the tweet quickly, but it doesn't. it merely show that socialists and the woke love shutting down debate? well, you may have noticed that a certain pugnacious panellist, kelvin mackenzie, isn't with me today, and that's because i hear that he's not as well as he would like to be. but he joins me from home. kelvin, first of all, i hope you're not feeling too bad. >> no, not too bad. i cheered up in the last debate anyway. >> i had to as a silent >> well, i had to as a silent for a moment, which an absolute miracle. but, anyway, to come to this this topic, yeah. isn't it outrageous that oxford

universities, should be defending the shutting down of debate when universities whole purpose is to expand debate. >> right. so this guy is just an employee . he's like, he's like employee. he's like, he's like a he's like, i know this sounds terrible . like a super hr terrible. like a super hr director. it's as though the finance director of oxford university or the marketing director decided to come and give their views. right. he he he has strong views. that's fine. keep them to himself when he's no longer receiving a monthly pay packet for carrying out, reasonable works within his employer. so that's what i object to. i mean, there are a lot of a lot of companies. i think that would actually probably tap the guy on the shoulder and say, do that again one more time. and, you can go and work somewhere else. and, and work somewhere else. and, and this is the problem that when they have these, these words like, divest and inclusion, what happens is i think they begin to think they are actually politicians and

that they're actually carrying out some kind of legislation instead of just carrying out job. >> yeah. and that's the thing, isn't it? that being head of diversity and equality, he's got a senior role within oxford and he appears to represent the university when he tweets this type of thing. and yet he should actually be an advocate of freedom of speech . freedom of speech. >> yes. and what he should do now, which is which is what he won't do. after all, he came from essex police, didn't he? he got promoted because he had done some good dodi and i and you and everything , essex police. and everything, essex police. and now he's doing quotes. good work at oxford. that's all fine, but actually he should be thinking to himself, what is it that i will damage the i will damage the university which i work for by coming up with this kind of thing, because all it does is make people think, oh, i see. so that even hiring people who are anti—free speech as well, as well as employing it at the same

time , it's quite wrong. time, it's quite wrong. >> but doesn't this tell you what diversity inequality is about? it's about shutting down people you disagree with. and this includes democratically elected politicians. because the terrible thing about brussels was that the people they were shutting up are people who've stood for elections, won elections, many of them holding elected office. elections, many of them holding eleythey)ffice. elections, many of them holding eleythey)fficethey had a former >> they had they had a former home secretary there. i mean, you had the former home secretary. had a guy who is, secretary. you had a guy who is, i think, elected for about i think, been elected for about the last 12 or 13 years, the prime minister of hungary. right. so there's plenty there's bucket loads of democracy there. nobody mentions it. bucket loads of democracy there. nobody mentions it . what they nobody mentions it. what they don't like is they don't like the general attitude , on various the general attitude, on various political subjects. well, that's no reason to shut the place down and send the police in. i mean, to be honest, i didn't know there was a conference there. you may well have known, because you may have been invited, jacob, but how many people knew about it? now? everybody knows about it? now? everybody knows about conference

about this this conference taking brussels. and taking place in brussels. and the about brussels the other thing about brussels is i presume nobody else is that i presume nobody else will try and hold such a conference in brussels ever again, which may cheer up the mayor, but it probably doesn't cheer up shopkeepers and hotel owners and even worse, publicans. >> but isn't it marvellous that all the people who most disapprove of nigel farage give him the best boost of publicity ever? they managed to do it again and again? >> yes. although i must say, i don't believe that among us all, the one person who doesn't need any more publicity right now is, nigel. he seems to be on a winning run. >> he does indeed. well, thank you very much, calvin. i hope you very much, calvin. i hope you feel better soon. okay, i've got still with me. got my panel still with me. associate editor associate common editor of the telegraph. ahmed. the telegraph. mootaz ahmed. and the historian broadcaster tessa dunlop. muirhouse oxford should be pretty embarrassed by this, shouldn't be pretty embarrassed by this, shotheyt be pretty embarrassed by this, shothey should be, but it's part >> they should be, but it's part of much wider, worrying trend, of a much wider, worrying trend, which is we saw some of this dunng which is we saw some of this during brexit where some people were happy to do away

