Is Donald Trump a fascist?

This is LBC, from Global, leading Britain's conversation with Iain Dale. Hello, very good evening. It's five minutes past seven on RBC. I'm Iain Dale, here with you until ten. Now, I've received a lot of complaints over the past week or two from some people who say, hey, haven't you been talking about Israel? And then other people say, why have you been talking about Israel so much over the past six months?

Well, what's going on in Israel and Gaza and Lebanon now? I think it's the big news story of the last year for obvious reasons. And yesterday, we brought you the news that Israel's parliament had decided had voted to prevent any contact between the Israeli government and the United Nations refugees and works agency UNRA, which effectively provided aid in Gaza and in the West Bank.

Now, given all the controversy over the supply of humanitarian aid, particularly to Gaza over the last few months, I mean, in fact, more than the last few months, that you could argue that this is a decision that is likely to antagonize the international community. And Israel justifies it on the basis that it believes that there were more than a few UNRA employees involved in the planning of the October the 7th attacks.

Now, if that is true, then you can understand Israel being very, very angry about that. But does it justify effectively cutting off the aid agency that operates in Gaza? Because we know that there is a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That has been apparent for many months when David Cameron was foreign secretary.

And remember that finished what three and a half months ago. He was very vocal about this. The current Labour government has been vocal as well about the need to ensure that aid gets into Gaza. And clearly, there are huge difficulties in doing that. Now, you can argue all you like that the Egyptians are equally as responsible for not allowing enough aid. And the border crossing in the southern part of Gaza. But what responsibility does the Israeli government have for allowing more aid into Gaza?

What do you think the international community should do? How do you think Britain should go about trying to pressure Israel over aid for Gaza? That's my question for you this hour. O345-6060-973. Well, Britain's development minister, Ali Stodz, was asked about the potential impact of this new Israeli law when she took questions in the comments this afternoon. There is no doubt that there will be very severe consequences if the work of UNRA is indeed obstructed.

We've already talked about this within this debate. It's very clear that it's only UNRA that has the depth of reach that is required to get the aid needed to those in such desperate need within Gaza. We do not believe there is any justification for the position that has been taken. We've been very clear about that as the UK government.

We have articulated that not only bilaterally, but also, of course, with our partners. We did that immediately over the weekends. The position of the UK government is very clear on this. That's Anali Stodz there. James Marlow joins me. A journalist and security analyst who returned to the UK from Israel yesterday. James, very good evening. What's the thinking behind this decision by the Israeli Parliament?

I'm good evening to you, Ian. If I may just correct you on one very small point, that is not yet a law. It was two bills which was passed last night in the Knesset. Now, one of those bills is to curb, hamper and impede the ability of Bumra, as you said, the United Nations relief and works agency in the areas that Israel operates. So that's Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem Judea and Samaria, of course, is what Jordan used to call between 1948 and 1967 in the West Bank.

Jerusalem, and of course, now Gaza, because the Israeli troops have been in Gaza for just over a year. The second bill was aimed at preventing Bumra to offer its refugee services. Now, both of these bills, very interestingly, passed by huge majority. In fact, so much so. I have been covering the Knesset since the early 90s. I was surprised at the majority. The first bill was 92 in four for this bill. Ten against. Those ten against were mostly Arab MKs.

And if you take into account the government has only got 64 seats, as of course, the Lee Kud party, two religious parties and two right wing parties, five political parties. They've only got 64 seats altogether. So that means you had another 28 seats from the other parties voting for this particular bill.

One of them is the center to left Benny Gans party. The other one is the center to left Yalaf, Pay party. Even the far left merits party. And they're allies. They've now renamed themselves called the Democrats, interestingly enough. But the far left party, they even abstained. They didn't want to vote because it's pretty widely known in Israel that Umrah and Hamas have had this connection since the 1990s.

A lot of reports have come out journalists have uncovered it. And these reports have been passed onto the United Nations and those reports have been ignored. Now, there is widespread support in Israel for this action because, as I said, there's been a lot of coverage on this. It's not just those.

I think it was 12 or possibly 13 of actual Umrah members who were seeing crossing into Israel on October 7, alongside those on the bikes who were with guns shooting and doing everything else, which we, of course, we know about on October 7. But it's also you have to remember that out of the 500 miles worth of terror tunnels under Gaza, which the Israelis have discovered. And I don't think they had any idea how big the actual system was.

They have actually taken away literally millions and millions of documents, many on the hard drives, some of them are hard copies, which actually name those who are members of Umrah, also who are members of the Hamas organization, Islamic Jihad. And those who participated in the different fighting forces like the look by forces that is a little outcome. Some so they've got this evidence. They presented some of these evidence.

The other evidence, as I understand, has been passed on to foreign ministries, including the British for our ministry. So they should be aware of this particular evidence. And have any of those people who work for on and cross the border or involved in the planning of October 7, have they been dismissed?

Yes, they have. Umrah has admitted this and they were part of it. In fact, actually, it's interesting because some of the news networks here in the UK have actually been saying that Umrah dismissed them because Israel said that they were involved, not because that they actually saw the evidence, which is astonishing. But here's the thing. Umrah was created in 1949, as we know today, it's literally a 1.20 billion dollar industry. That's how much money is raised per year.

Now we know that Gaza, sadly, Gaza doesn't have an infrastructure whereby it creates some type of an asset. A lot of that money, of course some of the money was used for medicine and food and water as it should be. But a lot of that money was used for these tunnels and for armoring Hamas and Islamic jihad and the Mujahidin and the Fata Al-Aqsa and the other groups in there as well. They had the ability to fire not just short range and medium range missiles, but long range missiles too.

And that money came from part of it, at least, we're pretty sure came from Umrah. And that's the reason why even some people on the left in Israel recognize that it's time now to Umrah to not be involved with Israel. Now let's just be clear on this. Israel is not actually saying, it's not Israel, it's not shutting it down. Israel hasn't got the ability to shut it down.

But it's not lobby is far too powerful. It will still operate in the region. What Israel is saying is, and if this becomes law and it's still got a bit of about 90 days to go, if it's more bills go through the Knesset, what Israel is saying is it will not cooperate with them and it will prevent them from operating inside the areas that I mentioned before.

So, I think the question is, well, if that happens, then who is going to take over? And I reckon that there are plenty of agencies that can do the job. I mean, if I give you an example, about three months ago, there was a huge amount of publicity of polio breaking out in Gaza.

And it would be a disaster from the Israeli point of view from the Palestinian from the whole region. Israel did something about it. The World Health Organization got on board with this. They worked with the Israelis and the organization that code, which is called co gates, COGAT, and you can follow them.

I'm sure that's true, but the fact is, aid is not getting into Gaza. There are people starving in Gaza. There's malnutrition in Gaza. And you have to hold the Israeli government at least partially responsible for that because they're preventing it from getting through. Why, why are they doing that?

Well, I don't know where that information is coming from, and I have to tell you because when it comes to virtually every government in the world is saying the same thing. Well, co gates, again, I would respectfully ask your followers to you can find them on Twitter every single day that they tweet out how many trucks are going in at 100, 200, sometimes 450.

And then they've got drones up in the air and you can see those trucks in many cases, not all cases, but in many cases that they're on the Gaza side of Gaza of the area. They're not being collected. They're not being distributed. This is this was almost job and this is why Israel is saying it's now time for a change. It's time for a change for the education system in their schools because many of the Hamas teachers, many of the teachers in onerous schools were Hamas members.

But also it's time for a change of those who distribute the actual aid. And if I can just add unicef, they're distributing the aid, not nearly as big as Umrah, but they're doing a really good job.

And by the way, in some cases, you're seeing a world food program actual boxes, which clearly says on the side of the boxers not for resale are being sold in the markets. So I don't think it's true. And there's a lot of video around of that. I don't think it's true to say that food is not getting in and these rallies are not stopping it. They don't want this. They want food to get in.

It is quite clear that not enough food is getting in. Otherwise, though, people wouldn't be starving. But James, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed. That's James Marlow, journalist and security analyst. Hannah, what the vice felt.

What's the vice felt sorry is director of Yakad campaign group, which works to mobilize British Jews in support of a political resolution to the conflict in Israel and Palestine. Hannah, thank you very much for joining us. What do you make of what James has said in that piece there because all the evidence seems to be that food aid is not getting through. He says well nothing to do with the Israelis.

I mean, I think we know that that's actually incorrect because the American government, the defense secretary and the Secretary of State wrote to these already government, I think two weeks ago now issuing them with an automaton, which was that if you do not increase the flow of aid in 30 days, there will be consequences.

And we've seen as you play that clip from Ali's thoughts, you mentioned this, that there's been a statement in the last few days from seven and four ministries. Also making a similar claim about lack of aid and the need for an utter distribute it. So it's certainly the case that these ready government controls the borders and controls the flow of aid. I think to pretend that that is not an issue is actually just factually baseless because there's plenty of evidence that suggests otherwise.

This law that's going through the Israeli parliament at the moment, what effect do you think that will have? Well, I think it's going to be incredibly problematic and I would I just want that specific thing that the previous guest said, which I think it is really important to refute because it is absolutely the case of the World Food Programming Unicep for Operation Gaza, but they have both gone on record.

I think it would be a great mistake to do today, or if it wasn't today yesterday and said that they will not be able to continue their operations without under and in all likelihood to humanitarian operational collapse and this and so you know that there is absolutely a case for the reform of under and I think it would be a grave mistake for people to pretend that there is not.

There is evidence of a number of unrest after have since been dismissed participating in October the 7th, but the consequences of denying under as ability to maneuver in Gaza and the West Bank is that millions of Palestinians literally are going to pay the price of that.

As we know that people are besieged and some are starving and the only agency whether people think it is a good thing or a bad thing is the only agency that has the infrastructure to deliver aid and so to close it down to effectively close it down, which is what would happen if these bills become laws in 90 days time, would mean that the people of Gaza are stuck unable to receive aid and however bad the humanitarian situation is now it is going to get much worse.