were more than happy to do away with so long they with democracy so long as they won political argument. and with democracy so long as they w> what are they? >> what are they? >> i don't know what they call themselves. >> i think we're taking this a little bit too far. i mean, the right honourable gentleman to my left there suggests that, you know , this is the thin end of

know, this is the thin end of the wedge, and soon we'll be shutting down marches. it was the ex—home secretary who was in the ex—home secretary who was in the knac.com conference, who was trying peaceful trying to shut down peaceful marches, the marches, which is one of the reasons why she lost her job. >> she was trying to shut down hateful marches. >> that how she >> sorry. that was how she termed them. but predominantly, and seen them, i've and i've seen some of them, i've been close and witnessed been up close and witnessed them. peaceful. them. they've been peaceful. so i can accuse i don't think that we can accuse either the left or the right as being exclusively on the terrain of to shut things down. of trying to shut things down. they that's that's >> i think that's i think that's a fair point, actually. and i think very important that think it's very important that you allow marches you don't you allow marches that you don't like, well as ones that you like, as well as ones that you do, and that you should have a broad level tolerance. broad level of tolerance. i don't think should be don't think you should be allowed walk the streets allowed to walk the streets saying a community should be killed annihilated killed or should be annihilated or things, but as or any of those things, but as long as they're peaceful, yes, they should inconvenient. they should be inconvenient. that's unreasonable. that's not unreasonable. >> we have a >> but also when we have a discussion, should discussion, we should be balanced. at moment, all balanced. and at the moment, all the has on. philip the focus has been on. philip close, who was the socialist mayor our we've had mayor and our mayor. we've had a few in london in our time. for goodness sake, boris johnson,

ken and we have not ken livingstone, and we have not given where credit's due given credit where credit's due to the of to the crew. the leader of belgium, immediately on belgium, who was immediately on the that suella the case, made sure that suella braverman her sandwiches braverman got her sandwiches beyond police barricades, beyond the police barricades, i believe, and apologised basically on behalf of his errand and belgian courts , errand and the belgian courts, then to the rescue and said then came to the rescue and said that exceeded powers. that he'd exceeded his powers. >> democracy. you'll be very >> so democracy. you'll be very pleased hear functioning pleased to hear it's functioning brilliantly within the eu. the heart, beating heart of. heart, the beating heart of. well, sent we sent belgium up well, we sent we sent belgium up came after favourite labour came after your favourite labour mps laughed at it. >> it came after lots of tweets. you know, supporting it. i think this tweet came after that actually . it's the response here actually. it's the response here that i'm worried about it. people seem to be willing to cheer on the gestapo . cheer on the gestapo. >> i think like so many of the young, you're taking yourself a little bit too seriously. if i may be bold, i think in that moment there is something a little bit gleeful. you said, both you. you said yourselves both of you. you said yourselves that, you the cat that got that, you know, the cat that got the nigel farage cannot be the cream nigel farage cannot be suppressed. see him, you suppressed. and to see him, you know, stopped in his know, briefly stopped in his tracks. for who dissent tracks. for those who dissent from political standpoint