And what I would say to people who are concerned about is insecurity and that is a legitimate concern. It's very hard to see how denying millions of people that live within your control the right to basic access to basic needs like food, water, sanitation, schooling, how that will make you safer in the short or the long term. There is no evidence to suggest that what is happening today in Gaza is going to bring security for Israel.

The people who are people who are denied basic living standards and you know and we've been through this war has now over 12 months old and there are millions of displaced people in Gaza. There is no security for Israel in circumstances like that and there is absolutely no safety and security for the Palestinian people. You see I think what a lot of my listeners are going to be thinking is well James Marlow sounded completely convincing in all the arguments that he was putting forward.

You're putting counter arguments, you sound completely convincing too. And what conclusions are they supposed to draw? Because I mean I find myself as somebody who's been I mean obviously followed this very closely and I can't make up in my own mind. People who who really is at fault here and what should happen now how can international governments pressurize the Israeli government to actually open things up and allow more aid in, particularly as you say if under other key to all of this anyway.

Look I think the question about who do you believe and who's got the correct facts? I think to an extent the facts speak for themselves which is that I don't think anyone can deny that there is a grave humanitarian crisis in Israel. I saw in Gaza sorry and that and that Israel controls the borders and so it has the ability to allow aid in and out and I don't think it's as simple and I think this is really important it gets lost often there's conversation.

It's not as simple as open the border the trucks go through and then it's responsibility of agencies on the other side to distribute the aid because those trucks need fuel they need the ability to maneuver unimpeded they need they need safe passage and all of those things.

Have been incredibly difficult to get to get literally for those aid agencies to get guarantees that their staff will be safe, distribution aid and we've seen that there were three British aid workers killed distribution food and Gaza not that long ago.

And Israel does bear that responsibility and it is the case that unrebares responsibility for the staff employees and for grave terrible things that happen to not go to the seventh of which a minority of their staff and it is a minority because I'm a employees over 100,000 people and there were nine staff dismissed and I'm not I'm not dismissing the gravity of what happened but punishing millions of Palestinians civilians who were innocent.

Because of that which is what will be the outcome of this is is a highly problematic thing for these really government to do and you know and I think that the international community I think the UK government and David Lamby the foreign sector is right to say to Israel that we cannot support this we support reform of unre and we will continue to monitor that but we cannot stand by you.

Why you shut down the only aid agency that has the capacity to feed literally feed the people of Gaza. Hannah thank you for joining us that's Hannah Weissfeld who's director of Yacca campaign group which works to mobilize British Jews in support of a political resolution to the conflict in Israel and Palestine. Right will come to your calls in just a moment. 0345 6060973 how should Britain go about trying to pressure Israel over aid for Gaza. The end of the day on LBC.

724 let's go to Nick in Stratford. Hello Nick. Hi yeah that is really government may not absolutely think in my opinion is an attempt of genocide for the starvation. It only adds to the mansion of evidence that the Israeli government is attempting to genocide in Gaza. If obviously what the Israeli spokesman that was on earlier is saying what he's saying. How come they were attacking unifil in Lebanon.

You know I think I think they've just gone issue with United Nations and anybody who wants to make peace. I don't think they want peace. Well they would say they have an issue with Hamas and we know that there were unra employees who were supporting Hamas. Some of them took part in October the 7th. Some of them took part in the planning of October the 7th. So from an Israeli point of view obviously that's a very serious matter.

From what they're saying there's other questions you need to cross examine what cross examine what they're saying. If they have an issue with unra because they're supporting Hamas. Why did they attack unifil in Lebanon. I'm not familiar with that. Who are they? It's a United Nations body assigned by the United Nations to go in sort of trying to keep peace in the area in Lebanon. You don't know about that. I'm afraid I don't. Apologies.

I think there's something you need to look into. You need to cross examine and ask these questions. You can't just take a point blank whatever they tell you. You need to look at all the facts. You know, say one thing. I mean in your opinion. Would it would it not? Is there not a possibility that this could be an attention to genocide by starvation?

Well, I would very much hope not. No, I don't know. I think that using those kind of phrases and words. I mean, look, you're perfectly entitled to come to the conclusion that you've come to. I don't believe that a democratic state like Israel has an agenda of genocide. I know there've been a queue. So that's in Gaza because of the number of people that have been killed. But personally, I'm not I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that that meets the definition of genocide.

I've criticized the extent of the attacks in Gaza, which have resulted in too many civilians having been killed. And I think it's it's wrong in the way that they haven't targeted in the way that they said they would. I think they have done that more in love in recent months. But I don't believe that meets the definition of genocide, which I know will cause an absolute outrage among many people listening, but that's my fee.

Okay, I mean, let's take for argument, say let's let's say, okay, you know, Israel is right in saying that they're going to lock out because they support our mass because they had an involvement in October 7th. The idea of how a policy called the the Hannibal directive, which basically it's an idea of policy, which says there are lots of kill their own citizens and their own army personnel just so that the opposition opposition can't take any hostages.

But there is potential evidence that they use that Hannibal directive on October 7th because they've evidence that the idea of killed their killed killed Israel is really now should read in the same light. Well, I'd love to know what that evidence is. Given given that the idea for not even present in the hour in the hours following what happened on October 7th, I'd love to know where you get that evidence from Nick.

There is evidence to say that the idea of had involvement in killing Israelis, where is this evidence? I don't have it in my pocket. No, I don't know. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's not. No, it's never suggested that I did know everything, but if you're saying there is evidence, I wasn't expecting you to produce it out of your pocket, but you must have read it. You must have seen it someone.

We're not in the court of law. I have to propose evidence now. No, no, but where have you read about this evidence? Are you just repeating something that you've heard or where have you seen it? I'll tell you where I'll tell you where. So you know what we get is very bespoke spends coming on air and on TV saying, oh, I must burn these people and they've been these people, etc.

Well, we've seen it from their own footage. Yeah, but let me explain something to you. So there was on October 7th, there was some people that got burned basically. They got an after a burn alive or whatever. And when they looked into it weeks later, who they were, if they were not Israelis, they were from Gaza. So the guys in are not going to burn themselves. Are they someone's obviously going to burn it out? It wouldn't surprise me at all what hammers are capable of anything.

We know what hammers did because they recorded it on their own video cameras and their own, what would you call those cameras that have just fixed you to your clothing. So we've seen the evidence of that, but I'm just interested about this evidence that you seem to have, but you can't say where it's come from. Well, you're only accepting evidence where you feel like you were at reach feature narrative.

No, I'm giving you the opportunity to tell me where is this evidence that you seem to think proves what you're saying because you can't tell me, can you? It's the idea of an admission that they, I mean, they're all witnesses on October 7th is really witnesses. And they, and they, they basically self, what you call it, they basically go witness against the idea. So where have you, where have you read this? The idea of panic and killed it on people. Where have you read this? Where have I read it?

Yeah, I'm just asking, I'm, I'm interested to know where you read it. So I can then go. I'm not, I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. You must have learned it from somewhere. You must have learned it from somewhere, Nick. Otherwise, you wouldn't be repeating it on the radio. All I know is, is where you heard it from. You're going to, you're going to dismiss that evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative.

No, because I want, I want to go and investigate it myself, but I can't do that if you don't tell me where I can look. The presenter is your duty. That if somebody has given you the information for you to go on, and verify that it's a major to see if it's true. No, it may then change your narrative and how you feel about it. No, because I think you're lying. I think you're lying because you are absolutely sick. If you're unable to tell me, oh, here we go. Here we go. Carry on your rant.

I mean, you sicken me because you make, you throw around these allegations, which you're unable to, oh, now you've put the phone down. That just about says it all doesn't it, Mark, but please don't call again. Ian Dail, Tax Day 4 850. This is LBC. 734 on LBC. We'll come back to your calls on Israel Garza in just a moment.

But first, the suspect charged with the murder of three girls in Southport is to be separately prosecuted on suspicion of possessing terrorist material and producing the highly toxic poison rice in. That's according to police today. Let's get more on this from Liam Gotting, LBC's Northwest report who joins us from Ersy side. Liam, give us the background to this and the reasons why the police have made this statement today.

Well, Ian, you might remember back in July three young girls, BB King, Elsie Stankham and Elise De Silva, Agia were killed in a knife attack in Southport. Now 18-year-old Axel Ruder, Cabana, was arrested and charged. He now faces three counts of murder, ten counts of attempted murder and one counts of possession of a knife. Now, the plea and trial preparation hearing was meant to take place a couple of weeks ago, but it was delayed. And there wasn't a reason given for that at the time.

We expected or suspected that something may be coming down the line. It was this press conference led by the Chiefs of the Merseysi Police Serena Kennedy, who revealed that the 18-year-old has now also been charged with production of a biological toxin, namely rice in, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.

And any information was revealed to be a PDF entitled Military Studies in the G-Head against the tyrants, the Al Qaeda Training Manual. Now, Axel Ruder, Cabana will appear at Westminster, magistrates caught tomorrow via video link on these two new charges. We were told that Merseysi Police search Axel Ruder, Cabana's home not long after the attack in Southport and found rice in there, which is a highly toxic chemical poison. We were told it was just a small amount that was discovered.

It believed to be very low risk to the public and that no rice in was found near or on Hart Street, where the knife attack took place back in July. That there's no evidence that any victims, members of the public or emergency service workers were exposed to rice in at any point, jolering or after the incident in Southport. Now, here's a little bit of Merseysi Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy talking today during the press conference.

You may have seen speculation online that the police are deciding to keep information from the public. This is certainly not the case. We have been given extensive guidance by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to what we can say publicly to ensure the integrity of the court proceedings are protected. And therefore, we are restricted in what we can share with you now the proceedings are live. Any in the other main talking points come from today's press conference.

There was that the Chief Constable also revealed that despite today's terrorism offense charge, the knife attack back in Southport in July has not been declared a terrorist incident. The justification given for that is that possessing material like the one mentioned today is enough to warrant a terrorism offense charge regardless of the person's intense to use it or not.

The reason why it is a terrorist attack is that when it comes to something like a knife attack like in Southport, a terror motivation needs to be established by counter-terror officers which were told hasn't happened in that case. Serena Kennedy did admit that this may lead to speculation, especially given the new charges today, but is urging people to refrain from speculation while the court proceedings are ongoing. Liam, thank you. That's Liam Gottingl, VCs Northwest reporter.

A bachelor calls on aide to Gaza. Simon's in Edgeware. Hello, Simon. I just really get kind of angry when people ring up and make wild accusations based on this stupidity. The idea that Israeli soldiers would actually kill their own people and then frame the massacre is quite frankly, grossly insulting for the victims. That's all I wanted to say on that point. You handled that very well by the way. I'm not too close to calling to my tax screen, I didn't, but there we go.

Well, that's how to pile the calls, isn't it? The matter of UNRA, well, there has been several members, as you know, have been sacked by the UN, not by any other body, but the UN because they work for the UN, for their affiliation to Hamas, and there are probably that's the tip of the iceberg, I would suggest. The other problem with under is that people probably don't know, is that they also are responsible for the distribution of school textbooks into the Gaza Strip into the schools.

And those textbooks still contain phrases calling for Israel's annihilation and the death of Jews, so they are for me discredited. They can be replaced, they can be replaced by two bodies, one is UNESCO and one is the World Food Program, who are more than capable of doing the job, but you can't do it overnight, you have to phase them out, under out and phase these two bodies in. That's the kind of change I would like to see.

But they have a budget of $1.2 billion according to James Marlow earlier, I mean, they are a massive organization, they are crucial to the functioning of the refugee camps on the West Bank as well. And clearly the fact that if Israel won't have any communication with them, that is going to cause hardship, isn't it?

I think there needs to be a balance here, it may be that part of under would stay there, but bulk of there, I would have a phase movement to bring in the World Food Program and UNESCO, who can do the job just as well.

When you have so many members that either have been involved directly with Hamas or affiliated or have sympathies to continue and also to have them continue with the education program, where textbooks are still referencing some of the most horrific anti-Semitic phrases, does really discredit them.

Well, the point I wanted to make we discussed the Lebanon, they are beautiful troops, after the 2006 war, Resolution 1701 said that his bottom has pulled back to the Littani River, that's a river that's about 18 miles from Israel border.

The UN troops were tasked with peeping the peace, which they failed to do 10,000 of them there, so that is just bringing up that point anyway. But no, for me under our discredited and should be replaced by the World Food Program and UNESCO, but it has to be done in a phased movement, it can't be just done overnight or in short space of time.

Okay, Simon, thank you very much indeed. Neil in Carl Shulton says, I just called the turn end of the conversation you were having with the caller condemning Israel. I really do like you here, and I know you have to challenge callers, but I have to say the fashion in which you did it was pretty rude calling him a liar and also telling him not to ring in again.

Please remember, without listeners and callers to LBC, there would be no LBC and no jobs for all the great presenters at LBC. I'll continue to listen to you because I do think you're a very decent person and a great radio presenter. I really hope you read this out. Well, perhaps you go back Neil and listen to the whole call because I tried to get that caller to say where he got the evidence for the allegations that he was making. He refused to provide them. He then went on a complete rant.

And I will stand by the fact that I don't ever want to hear from him again because he was spreading misinformation and making all sorts of allegations. I admitted in that phone call that what something that I didn't know. So I think I was sort of playing my part, but I'm afraid he didn't play his so apologies if you thought that was rude, but sometimes you do have to call a spade a spade. John's in acting. Hello, John. Hey, how are you doing in. Thank you. What you like to say.

I hope you're not going to get into as much an argument with you as the last quarter. You know, you definitely know exactly. I'm actually going to put you from the other the other side of this. And I think that the evidence is quite clear that amongst the unrestarts, they say, yes, maybe ten of them participated in massacre, conservative numbers, but they say that at least 10% of them are actual active members of commerce or is that actually had.

And I think that even Sinwai bodyguard, who was found with his unit path. And as you previous call us dead and all those issues being discredited to this extent cannot be a partner in peace for anyone. And I don't think the Israelis are saying, you know, stop eight to gather that's not what the same. If you look at the level of support and that 90% voting for this measure means that it's in this is the left wing part. And the Tanya who is not one of his policies is probably accepted by everyone.

Clearly, what they believe is a new dawn where you can have people who are responsible who are actually not corrupt, who can give out this a. And do it in a way that it's not going to affect the delivery that people and the recipients are going to get what what's besting for them without being stolen by hummus, which is what the case is happening at the moment.

So it's a sensible gesture. It's got time. It's the 90 days to make it happen. But there are a lot of other organizations, well, then, then our foreign secretary and our Prime Minister criticizing it. Let them step into the breach and say, listen, yeah, we're going to figure out a way to have a non corrupt and a non non biased organization to actually come along and deliver the food to those who need it.

Okay, John, thank you very much indeed for that. This is from Samuel who says you can't call it disinformation without validating it yourself or otherwise. Well, I invited the caller to validate it. I can't sit here while I'm talking to someone on the radio and validate something or invalidate something. And I can't prove a negative.

I mean, if it's wrong, how can I prove that it's wrong when someone makes those kind of allegations? I repeatedly asked him to provide. In fact, all I asked him to do is say, well, where did you hear that? I didn't even ask him for sort of evidence. I just was interested to know where that came from. And he couldn't even tell me that. So I drew my own conclusions apologies. Anya is in Pinnah. Hello, Anya.

Anya, are you there? No, it's. Oh, sorry, I've got the wrong name. It's our jeet. Hello, or jeet. Sorry about that. No, it's noisy. I'm for you. Good. Thank you. What would you like to say? Well, it was to a response to a question, which he said, what can Britain do? And honestly, I don't think we can do much because I don't think at this juncture, we have an leverage.

I mean, we are at the point where we're discussing bus fare caps. We are discussing that on school fees. We are talking about sample gain taxes. But it is going to be tomorrow. We don't know how the market or the pound is going to react. The fact of the matter is, you know, we are discussing things which are happening in some other part of the world. Yes, of course, you know, I mean, we have relations and the last generations are all there. But right now, till the time we get the UK strong.

Just your common tree, this kind of matter. I don't think it's good. I'm not sure I follow your argument because yes, of course, we've got the budget tomorrow. So we spend time talking about domestic things. But just because we're talking about domestic things doesn't mean that we have a foreign secretary who's obviously discussing world affairs all the time.

So I'm not sure I follow your logic. No, the logic goes from the second question, they asked at the beginning of the call, what can bet and do? I don't think we are at the stage or we are empowered enough to do much today. But we're not empowered to do anything if the Israelis don't listen and it's not just us. I think even the Americans aren't being heard.

I mean, the way I look at this is it's, you know, I mean, they've been terrible acts committed on both sides. The way I look at it is, you know, we've got a land dispute or whichever we want to call it. It is a regional issue and it is a matter on which right now in our current state, we don't have much influence. So the question, what can bet and do? You respect or what we do. I don't think it's going to matter much.

Okay. Thank you very much indeed for your call. Let me tell you who's on cross question at eight o'clock. A great panel for you tonight, Richard Holden is a conservative MP for Basel's and Bill Ricky former party chairman. Josh Tapper is former Goggle box star turned labor activist who was a candidate for the party in this year's general election.

Baroness Claire Fox is a non affiliated peer, the director of the Academy of Ideas think tank and Ben Lake, the plied comery MP for Keradigian, who is the party spokesperson for Treasury, Foreign Affairs and Science Innovation and Technology. So there'll be here after eight to answer your calls. The lines are open now o3456060973 and also in a moment we're going to hear about a new discovery in Mexico. Believe me, you'll want to hear about this.

Ian Dale call o34560973 text 84850 Alexa send a comment to LBC. Let's go to David in hamster David. Hi, good evening. Great show. So this thing with with honor is really. Look, people are making these crazy contortions about when we're by it just keeps happening by some coincidence that they keep you know, they're affiliations with Hamas, you know, their bags of their aid be are being found amongst, you know, Hamas tunnels like that just seems to always be this association.

And they're kind of you know, everyone's defending them and saying well, they're innocent and no, no, they're doing good work, but they must be the un luckiest organization in the world. They just happen to always be found amongst this in the same way that you know, Jeremy Corbyn was unlucky as to anti racist always found on the stage by mistake.

It just so happens with all these people and you know, this this whole movement against Israel. It's quite sad because really they should just come out and these people defending them like you know to the death should just say look, we hate Israel. Nothing Israel do will ever be you know good enough for us essentially and you know, we just thoroughly dislike and despise Israel.

That's all these people need to come out and say and actually they get a bit more respect because at least they'd be up front rather than making. He's crazy contortions because Israel is the only country and by a radiation kind of Jewish people are the only people who get gaslit like this where the call out racism, the call out a problem and these people just go no, no, no, no, no, you don't understand and they'll redefine it every time.

Well, I couldn't agree more David. Thank you very much indeed for your call now before we come to tonight's cross question, I want to touch on a fascinating story which has been seen researchers in the US discover a real life ancient lost city. An anthropology student from the US called Luke Old Thomas has stumbled across the evidence of this lost city which could have been home to 50,000 people more than a millennium ago from scans of a jungle in Mexico.

Well, I spoke to Luke before this evening show and put it to him that not many people actually get to discover a brand new part of our world. It's a really exciting thing to get to be a part of. I want to emphasize that it's not just me. This is a large team of researchers, friends and colleagues, collaborators of mine at Jouen University and the government of Mexico University of Houston.

What this represents is basically a moment of serendipity where I found some data that was collected for one reason, looked at it with an archaeologist's eyes and realized that that data mapping data had identified a Maya city that was previously unknown to the scientific community. It's really exciting and what what's really cool to me about it is that it goes straight to your point that there actually is a lot to discover. Much of it is just hiding under the tree.

And so presumably you've now visited the site. I have not, but my colleagues in Mexico are in the course of developing work there as we speak. So it will be visited formally registered and will know a lot more about it soon. And what is there? What is there to I mean, I don't know what the rules and regulations are on sort of digging up these kinds of sites or whether you're supposed to sort of leave leave them be. But what do you know that is actually there?