from his political standpoint did that's so you want did feel, oh, that's so you want to shut down? no, i don't want to shut down? no, i don't want to shut down? no, i don't want to shut him down. but the idea that, you know, there was until i realised it was playing massively in his favour as he wandered around talking about sort despots, you sort of tinpot despots, you know, moment know, there was a brief moment of, hoisted by his of, oh, nigel's hoisted by his own, and i realised, own, but and then i realised, i mean, i waited for context. i've learned to not hit go before i got the full context. >> well done. >> well done. >> were police standing >> well done. >> you re police standing >> well done. >> you know, ce standing >> well done. >> you know, there'sding outside. you know, there's a tunisian business who owns tunisian business owner who owns that venue . he's worried that venue. he's worried about losing business. are losing his business. there are real consequences to this. >> yeah, but they got their sandwiches. that's the main thing. they all got their lunch. >> okay. i'm glad to hear it. and should never forget and we should never forget how badly behaved the badly belgium behaved in the congo colonial rule. it congo in its colonial rule. it was a great way of operating was not a great way of operating a anyway . his majesty's a colony anyway. his majesty's revenue and customs rather revenue and customs h rather than hmrc, has come under much criticism recently . stories of criticism recently. stories of incompetence, inefficiency and long times have abounded long waiting times have abounded , as well as the overpayment of its own staff the tune of £12 its own staff to the tune of £12 million of your money. guy adams, the daily mail

adams, from the daily mail recently visited the william morgan cardiff . there, morgan house in cardiff. there, mr found that only about mr adams found that only about a quarter of staff supposed to be working in the new government building a reported building opened at a reported cost of £100 million two years ago, bothered to turn up instead, after an investigation, he that they were he found that they were supposedly gardening, taking the dog for a walk playing video dog for a walk and playing video games all taxpayer time. games all on taxpayer time. well, my panel, games all on taxpayer time. well, my panel , tessa, well, back to my panel, tessa, you must enjoy ringing the hmrc from time to time. >> you know, this is such good news for the government because this is proof that they don't need to spend as much as they're spending on those enormous, pointless office blocks. they can rent them out to co—workers and they can be converted into churches or bars or hate group meeting points. and you can collect back in the money, because all the research that's done suggests we are more productive if we are allowed to be flexible . what we've got here be flexible. what we've got here is a case of just productivity .

is a case of just productivity. >> you've just invented this research that was absolutely , research that was absolutely, absolutely. yeah. but there was an absolutely excellent article by danny finkelstein on this which showed that, yes, productivity initially increases and then it declines. and this is a typical pattern when you change working habits. i strongly recommend that. but let me bring mutaz in. >> it's one of the great post—pandemic lies, isn't it, you point to complicated research. it's actually quite hard to research productivity. yeah, but what we saw during the pandemic and afterwards was lots of public sector workers choosing to work from home. and then at the same time, if you ring up the tax office, no one answers. right? even rachel reeves , the labour shadow reeves, the labour shadow minister, says she would bring hmrc employees back to the office. even she says that would increase productivity . it's just increase productivity. it's just common sense if you're next to your supervisor, if your supervisor can talk to you, they can get you to do more work, they can get you to pick up the phone. if you're at home, you can put it on your slippers and

make some coffee, which has. >> what's interesting is we discussed off air. there's numerous hmrc numerous reasons why hmrc might be a be underperforming and have a backlog moment. one is backlog at the moment. one is the government, of which the current government, of which jacob been a recent player, jacob has been a recent player, has with a greater has burdened us with a greater level taxation than we've had level of taxation than we've had since the second world war. we have higher numbers people have higher numbers of people who self—employed that who are self—employed and that again case again implicates more case workers. all sorts of workers. so there's all sorts of reasons. and hangover from reasons. and the hangover from the backlog , etc. so i the pandemic backlog, etc. so i think we can cut hmrc some slack. i for one know that anas sarwar let me get this right. a nasdaq firm before the pandemic did random research, they sent half their staff home, etc. etc. call centre 13% increase in productivity from those working from home. >> this is the paradox about changing working patterns that when you first introduce them, people are very enthusiastic about them. work better when it carries for bit. you find carries on for a bit. you find that working from home lowers, and again, i'd refer you to the i also, the research i also, which is the research that bosses. that says older bosses. >> those over the age of 60 and 50, people like you are very