Well, what we can see on the surface is a huge number of ancient houses, agricultural terraces all over the landscape. And then in the middle of it is downtown from somewhere between 2000 and 1000 years ago. And in that downtown there are temple pyramids, causeways, plazas, palace complex, a ball court. You know, the full suite of things that you would expect to see in any ancient Maya city.

What all of these things look like now is basically piles of rocks, a varying degrees of steepness, because they've been unmaintained for the last thousand years. And so they're all largely grown over by trees and, you know, shrubs and other kinds of tropical vegetation. But what's really striking about this site in particular is that it's actually right off the main highway in the region. You could walk to it from parking your car by the highway in about 15 minutes.

And there's a modern town, a very small agricultural town on the highway in the same sort of growing over some of the ancient houses. And so the people in that town have obviously been aware of this city for a long time, but it's completely new to the scientific community. So do we know what happened to the city? I mean, you would have thought if it was quite some size, I think somebody said 30 to 50,000 people would have lived there at some point, maybe around the year 750 AD.

And then at some point it was abandoned. Do we know why? Like most of the lowland Maya region, especially the interior area away from the coast, it was abandoned between about 1200 and 1000 years ago as part of the process that we call the lowland Maya collapse. That was largely driven by climate change. Basically things got a lot drier, both in a short term drought sense and a longer term, you know, just gradual decrease in rainfall.

And what we're beginning to appreciate is that the reason lowland Maya civilization was vulnerable to climate change was because the landscape was already so crowded with people. And so thoroughly modified in order to grow food and sustain those kind of populations that win the climate conditions deteriorated. It just didn't have a lot of beef or flexibility left and people gradually over a period of several hundred years, just completely gave up on the region and moved elsewhere.

But there's still millions of Maya people that live in this part of Mexico, Guatemala and believes today. They are the descendants of the ancient Maya and the answer sites like this are an important part of their own cultural heritage. Presumably you are going to visit the site at some point. I cannot wait to hear the first opportunity.

That's Luke Altomas, who's an anthropology student at Tulane University and a part of the team which has uncovered this lost Maya and city, what a fascinating story. This is LBC from Global, leading Britain's conversation, cross-question with Ian Dale.

Hello and welcome to Tuesday's cross-question, I'm Ian Dale. On my panel tonight to my left Baroness Claire Fox and non-affiliated peer, who's the director of the Academy of Ideas Think Tank, next to her is Richard Holden, the former Conservative Party chairman, who's Conservative MP for Baseldon and Bill O'Ricky. To my right, Josh Tapper, the former Gogglebox star turned Labour activist, he stood against Oliver Dowden in the general election in July.

Ben Lake is plight com MP for Keradigian and he's the party spokesperson for the Treasury, Foreign Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology. They are here to answer your questions. 0345-6060-973 is the number to call. You can watch up on that number. You can text 8485-0. You can watch us on Global Player.

And don't forget if you miss any edition of Cross-question, you can catch up on the Global, wrong Global Player and also the Cross-question podcast, which is released at 11 o'clock on Montaise Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Call 0356-060-973-2-Eat at LBC-text-84850-Cross-question. With Ian Dale, this is LBC.

Hi Ian, thanks for saying my call and good evening to your panel. So just give you a nice segue into Cross-questions from the last hour. So there are lots of reports now that Israel is starting to use food as a weapon of war, which is obviously an international war crime.

So my question is, how many more international laws does Israel need to break before the UK and indeed the wider world impose sanctions on it and preferably answers without deflecting back to her mass because some of the international laws being broken, for example, illegal occupation in the West Bank have nothing to do with her mass. Claire Fox.

So I don't actually think that Israeli-using food as a weapon of war. I think the decision around on right is undoubtedly contentious, but it's also the case that the distribution of food by the aid agencies has not been without complication.

Let's put it that way. And in fact, a lot of the trucks have gone through and have not been distributing food. There's also a problem with that particular aid agency in terms of its compromised position in terms of, I'm sorry, to break the gruel, but in terms of Hamas and their fact that they have

rather than being a neutral force have been actually compromised in relation to the war and anti-Israel and so on and so forth. So I don't, you know, one of the things that there's loads of criticisms that can be made of Israel. I'm not suggesting that we'll sit back and say aren't they angels. But I think this accusation that they are starving the people of Gaza, which I've heard actually from almost the beginning of the occupation is actually on merit.

They did actually prevent trucks from getting into Gaza for quite a substantial period of time. Well, actually, they didn't prevent any trucks getting in and there was lots of trucks. I mean, in a visit to Israel, I went through to where the trucks were all loaded up waiting to be taken away and they were sitting there and they weren't been taken away.

And we talked to, including by the way, Palestinian aid agencies who said the problem is is that the food is being hijacked by people on the way. It's been sold at exorbitant prices to the people of Gaza. It's just that the narrative that is very common here is to suggest that Israel or the bad guys starving the people of Gaza, the nothing else is going wrong at all.

And I'm just simply suggesting it's more complicated than that. And I don't want to get into a situation to give yet another excuse for the vicious and I mean vicious anti Israel, political rhetoric that we've heard in this country that's turned very quickly into, as we will know, a form of anti Zionism that's anti-Jewish hatred.

And I'm very anxious about that. So I would like us to have a calm discussion on this rather than just waiting for yet another excuse to stick the boot into Israel, which after all did not start this. And therefore the conduct of the war has to be looked at in the context of how it started, what caused it and the complications of the players involved, including aid agencies, which are not necessarily neutral in this conflict.

And I'm just suspecting Ben Lake that you might have a different view to that. I do. I take the points there about not wanting to over simplify what is a complicated situation, but I don't think anybody would accuse the US government, for example, of being anti Israel, and yet they've also expressed concerns about the level of aid entering into the Gaza strip particularly.

And as the, by the way, I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't be concerned on that just to be clear, but I think the level of concern expressed by governments that have been very supportive of Israel and long term Allah is of Israel. I think underline the reality that far too many people in Gaza are not receiving the aid, whether that be food supplies, sanitation, medicine, unindeed, now shelter that they deserve.

And I think it is important to note that the government of Israel has the responsibility as occupying powers for many of much of the Gaza strip to ensure that the civilians have access to food sanitation medicine and safe shelter. And I do think that unless the government of Israel ensures that there is proper and sufficient aid, then there will be further accusations that food or the control of the over access and lack of food is being used as a weapon of war.

And that is against humanitarian law. There are accusations made by one or two people in our phone in the last hour that Israel is conducting genocide by starvation. I think we're at risk here unless the government of Israel has an opportunity here to disprove and allay those fears. The US government in the letter they sent earlier this month made it very clear that I think 30 days was the period of time that they set the government to show that this is not the case.

If they fail and the decision to buy the Knesset, which I think is important to distinguish it is the parliament that's made a decision in Ra. Leads us to believe if you are not going to allow the largest humanitarian force in the area from proceeding and fulfilling its role and not presenting an imminent or clear alternative, then what are you actually doing to the people of Gaza?

If you're not allowing the unrun this case to deliver that aid, to deliver that food and not presenting an alternative, I don't think we've heard any suggestions that the government is going to step into this breach, into this vacuum. And if so, I think it's very reasonable that people are concerned and I read some of the reports by UN officials and they are talking about fear of genocide and the possibility of it.

And I think we need to be very, very clear, calm-headed, yes, about this situation, but also not be blind to the reality that's unfolding before our eyes. Richard Holden, well, this is actually part of just something so much bigger. I think that's the other thing that we can see individual incidents on a day-to-day basis. Obviously, I think, you know, clearly it's totally right, we need to ensure that aid gets through as Ben has also said.

And we all, I'm sure, across UK politics want to see a peaceful solution in the end to this with actually terrorist organisations not ending up running countries. But we have to zoom out a little bit more because it's quite clear that Iran's proxies have done everything possible to destabilise the situation in the Middle East over the last year, year and a half. Particularly, they were behind Hamas and the terrorist attacks in October.

They've been behind Hezbollah and this situation, which has been left Israel having to move 60,000 of its citizens out of northern Israel. And that's all because of a broader thing, which is actually the Israel and the Arab world were slowly moving towards peace agreements in certain situations. It's in some of the Middle Eastern countries and we saw, and it was quite clear that was getting close between Israel and Saudi Arabia. And so there's a, there is a much, much bigger context all of this.

That's not to say that the issues around ensuring that we, well, I want everybody to have food and medicine and water on the ground. We need to ensure that happens. But there's also been obviously concerns around UNRA and which is United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the near east. That's why we call it UNRA because it's such a mouthful otherwise.

And the reason there's concern about it is because it's quite clear that there's some people who worked for UNRA who were involved in the Gaza and the Hamas attacks. It's not to say that everybody who works for UNRA is obviously a sympathiser with the situation where there has been Israeli parliament rather right at the top. It's given that I think only 10 of their employees have been dismissed for their action.

Well, 10 have been dismissed, but there have been much greater concerns that around up to 15, 20 percent might be members of our mass. Now, Hamas is a broader political organisation than it's not all, it's not even, but even within that, there have been concerns that hundreds of people who work for UNRA after 12,000, admittedly, could be actually in the militant wing of it and that UNRA facilities have been used in the Gaza Strip.

This is a really complex situation. I think what we all want to see is a getting through. Sometimes when we talk about the Israeli parliament, it might be, you might think, well, this is a very multi-party system. This is not massive blocks. They have a full PR system and it's the fact that it's been overwhelmingly supported in the Knesset. I think we also need to remember that these are proper left wing anti-Netanyahu parties who will have supported in the Knesset.

That is important as well. I think that they could have 64 seats in the Knesset and 92 members of the Knesset voted in favour of this. I think only 10 didn't. This is an overwhelming vote. We really need to be careful when we look at this because there is such a big context here. All of the actors within the Middle East are playing for different reasons for their own political ends. I think it's very difficult to zoom in on one specific incident and to be able to draw huge conclusions.

You mentioned the word actor there. A text here from Samuel says about your contribution, Ben. Is this an Irish contributor? I really appreciate the Irish line on Palestine and Israel based on what I've read. Your constituency is probably about the nearest to the Republic of Ireland that we have. But let me tell you, Samuel, it's very proudly well. Josh Tapper. Thanks Ian and good to be here. This is quite a personal issue for me.

As a Jew myself, I get very concerned that the tone of this debate becomes sometimes. I've got many friends and family in Israel. Israel is one of the very few democracies in the Middle East. Lots of people with diverse political views. You've seen the protests out on a weekly basis. It's absolutely critical that aid does get into Gaza. There's no doubt about it. But this is a very complicated, nuanced topic. It's not black and white at all.

I very much doubt that sanctions on Israel will achieve the goals of the people who are calling for the sanctions. I wish. As Richard actually pointed out, the reason why people have had their concerns about it in the first place of valid. Which is the involvement of some staff members in the October 7th attacks. We shouldn't tarnish the entirety of armour with that brush. But this comes with context. That context must be understood.

Actions like sanctions, I think, really does concern me as an action to reel back on supporting a close ally and a strong ally. It's right to defend itself. As a British Jew, are you at all uncomfortable at some of the actions of the Israeli government? I had to say, the Israeli ambassador in for an interview. You don't have to make it difficult sometimes for those of us who support Israel to do so in the full-threated way that we like.

Some of the actions of your government, of your Prime Minister, are just blatantly, it doesn't matter what side you're on. You can't support them. I fundamentally disagree with Netanyahu and his government on a number of issues. And it quite frankly, you know, angers me when you're trying to stand up for Israel as a beacon of hope and democracy in the Middle East.

And unfortunately, Netanyahu's actions really, for me, oppose Israel's fundamental values over so many years upon which it was created. And it's developed over the last number of decades. So I do worry, I absolutely worry. And in order to get the hostages home and to put it into this war, we do need a political peace process. And I wish that there was a leader in Israel who was willing for that peace and would sit down and have those conversations.

Do you ever see that happening in the immediate future? Because I think the Israeli electoral system mitigates against a sort of Obama-type figure, I mean, he had his weaknesses. But you kind of need someone like that on the Israeli side and then a Mandela-type figure emerging from the Palestinian side. And I see little hope that either will ever happen.

Yeah, I mean, look, unfortunately, you don't see it happening anytime soon in the current state of things, but you have to have hope in order to get to that point. And, you know, you don't know what tomorrow is going to hold. So I, you know, I long for that day. And I'm hopeful that it will come eventually. Right, we'll move on to a different subject. Cross-question with Ian Dale on LBC call 0356060973.

Richard says Ian, can you please identify the panelists? I have no idea who the last contributor was. I did introduce him. His name's Josh Tapper. If you watch Gogglebox, you will remember Josh from Gogglebox. He was quite some years ago though now. It was a long time, yeah. How would you say when you started on it? About 14 or something. I was 16 when I started before braces, sitting there my pajamas on the couch. So very different time.

How did that affect you at school? Because I mean, either you would have got bullied or people would have treated you as a celebrity. It was much more of the own people like, you know, people like the fact that there was this guy at school who was on the TV. And, you know, people kind of kind of milked it really. But you didn't, obviously. I tried. And you've since become involved. I think the first time I came across you, you were working with a demos to think tank.

And then you stood at the last election against Oliver Dowden at the age of 20. Well, now, I was 26 in July yet. Which is quite young to stand as a candidate. It was. But I think it's important that we have more. Did you enjoy it? Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I love campaigning, you know, really, you know, speaking to people, hearing the stories that you don't hear in the media on a day-to-day basis.

And, you know, their concerns, I think it's really humbling, it's really grounding. And it motivates you to keep going that you want to get elected. Well, we also have with us Ben Lake, Clyde Cymru MP, Baroness Claire Fox, Josh, before we do, don't judge. Richard Holden, the Conservative MP for Baseldon and Bill Arichy, former Conservative Party Chairman. Right. What's that question from Robbie in Chalmsford?

If the Chancellor raises fuel duty as expected in her budget tomorrow while making buses 50% more expensive, then doesn't this call into question the government support for working people, public services and the environment all at once? I do think this, and I supported them in July. I, Robbie is a regular caller and he was a Conservative voter who was going to vote with Democrat but ended up voting Labour. I think I'm right in saying.

Richard Holden, let's come to you first. Well, Robbie in Chalmsford, I think it's hit the nail on the head. And, and bizarrely, actually, Chalmsford is where I launched the extension of the ghetto round for £2.00 bus first key.

Because you were, when I was raised minister, yeah. And actually in that area, particularly important for, I represent Baseldon and Bill Arichy. I've got constituents from Bill Arichy who, on day release from, say, their apprenticeship schemes will go to Chalmsford to do certain college courses. I remember speaking to Vicky Ford for my MP for Chalmsford at the time who love her constituents worked at Stanza da Poo in relatively low paid jobs.

It would cost them a fortune to get the old bus out there. When we knocked it down to the £2 scheme, it was literally like giving them £10 a day pay rise because it's cut straight out of their take home pay. I think Conservatives believed in free markets.

No, well, I think there is a free market, we do believe in free markets. But I think we also, I think this is the key thing about the £2 scheme. It really benefited lower paid workers who are often travelling distance, not just in the short distance around the town, but if you're travelling, say, between Baseldon and South End or Chalmsford and Bill Arichy or Chalmsford and Stanza da, and it also help people who were, as I said, you know, people like students who might be travelling longer distance to different college courses from the one in the nearest town.

And the other people that really helped were, you might not be aware of this, but you're free bus bus and it kicks in at 9.30 in the morning for a lot of the country. So if you're going to an early doctor's appointment, actually for a lot of people on the pensions, also a huge benefit as well.

Now, it was one of those things which I thought, ticked a lot of boxes because, and we worked with a lot with DWP on it because, obviously, for a lot of people who are unemployed, one of big steps is access to jobs. If you're not going to car, then it's very expensive to travel by bus or train, as well, if you've got a train station nearby.

Actually, having a low cost bus option was really important. So, yeah, I mean, that and the fact that fuel duty is also going up is that, or looks like it might be going up, it feels like you're down if you do and you're down if you're down to the mountain. But what a Tory government have continued this scheme there because Kirstalmer seems to be suggesting that they hadn't found sustainable funding to keep it going.

Well, we've been very clear and I thought very hard to get in the manifesto that we've been, we've kept the £2 to bus first scheme all the way. In fact, I was literally, the last couple of days, been texting the former head of the policy unit, a downing street under the last government about the £2 first scheme, Chuck called James Nation.

We were literally talking about it and how it was such a shame that Labour hadn't send the upside of this scheme and that the broader benefits it has and had decided to go for it rather than, rather than protecting it. Because it is, and also in terms of spending, you're talking of, I think when we started, it was on £250 to £300 million a year to do this.

That might seem like a gargantuan quantity of money. In terms of the broader government spending package, it isn't the most expensive scheme going and especially when you think of the side benefits, particularly around employment, actually, and the real challenge we have with getting people off welfare and back into work.

Actually, you can see it as a scheme on the other side. I'm very much with Robbie in Chelmsford on this. I think there's also broader issues coming, which have been highlighted already, like the National Insurance Riser, a jobs tax which really could be hitting people, particularly the self-employed tomorrow.

I know that businesses are very concerned about that. We know that if taxes are on hiring people are higher than they'll hire fewer people, I mean, it's just totally logical. Again, it's something which I don't quite understand why the government is going in these places. And we don't really also know on the flip side what they're going to do with the money, which they're looking quite clearly to raise right across the piece at the moment.

Well, of course, you can hear full coverage of the budget on LBC all day tomorrow. Sheila Fogarty will be covering it live on her program. And on our program tomorrow night, we will have Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Ben Lake. Yes, well, very much like Richard, actually, I agree with Robbie. My representative area, there's very rural and actually big one of the biggest problems we've had for quite some years now is the lack of public transport.

We have two train lines coming in one into the north one into the south is not connected. But buses used to be the main mode of public transport for most of the rural villages and towns that I represent. And in recent years, we've seen cutbacks to the point where if you live in any of the villages or towns that are not the main sort of market tones, you don't have a bus service worthy of the name.

And whether that's trying to get hospital appointments, education to work, you name it, you just haven't got that option. And so the concern that I have is that people now have had to find ways of getting to all these important functions of life, usually dependent on car, private car transport, whether it's hitching a lift or somebody else or indeed running their own car.

And so on which is that they don't really have only to be told now that the field duty might go up, I know it's speculation at the moment, but some reports suggest that it could be as much as seven pence, polita. Now that would be devastating for many rural areas, not just the ones that I represent, but across the country, because quite simply the investment has been there for a few years.

I kind of agree with you, but I'll play the devil's advocate because that's my job. And given that petrol and diesel prices have come down by 10 to 20 pence over the last year or so, I mean, there is a bit of space there. And if you're a government that needs to raise a hell of a lot of money, putting up by seven pence would raise about six billion pounds, I'm told. I mean, that would be a less painful way of doing it than some of the other things that they've chosen, wouldn't it?

I think it's a very, it's a slow to happen to crack a net in terms of the fact that it's completely indiscriminate. So there are areas of the country where perhaps actually car dependency isn't as high and the hit wallet, if you like, won't be felt as acutely. But the reason why oil prices and, sorry, diesel and petrol prices have gone down, it's very much pegged with oil prices.

Now that's beyond the government's control. And so although perhaps we've seen prices drop in recent weeks, there's nothing to say that, especially given the geopolitical situation in the Middle East specifically, you might see that increase. Now if they then also unfreeze the fuel duty, you'll then have a situation where not only has it gone up seven pence per liter and then whatever else the underlying oil price, crude oil prices pushing it.

So I would have a lot more sympathy with the government if they were also serious about investing in public transport and rural areas now to date, despite all the speculation and all the costs. And so the point I will be making if these reports come to pass tomorrow is that you are punishing rural constituents of mine in particular because you have not been investing in public transport alternatives for them.