sceptical and younger bosses are much more tolerant of flexible working and therefore recruit the best because it's the best workers because it's competitive . competitive. >> i don't believe that for a moment. the best workers want to be working rather shirking. be working rather than shirking. >> they and therefore they >> and they and therefore they want be the office. want to be in the office. >> and i think most of them want to do half and half. often to do half and half. how often do you into the is it the telegraph? >> it is the telegraph. and i go in every day because if i'm not seen, i'm forgotten. >> oh, that's a totally different well, i see different reason. well, i see you. to go in. you you. you're able to go in. you don't have children. you're footloose, young men. footloose, fancy free young men. it's i just know. do it's not well, i just know. do you children? you have children? >> maybe. >> no. yes, maybe. >> no. yes, maybe. >> think getting in far >> i think we're getting in far too much detail on meta's private life. >> but the point is, this is ambitious. >> he wants to work great. >> he wants to work great. >> he wants to work great. >> he wants to be seen to work. >> he wants to be seen to work. >> i want product delivered >> i want the product delivered later, though. >> you more productive. >> you know, today work >> do you know, today i work from home, i did spend from home, and i did spend a large part of wandering by my large part of it wandering by my garden of cat faeces. garden smelling of cat faeces. but then stormed but actually i then stormed ahead brief two hours where ahead in a brief two hours where i all to myself and it i had it all to myself and it

was silent. but if you're at a call a brief two hours call centre, a brief two hours is no good. >> we need working there for >> we need you working there for eight hours. thank you so much. not doing hours, smelling not doing six hours, smelling your like ferdinand the your garden like ferdinand the bull, roses. your garden like ferdinand the bulokay, roses. your garden like ferdinand the bulokay, but roses. your garden like ferdinand the bulokay, but that roses. your garden like ferdinand the bulokay, but that waszs. your garden like ferdinand the bulokay, but that was a personal >> okay, but that was a personal example. i'm a knowledge based worker. centre worker. i agree, call centre workers deliver. workers have to deliver. >> if you're self—employed and i am so only >> if you're self—employed and i am you're so only >> if you're self—employed and i am you're responding only >> if you're self—employed and i am you're responding to only >> if you're self—employed and i am you're responding to isynly boss you're responding to is yourself. yeah >> pound sterling. yeah. >> the pound sterling. yeah. >> the pound sterling. yeah. >> actually people at >> whereas actually people at hmrc the hmrc are responding to the british and want british taxpayer and we want them telephone. them answering telephone. >> them >> exactly. no you want them answering you answering telephone where you can see i want as can see them. i want as a self—employed person who regularly because regularly rings up because i can't understand the conditions and online, and the forms online, i've got to say, yesterday up to say, yesterday i rang up about benefit again and about my child benefit again and they minutes. >> w- >> within two minutes. >> within two minutes. >> there go. >> well, there we go. >> well, there we go. >> i forgot to ask if she was working

well, the batteries may not be as good as you'd hoped for. they may be running dry for

electricity. as global demand falls by more than 40. elon musk has announced a 10% cut to tesla's workforce. while his chinese competitors have dramatically reduced their prices. this a permanent prices. is this a permanent reversal of fortune for a product that was the future? once one man who thinks otherwise is james court, chief executive of the electric vehicle association, james, thank you, as always for joining us, is this a fundamental change for electric vehicles or is it just the removal of subsidies and market forces catching up with reality ? with reality? >> i think country by country , >> i think country by country, there's going to be slightly different reasons. in the uk, we've actually seen very solid growth. so again year evs growth. so again this year evs have 10% this year, so have grown 10% this year, so we're doing reasonably well country by country. there are issues and there are some supply chain issues when it comes to tesla. and i think with china, there's a whole other geopolitical game being played there when it comes to pricing and when it comes to their