That's fair enough, but in Wales, of course, I live a part of it. Well, nearly as long as I've been on this planet. And so forgive me, I shouldn't complain to the two, but they haven't been investing in rural public transport and away. And if they did, then perhaps we'd have a bit more sympathy with their plans. Josh Tapper, this is why you earn your safe seat selection at the next election. The floor is yours.

No, look, I mean, we'll obviously have to wait till tomorrow to see the full package, because I think it is really important to see things in the round. Obviously, we have been getting a bit of, you know, drip feeding quite a bit of it. But we don't know everything that's going to be in there tomorrow. So I think I think that's really important. But what we do know is that difficult decisions will have to be made. And maybe they wouldn't have had to have been made to this extent.

If the country's finances weren't left in such a dire state for a number of reasons, obviously, concerns of mismanagement, but also a number of shocks over the last few years. And there will be difficult decisions that will, of course, mean raising the tax burden, especially on those with the broader shoulders. And just in doing at the moment is raising taxes or fares for people who don't have the broader shoulders and they've went to fuel allowance. And now this.

Well, I'm what I would say is look what they are going to be doing for working people. So we know what we'll be coming. What like to we'll be coming is 500 million for more affordable homes. And it's over a billion pound to expand government funded childcare, more for the NHS to make sure that we bring down the NHS waiting lists. And so we've got 40,000 extra doctors appointments a week.

So and the announcement that came just before the show started around the national minimum wage. And by the way, raising it across the board, but also for those age between 18 and 20 and apprentices by an even larger number. And I think that's that's really, really important as a former apprentice myself.

But my point is, is yes, there will be difficult choices. We don't know exactly all of them and what will be coming. But the reason that they are doing that is so that they can meet the manifesto pages that they put that they put in on those missions and on those key things that people want to see investment in across the country. But when it needs to come from somewhere. And what I'm yet to have seen so far is the conservatives or the other parties say how they'd raise that money instead.

And the core is just message me to say this is all far too civilized. So can't tell if I'll shake it up. The most irritating thing about this discussion is Labour saying we're just doing this to live up to our manifesto pledges. So it's a kind of set in stone list. And that's where the working people issue has driven me mad as they were all complete idiots. You know, we're not going to damage working people by raising taxes for working people.

So I'm not going to finish in question, but the truth is all reworking people across the board are going to suffer from this manifesto, from this budget rather. And it's really interesting because I appreciate that it's tough times financially. But we get into a situation now where the government on the one hand says we're going to be all grown up and tell you seriously we've got to make these very hard choices.

We're not going to affect working people going to stick with our manifesto pledges and then they absolutely stick the boot in in places that were not in the manifesto. The Winterfuel allowance wasn't in the manifesto. The attack on travel. I mean, this is an attack on people's freedom to get about whether it's the busfers or whether it's actually your capacity to drive a car.

The attack on ordinary people getting about. And then the NHS, I think Richard made a very important point there when he was saying about what's the money going to be spent on because one of the refreshing things about where's treating was when he said the NHS needs reform. It doesn't just need more money. Then actually this morning on the media round all I kept hearing people saying was we need this money in order to back up the NHS.

And actually throwing money at the NHS and as we're absolutely certain about how it's going to be spent is actually throwing money after bad. And then on the minimum wage this really is irritating. You know, oh, well, we're doing it for the ordinary people. So the minimum wage is going up. There's no point raising the minimum wage.

And then you're going to impoverish people in another breath over there. This is not the same as saying we need the money to invest in a dynamic economic growth that we heard so much about the investment summit that suddenly now got forgotten. This is actually playing round with ordinary people's desires and aspirations. She's widely very labour. They knew it would be tight, but they're the ones who were suffering and on the receiving end of that.

Is that lively enough? Is that fair enough? Do you want to respond? Of course. No, look, I totally hear the point of, you know, for me, trust in politics is the biggest issue. Well, this is not helping that. Well, look, you need whoever's in government obviously labour now to stick to their work, to deliver for people.

People need to be able to feel that they've had tangible changes in their lives come not just come the next election, but before that, right? And they need that tangible difference. That change isn't going to come overnight for working people for anyone, but hopefully with the changes that will be announced in the budget tomorrow and the money that will be able to be raised and for the more for more investment, which will help in turn working people that hopefully they can actually deliver on those things.

It won't happen overnight, but you need to be thinking, you know, long term here, this is what this is one budget. And I for one hope that a lot of these measures and tax rises that might be announced tomorrow won't stick around for a very long time. But measures need to happen in the immediate term to put our country in a better state and working people in a better position.

Right. More questions to come. Cross question with E and L on LBC tax date for 850. 25 to 9 we have with us on the panel conservative MP Richard Holden Josh Tapper who stood as a labour candidate in the last election against Oliver Dowden, Baroness Claire Fox and Ben Lake, the plight company MP for Keradigian. Have I pronounced that right? Perfectly. Just answer me this is the Lloyd George museum in your constituents. It isn't, but it's about the only piece of the Western course like that is.

Did you read the story in the telegraph at the weekend about the fact that the Labour government want to decolonise it in some way and sort of introduce new exhibits that because of course we did have an empire when Lloyd George was Prime Minister. So they've employed consultants to decolonise the Lloyd George was in here. I didn't see you ought to look it up.

Anyway, we haven't got a question on that, but we do have a question on the American election, which of course will be taking place a week from today. Albert in Croydon says does the panel think Donald Trump winning the election would be a bad thing for the world and who would they prefer to win out of him or Kamala Harris? Ben Lake. Well, I can't claim to be an expert in American politics.

So I want to about to say take it with the Penger salt. I've been very concerned about some of the positions that for President Trump. I've outlined especially when it comes to his foreign policy. I think foremost amongst my concerns is approached to international law and particularly the conflict in Ukraine. You know, there are I appreciate that he has met with President Zelensky and you know the post sort of meeting formalities were quite civil.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that President Trump would give sucker to Putin and push on even further in terms of his war of aggression. And also in that regard, he stabilise the rules based international order as imperfect as it is. It is probably the best thing we have. You know, I think we should look back at history and consider the Yanuky that existed before 1939 and before the establishment of the United Nations.

And the system does require some of the most powerful countries in the world in this case, the United States to act as sort of the policeman. And I don't think the President Trump, if you were to be reelected, is keen to perform that role. And that does then worry me. And I think personally that would be a bad thing for the world. So in terms of... So one vote for Kamala. I think so. I suspect a second one coming up here Josh.

I'm an Ian, this is the easiest question. So far, absolutely. Look, I am appalled by the idea that there's even a prospect that Donald Trump becoming present again. You have someone who refused to accept the result of a democratic election last time round and has incited hate, incited the insurrection on the Capitol. And quite frankly, I would love to see Kamala elected as the President of the United States first and foremost for democracy.

It isn't an indictment. It's an indictment on President Biden and Kamala Harris that they're even like level pegging at the moment. I mean, if Biden had done the decent thing a year ago, they could have selected maybe a much stronger candidate than Kamala Harris. Oh, no. I think there's absolutely the fact that Biden held on for so long was clearly is clearly put a hinderance. It means that they haven't gone through a proper primary process.

It also means that since Kamala Harris has been selected, there hasn't been as much time for the American public to actually get to know her. And that probably does have an absolute impact. It was Trump is a very recognizable figure. But I'm just hoping that the Democrats can turn voters out in big numbers on election day. So let's put it this way. And I think Kamala Harris would be an absolute disaster if she got elected. And that is not because I think that I want Trump to get elected.

It's just that just to ensure that we understand there is something deeply anti-democratic going on when the Democrats were dealing with Trump is to describe a rally as being a fascist rally like the Nazis. All of the media went along with this as well to to promiscuously use a term fascist. I think is very, very dangerous. And one of the things that's never explained at any point is why millions and millions of people are considering voting for Donald Trump. There is a reason for that.

They have been at the receiving end of the most severe measures in relation to the economy. They're fed up of ironically the identity politics that's been played. I really find it distasteful that Kamala and her supporters have been going around appealing to black men and saying you have got to prove that you are not selling out your race by voting for Trump. In fact, every time they have that conversation in Michelle Obama was one of them.

More of them said they're going to vote for Donald Trump as it goes because the identity politics card that Kamala Harris is playing and she's been totally underwhelming as a candidate. I think that she's unimpressive in all of the interviews I've seen. Means that, and this is what's a disaster for me, that Trump is going to basically not have the kind of opposition. He should have in a democratic election.

I want him to be up against a formidable candidate where you could therefore see properly for once what he's made of politically, whereas that's not what's happened at all. Before we just say Trump would be a disaster for the world, let's remember Kamala Harris's disastrous record. By the way, as a prosecutor before she was a very silent partner in the Biden disaster years.

She was one of the people who was most harsh, most severe, and most draconian how she dealt with black men and criminal justice. And so she can't kind of sweep in now as some kind of sweet I'm on your side person and forget her record and she didn't do anything in the Biden years. And it is a disgrace that she was brought to power with a coup. So as much as I can be absolutely outraged by the fact that there was no proper content to get her for the reasons you actually pointed out in.

Biden was actually kept too far too long. She was voted for by democratic delegates. I know that everybody's gone over literal in a moment. I don't mean a real came. I don't mean a real came because I do now know that that could be clicked and then people think I was okay. But the nation I believe that your listeners and viewers are more smart than that and they know that's not what you're saying. No, no, no, saying is I don't that's not a got you that will work.

What I mean is that there was not a process and many Democrats in America feel this by the way where the best candidate took power because they talk they wouldn't let Biden to go. And then they kind of gas lives that really bit drove me mad where they say are what a brave courageous thing that he stood down. So you vote for Trump over House. No, luckily I don't have to choose. No, but if you did. No, I probably wouldn't vote for either. There were candidates I'd consider.

I probably wouldn't vote for either of them. I do however think that this narrative in the UK that doesn't understand why millions are going to vote for Trump. Well, they didn't say to you either shows a certain tone deafness. It doesn't show a lot of understanding of what's happening in America. And I also think means that people then go around turning Camala Harris into some kind of saintly figure, which is completely misplaced.