rollout, i think it's hard to judge any given quarter judge on any given quarter quarter of results, but the long tum trajectory is going to be that of, of electric vehicles. and i think the one thing i would say is what you said earlier is that petrol cars are still going to be around. and i don't think people should be scared, nobody's coming to force them into a solution that isn't going to for them. we have going to work for them. we have an long time people an awful long time to get people into electric vehicles, and that's of the interesting that's one of the interesting things that been very things that norway has been very successful people to successful in getting people to buy vehicles. buy electric vehicles. >> given huge subsidies to >> it's given huge subsidies to help but actually the number help it, but actually the number of petrol cars on the road has gone at the same time, so gone up at the same time, so that are clearly that people are clearly making choices use choices about when they use their petrol car and when they use electric vehicle . use their electric vehicle. >> i think we're moving away now from pump priming from governments pump priming the market. i think we're now probably a couple of years away from the sticker price of, a petrol car versus an electric car, i think probably 27, 28. it's already cheaper to run , so

it's already cheaper to run, so it's already cheaper to run, so i think the pump priming of the market has now been done. what we need to see now probably isn't a huge amount of grants. it's simple things like removing regulations , planning, trying to regulations, planning, trying to get connections better, trying to get charging to more , to get charging to be more, well, both cheaper and more. obviously they're , the obviously they're, the satisfaction rates for ev drivers is phenomenally high. it's i think in our own survey, 92% of ev drivers are happy with their car and only four want to move back, and that's broadly represented in other statistics. so happy with them. so people are happy with them. there are grumbles about the charging network and that does need to get better for, i suppose, the next stage of people to get into electric vehicles. >> so the next stage needs pnces >> so the next stage needs prices come and them prices to come down and for them to become competitive . to become more competitive. >> exactly that. i think for a lot of people now , they've lot of people now, they've looked at it. and if you've if you own a driveway, it is almost certainly going cost certainly going to be cost effective you've got effective for you. you've got salary going to salary sacrifice. it's going to be effective for you, be cost effective for you, without into sort of without getting into sort of segmentation are getting segmentation, we are now getting into early mainstream

into the early mainstream of people into evs. and i people moving into evs. and i would say that probably the charging to charging infrastructure needs to be a little better and be a little bit better and pnces be a little bit better and prices to come down prices need to come down a little bit, that going to little bit, but that is going to be over the one to be happening over the one to next 2 to 3 years. >> and how concerned are you about dependence people >> and how concerned are you abothave dependence people >> and how concerned are you abothave forpendence people >> and how concerned are you abothave for evsience people >> and how concerned are you abothave for evs on:e people >> and how concerned are you abothave for evs on on people >> and how concerned are you abothave for evs on on china?yple will have for evs on on china? partly in the production of the cars themselves, but also in the production batteries ? production of the batteries? >> it's in many ways i can see arguments for both. and i think it's for politicians like you, i suppose to argue this out on the one hand, letting consumers have the cheaper vehicles. and let's be in no doubt the chinese vehicles that are coming over are going to be cheaper and are very good quality , versus very good quality, versus i suppose, some of the protectionist i know that protectionist stuff. i know that we've a or is we've got a or there is a battery powered, plant being put very your constituency. very near your constituency. these the of, of, of , i these are the type of, of, of, i suppose things you've got to weigh up versus our own domestic industry versus consumers getting those goods cheaper . getting those goods cheaper. >> and, and that is going to be

a very important issue. not just in terms of the dominance of china, but also in its ability to track people that if it has embedded technology within the cars, that could become a security risk , as well as being security risk, as well as being a competitive risk on that, i would say a huge amount of our technology is already made in countries like china , there is countries like china, there is already a huge amount of i mean, iphones are made in china. there's already that what you would say in the company bosses from companies like byd would say is that if it was found out that that was true, it would ruin the reputation of that brand. and they would want to protect that. there would be very little point in china putting all money behind , putting all this money behind, trying a manufacturing trying to be a manufacturing giant only give it giant in evs, only to give it away for some minor intelligence reasons. well, james, thank you, as always, for a very well reasoned argument in favour of evs, though i am afraid i'm still sticking with my petrol engine for the time being. >> you. anyway, all >> thank you. anyway, that's all from me up it's patrick