Richard Holden. Well, I think I'm going to do what some Americans do and take the fifth on the. I'm very disappointed. You're normally not without an opinion, Richard. No, I know. I think I think as somebody who is aspiring to go on the executive of the UK US all party parliamentary group. I think I need to be a little bit careful about it. I think actually there's a couple of things I don't want to say more broadly. And these are some of which you can also translate across the Atlantic.

Some people do not understand why millions and millions of people vote for Trump. And if you look at our media, sometimes that is you really don't get an understanding of that at all. I am very glad more broadly. I'm not involved in American politics, which I find incredibly divisive, incredibly pluralizing and utterly dependent on money. Whereas our politics really isn't in the UK.

And it allows Ben and I, despite having very substantial disagreements on certain issues, to also work together on issues where we do have things in common as well, which I think is a much better system overall. There are obviously concerns on all sides about this. What I would say though is that let's look at what Trump did when he was in office as well. There are some issues like the Big Abraham Accords Initiative, which actually was incredibly positive on the foreign policy front.

So I think to put it all on one side, you know, there's also obviously stuff like some of the things he said during COVID, which were highly questionable. But there is, but there are to say it's all on one side of the ledger or another. I think is, I think it's just a bit cheap. Josh, you haven't been company for Kamali, you want one of these Labour people who were asked to go and... I wasn't, if I could, I would have though, you know, I would have been delighted to.

But look, I just wanted to, you know, also add, if you want to understand the measure of the man and the character, you need to listen to the people that have worked closest with him. And when you hear what his former chief of staff, John Kelly, has said about the Hitler comparisons and how he had my some of the things that Hitler's done. And see, but John Kelly's successor, Mick Mulvaney was on the, I think the Andrew Mul program saying, well, he never heard him say anything like that at all.

So it depends who you listen to, doesn't it? All the, all you need to look at is the vast number of people who used to work up at a very high level of Trump who are refusing to endorse him at this election. There is a reason for that. And that is because of his character.

Undoubtedly, the huge question marks of a Trump's character and you rightly, Josh, pointed out that one of the greatest problems was the withdrawal of losers' consent at the end of the last election, for which I have nothing but contempt and which is a threat to democracy. I agree. He's not a man whose character I appreciate. However, I think that politics goes beyond that. There is a reason why millions of people want to vote for Trump.

And the way that the opposition are dealing with him is to literally have headlines and to go around saying, he's like Hitler, they are the Nazis. So that implies that the many millions of people who are considering voting for him are cheap likely following into some Nazi dystopia.

And that's not the way they feel at all. There is a lively civil society in America where this debate is going on and they feel insulted that people are suggesting that they're fascists for considering voting for Donald Trump. And that the only virtuous thing you could do is to come to a Harris' now called him a fascist. Well, come to a Harris' now. No, that's what I'm saying. So what they're saying is they are beyond you considering voting.

And the way that you say democracy is very important that the way that you slay your opponent again, not being literal listeners is to do so through ideas through politics intellectually to take on their policies and so on. Kamala Harris has had very few policies for which we could engage. I mean, we don't know what she stands for. And therefore, when the only thing that you get is this notion that this is the Nazi party lurking behind Donald Trump.

And it's actually a dangerous attack on democracy because it denies the election at the chance to have the politics out in the open. Right. Leading Britain's conversation cross-question with the indale Alexa, send a comment to LBC. 10-9, an interesting text here from Glenn who says, Claire Fox proves that the far left and far right is a whole she. I think he means that as an insult. Oh, yeah, he means, wasn't she wants to involve with living Marxism?

And now, doesn't she say that we should not automatically condemn Trump as a fascist? Therefore, I must be right wing. But that all started when I was doing Brexit. I was doing it every day hosting this program. Right. We have Richard Holden with us as well. Conservative MP for Basel and Bill Ritchie Ben Lake. It's Plaid Cymru MP for Kerr or Digi on. And Josh Tapper is a Labour activist and former candidate. Right. A text question here from Brian in Kingslin.

Argentinus, populist president says Britain's surrender of the Chegos Islands to Mauritius. Surrender was his words, his word, not mine, although. Makes him believe Argentina can now get the Falklands through negotiations too. Should the government regret this decision? Now, just by way of background to this, Javier Millele has told the financial times that the Falklands were never going to be Argentine again through conflict and disagreement.

But given years of negotiations led to the Chegos decision by that mechanism, we believe that in the long term, the Falklands will become Argentine again. Richard Holden. Well, I'm glad that the Argentinian president has ruled out any form of conflict. I think that's a good step in the right direction. But I don't think so. The Falkland Islands have a pure right to self-determination.

They've had referendum recently in the last few years where I think 99.8% of them decided they wanted to remain with the UK. I am very worried, however, by the broader decision around the Chegos Islands. For a couple of reasons. One, I really worry about the, and it's totally unclear about the actual people of the Chegos Islands and their involvement in any of the process there and their rights over it.

And secondly, the broader concern that I have is that I'm not fully convinced having seen the Foreign Secretary in Parliament that the full implications, particularly of China's expansion into the Pacific, have been fully understood by this new government. Obviously, this has been a long-standing issue with Mauritius. But I really do, I really just concern me when you're seeing huge Chinese island building in the South China Sea.

You're seeing deals with countries like Bangladesh. You're seeing really aggressive financial deals with countries like Sri Lanka. I am really worried that this is something where the full implications of this have not been thought through for not just for the UK, actually, but actually for that broader position we hold as one of the leading nations in the Western world. And that really does worry me as well. Claire. I actually thought when I heard this, that this was an example of Milal.

How you say it? Milal. Yeah. I've trolling the government because actually when this was announced, everybody said to the Labour government, oh, you know what's going to happen next? It's going to be the four glens. It's going to be the four glens. I was until you're going to clave. And they said, don't be ridiculous. And then he says, well, actually. And so it's the least surprising thing that's ever happened in the world. But as it goes, I am.

Well, something for Liz Truss to disagree with him about. No, dad. But I'm not making that point. I do think it's very important though that the Chegos Islands is not forgotten as a problem, but not in my instances for the surrender of giving it away. But because the Chegossian people were so badly served by it. And it really irritated me that there was this sort of hint of, oh, well, we are the decolonizers and we are allowing people.

I mean, what absolutely bunk them? I mean, this was a situation where self-determination with the Chegossian people was actually denied by the decision. And they were ignored and treated with total contempt. And when they tried to raise the issue, they were kind of like, no, no, no, we did talk to you. They said, no, you didn't. So I think that this was a naive act in relation to the Chegos Islands.

And then it was actually dealt with very badly by effectively, again, trying to, I hate this way the government does this gaslighting, is they literally look you in the eye and say something. And you just go, that's not true. We've talked to the Jikotian people. That's not what they said. And then they carry on. And then they say, we're the virtuous people, you know, because we're on the side of decolonization.

There is a lot of virtue. There's a lot of virtue signaling from this government, it comes to foreign affairs. And I think the Chegos Islands is a perfect example of it, especially the way they dealt with the Chegossian people. And you can see that more recently with this talk of reparations for slavery, which has also now been raised by the new government, totally ignoring Britain's role, actually, and ending the slave trade.

But the first time that was ruled it out. And so he wouldn't be apologised. But the Sun Treaty, the door has been opened in a way that it wasn't before. Well, they didn't sign a treaty. They signed a end of commonwealth summit.

They signed a community cake, but it does sort of indicate a change in position from the UK government, in a way which is, I think, a bit of virtue signaling that we all know, Kirsta Amers, all in favour of, just like when he took the knee-knots, you know, that many years ago. Ben? Well, I would agree, actually, with the point that I think, as far as the Chegos Islands is concerned, the fact that South of the termination for the Chegosians was denied is the scandal.

And as far as the Falkland Islands is concerned, I mean, I'm in favour of South of the termination of people, and the Falklanders have made it very clear in a relatively recent referendum. And although I note that the Adjutant in President has said this, it's a welcome change of tone. Of course, he's not disposing military sort of conflict by way of regaining sovereignty over the islands.

I do, however, think that we could should take it with a pinch of salt, and all Argentinean presidents have to talk about the Falklands for domestic purposes, if nothing else. So I don't think I'm too concerned, but as far as the Chegos Islands are concerned, the fact that the Chegosians and Souths were denied the submissions. Josh, if you're very quick, we can squeeze in one final question. I don't claim to be an expert on the Chegos Islands. OK, that's enough.

But the government has said that sovereignty isn't up for negotiation in Falklands, and I agree with that. Right. Katyn Lester says, should fireworks only be allowed to be used in licensed areas, such as doing organised public displays, and at authorised private functions, which would require a paid for licence?

Now, one Labour-backed Benchesera Owen has launched a parliamentary bill to ban the sale of louder fireworks to members of the public because of concerns that are harmful to animals, and also people with post-traumatic stress disorder. I think I've read somewhere, St. Petersburg has actually stopped selling fireworks, so maybe there was some trend developing here. Right, 30 seconds each. Claire. Joyless and purety, and of course not for God's sake. This is a government...

Don't encourage a government that would have you needing a licence for any amount of freedom to... Don't give them any ideas, that's what I'd say. There's long been questions about the impact of fireworks. I think there needs to be a conversation about it. I'm not sure this is the right way, but I don't think we should shut it down straight away.

I get a lot of correspondence from farmers and ecstasy, we'll concern about this time of the year, so I'd be more than happy to have the discussion in the debate. How you actually implement a ban, and what have you, I think, is open to question, and I'd be skeptical as to his efficacy. Richard? No, but I do think there is an issue with under 18s getting them, and I think that needs to be properly enforced. You're a wonderful panel. Also brief, thank you very much.

Can I just say post-traumatic stress disorder is a very serious thing that does not come about from getting a few fireworks. You have never met my little dog, Woody, have you? No, it is also true that little dog Woody is not the same as people getting post-traumatic stress disorder. No, it's far worse. And he is a dog, does not get post-traumatic stress disorder. He just gets frightened by the noise. He just gets traumatic while it's going on. He's done the noise fair.