from me. up next, it's patrick christys patrick, is on the christys patrick, what is on the bill this evening ? bill of fare this evening? >> yes, but you're not the one driving your engine, are driving your petrol engine, are you, an you, jacob? right. i've got an exclusive tonight. i've got an exclusive tonight. i've got an exclusive tonight. i've got an exclusive tonight , footage from exclusive tonight, footage from inside stockholm inside the bibby stockholm barge, quite revealing, barge, which is quite revealing, actually. tiktok prankster mizzy. terrorising mizzy. he was terrorising people, but now he's here. he says he wants to clear his name, so we've given him a platform for that. and have the lords just signed their own death warrant? >> that's very exciting. >> oh, that's very exciting. we were lords here were discussing the lords here earlier, and i think the lords has overreached itself . has overreached itself. actually, that's coming up after the be back the weather. i'll be back tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rees—mogg. this has been state of nation and the weather in of the nation and the weather in somerset. you expect? somerset. what would you expect? it's so good, so it's going to be so good, so fine. it's going to be the best as trump might say. as donald trump might say. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> time for your latest weather update from the met office here on gb news. good evening.

temperatures dropping away tonight. it's going to be a cold start tomorrow. much of the south stay fine, but south will stay fine, but further some rain and further north some rain and cloud in thanks this cloud moving in thanks to this little pressure little area of low pressure that's drifting south. ahead of that, we've had a couple of weather fronts bringing some rain for rain today, particularly for northern ireland now northern ireland that's now spreading parts spreading south across parts of pembrokeshire and pembrokeshire, devon and cornwall. through cornwall. but clearing through this showers this evening further showers across eastern england. they'll steadily as well. and where steadily fade as well. and where we've got the clear skies, southern scotland, northwest england , wales a hint of blue on england, wales a hint of blue on the chart suggesting there will be a frost. certainly in the countryside, most towns and cities just staying above cities just about staying above freezing, certainly chilly freezing, but certainly a chilly start for many. start to thursday for many. a bright sunny start. there could be some showers early on across kent. should fade, but rain kent. they should fade, but rain will into for the will creep into for the highlands of scotland, the western isles first thing and that will spread across of that will spread across most of scotland lunchtime. parts of scotland by lunchtime. parts of the north and east of northern ireland some and ireland seeing some rain and through turning through the afternoon, turning damp and damp over northern england and north much of the north wales. but much of the south stay dry bright. south will stay dry and bright. we 15 in london.

we could reach 15 in london. a brighter across east anglia, brighter day across east anglia, cooler north with cooler further north with the winds up those brisk winds picking up and those brisk winds picking up and those brisk winds then a feature of the weather as well . weather on friday as well. friday. broadly speaking, a mixture showers , mixture of sunshine and showers, a duller day across the south—east and a much wetter day across east anglia compared to tomorrow. feeling chilly again with that winds much of northern ireland having drier ireland scotland having a drier day and but still on the fresh side, 8 to 14 degrees looks like things are heating up . things are heating up. >> boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> it's 9 pm. i'm patrick christys tonight. an exclusive footage from inside the bibby stockholm barge and breaking tonight. the house of lords have done the unthinkable on rwanda. also. >> hello. can i call the police? the people on the train , missy,

the people on the train, missy, the infamous criminal prankster is live. >> has he really turned his life around and i would like to report , what is an illegal report, what is an illegal operation in the french waters ? operation in the french waters? the french acting as a taxi service for illegal immigrants . service for illegal immigrants. >> how do you ask for a drink? come down. tell him to stop hitting you. stop hitting me. raise >> is it ever right to smack your child ? your child? >> he has no proof that i'm a threat. other than that, i was in isis. >> does everyone deserve legal aid ? and who's in the wrong aid? and who's in the wrong here? watch very closely . oh, here? watch very closely. oh, there we go. i've got all of tomorrow's newspaper front pages with my panellists. director of popular conservatives mark littlewood , businessman adam littlewood, businessman adam brooks and author rebecca reid . brooks and author rebecca reid. and we're going to address the elephant in the room . yes. elephant in the room. yes. that's right. get ready britain. here we go