A fun question, don't you, Deswadi? Andrew in Cambridge says, after research as an America fan, lost my and city by accident, what's your best unexpected find? Ben? My best unexpected find is as a Chelsea fan, that... A Chelsea fan from Keridigian. The used to train back in the day when they weren't a fantastic team at there now. But my unexpected find is that ends on my esker, the new coach is a pretty decent coach, or he's turning things around, so I'm over them on.

OK, Josh. I'm not sure what I'm unexpected find, but this hurts deeply because I had an unexpected loss today when I took ten pounds out of the ATM on the way to the dry cleaners and then lost it, it fell on my pocket. So that was quite... Who not has heard of Apple Pay? Honestly, I barely carry cash around, which is why I was so frustrating. My most unexpected find was probably very lame.

I started with a personal trainer recently and I've gotten to skipping, and I found an old skipping rope, my parents have. I haven't done skipping yet, that's a delight to skip a bit of it. I think we can safely say that as somebody who was the publisher of living in Marxism, one of the most unexpected finds, is planning myself in the House of Lords, and being called Baroness. I can't get more, what are you expecting from that? So I find myself daily thinking, what am I doing?

Let alone what the nation thinks, what's she doing there? But anyway, it's quite a good point. So my dad's actually a part-time antiques dealer in his retirement, and he actually... So it's not a find that I found, but it's something that he found for me, and obviously I've been interested in politics for a long time. And he was doing a house clearance a few years ago and found a poster advertising the 1852 election in the Clithero, which is the nearest town to where I grew up.

I later did a bit of digging and found out that that election, which was run, was countermanded due to bribery and corruption. And then the subsequent bi-election was also countermanded due to treating the electorate. So I think that has always stood me, just to remind me that you know, you should never take the electoral granted and always follow the rules. What's your majority? Twenty. Exactly. So you will never take the electorate for granted.

Thank you to all four of you for coming on the programme tonight. Now, tomorrow's Budget Special Cross-Question Panel includes the Luxury Hotelia Soroco 48, the Independent MP of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Conservative Shadow Education Secretary Damien Hines and Bloomberg's Head of Economics Stephanie Flanders. What a panel for you tomorrow night, ladies and gentlemen. This is LBC, from Global, leading Britain's conversation with Ian Dyle.

Five minutes past nine. I'm going to ask you quite a provocative question in this hour. Is it fair to call Donald Trump a fascist? Now, I haven't got the definition of the word fascism in front of me, but I'm going to Google it in a moment because I always find, or I'm veribly find, that when people use that word, discussing somebody else, somebody that they violently disagree with, it's usually in the completely the wrong context. On social media, I'm regularly referred to as a fascist.

I haven't got a fascist bone in my body. Fascists believe in a very powerful, overbearing state. I believe in a small state. I could go on. There are so many aspects of fascism, which are entirely opposite to the things that I believe in. But Kamala Harris has called Donald Trump a fascist. He's responded in kind and called a hairifascist.

It's not very edifying, is it? And you would have hoped that a presidential election campaign would have become a little bit more serious than just throwing insults at people. Now, this has all come about because of a campaign rally that Donald Trump attended in Madison Square Garden in New York City a couple of nights ago. There is a little bit more.

And there were various performers at that event, some of whom told a few jokes, which weren't particularly tasteful. Some accused them of being racist. A comedian called Tony Hinchcliffe, who I must have never heard too, but apparently it's a big thing in America. He referred to Puerto Rico as a floating island of hot garbage. Now, that was interpreted as being racist. Donald Trump himself claimed he's fighting the enemy from within in this election,

fearing to launch the largest deportation program in American history. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, has claimed that Trump has previously praised Hitler. Well, last night, Donald Trump appeared at a campaign rally in Atlanta in the state of Georgia and hit back at claims from his opponent. The newest line from Kamala and her campaign is that everyone who is invoting for her is a Nazi.

You know, years ago, my father had a great father. He's a tough guy. He used to always say, never use the word Nazi. Never use that word. And it's a never use the word Hitler. Don't use that word. It's like, I didn't even know why. Don't use that word. And then I understood it. And yet they use that word freely, both words. So you say, he's Hitler. And then they say, he's a Nazi. I'm not a Nazi. I'm the opposite of a Nazi.

Well, I believe Donald Trump is a lot of things. I must admit it had never occurred to me that he would be a Nazi. So I'm not accusing him of that at all. I'm also not accusing him of being a fascist. Although, one thing I would say is that the many of you know I've got a new book out called The Zictators. And there's a chapter in that on the psychology of a dictator by Professor Ian Robertson at Trinity College Dublin.

And he does talk about Donald Trump having slightly dictatorial tendencies and sort of having a bit in common with dictators. So dictators love to consult with other dictators. Donald Trump loves consulting with strong men leaders like him, Jong Un, Light Vladimir Putin.

And he makes other sort of comparisons, but that doesn't make me think that Donald Trump is an aspirant dictator, even though he did say recently that he would be a dictator on day one, but then revert back to normal on day two, but nobody ever quotes that bit. So I think there are legitimate areas for debate about Donald Trump's character, whether he would be this sort of strong man authoritarian leader, whether he would seek to make dramatic changes to the American political system.

But of course, the American constitution, I think is strong enough to withstand really anything that Donald Trump might want to do to it. He has packed the Supreme Court, that is true, but all American presidents do that. If they have the opportunity, whether they're Democrat or Republican, they always appoint people who are of their own political views.

So I don't blame Donald Trump for those appointments, but I suppose in the end, they could prove to be quite crucial in the outcome of this election if it is as close as we're told it is. So I want to know whether you think it's fair for Donald Trump to be called a fascist, whether you think it's right that this kind of discourse is happening in this American election.

I wonder whether it actually just switches people off, that there'll be many people who just don't bother to vote because they don't want to vote for either candidate who indulges in this kind of rhetoric. 0356060973. Scottie Nullahose joins me, journalist and commentator, who is the author of the book, Roar, the new conservative woman speaks out. Very good title for that book, I think. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.

What do you make of this discourse that's up until now? I mean, it's been a robust presidential campaign, but we haven't had any of these really horrible insults. What's what's provoked them both to indulge in this now? 7 days to an election and the winning side is becoming even more clear to the losing side.

And so what you're seeing is a type of meltdown happening on a daily basis and resorting back to old habits and old techniques that might have worked 20 years ago in politics like demonizing your opponent and demonizing those that follow them. And when you have a mainstream media like we have here in the United States, who overwhelmingly often act like the press department for the current White House as well as the Democratic party, you get them to be your largest cheerleader.

So what you're seeing right now is a meltdown as Democrats are realizing and I think they had this realization back in July when they realize they had replaced Joe Biden with Kamala Harris. They're now seeing it not only at the top of the ticket, but in these offices down ballot. They are seeing Republicans potentially going to have not only the red wave. They thought they'd have in 2022, but all of this sort of anger that has been anguish.

There's been going since 2020 and hatred that's been going towards Republicans, even with Joe Biden in the office, if this turns out to be the numbers we have, Democrats are no longer going to be able to run with this idea that it was absolutely just bullocks that Republicans saw that the election was stolen from them. If you see these numbers actually be more realistic in 2024 than what we saw in 2020.

I don't know how familiar you are with politics in this country, but or the media in this country, but there is a complete absence of understanding of how anyone could vote for Donald Trump in the United States. We look at sort of a lot of the things that he says and does and think really how can normal people vote for him just explain to my listeners why he is still so popular among certain parts of the American electorate?

Well, for the same reason and I am somewhat familiar with Brexit did their second vote for some reason why you had an over what you had the vote for Brexit actually pass.

Why you elect sometimes conservative people to your office you see people comes down to the daily lives of folks being affected by those who are in power and if your life is not good if your petrol prices are higher if you're going to the grocery store if you even have your shelves food on your grocery store shelves and the prices higher. If your high interest rate refuses to allow you to buy a car or invest in your first home you realize something needs to change.

If you realize that your country is putting more investment into those who are going into your country illegally and if there's more money being spent on their children's education then you're the taxpayers education you realize something has to change.

So probably and I notice that a lot in the world looks at the United States like most people watch the Kardashians or the Real Housewives saga they see the drama you don't actually get to see what every day life here on Main Street is like and there are people seriously not only fearful for walking down the street of many communities but they're seeing their education system go down and they're seeing more and more the worry of foreign international issues getting so large that we're seeing once again our national guards our state guards our armies.

Being deployed to areas without any real signs of de escalation except for the potential changing of the commander in chief. How different is the new conservative woman to the old conservative woman? Not afraid to speak out.

You know I think what in the in the past they've always determined republican women kind of just went along with what their husbands went how they voted how they talk they did they kind of repeated maybe what they their husband said basically because they were so busy they felt like that their time was better spent doing other things whether it be taking care of the children in the school they just didn't want to deal with the drama of the politics but today's modern day woman is having to be actually affected by what is happening in government they're seeing it happen there.

They're having to actually live out the consequences of a vote they did so they're actually not afraid to speak out they're not feeling like they have to there's still a lot of work that needs to be done on the republican side but in this case especially with Kamala Harris running it's been not only the males that have had to fight back but it's really been the females who have had to not just buy this ideology that just because I'm a female I have to vote another female or some a bad woman that has not gone through in 2020.

I think that's what the democrats were hoping for and what is the new conservative woman's view on reproductive rights because again in this country this is not an issue it's it's important just is not a political issue in the UK and we look at what's happening in the United States and scratch our heads and again find it difficult to comprehend why when this issue seem to have been settled it's really well I don't know about settle but because it's always been a politically important issue.

I suppose but it's really played a big part in this election. Well, it's played a big part because democrats feel like that's their winning issue it kind of goes back to what you were originally talking about Donald Trump and fascism and author to authoritarianism how Donald Trump is not a fascist is he's the one person that continuously have said especially in the area of reproductive rights.

Return the power back to the states are federal government in the US the same accusation that we originally had of the British when we went for our independence we're now doing here in the United States you're putting all the power into one central and Donald Trump's coming in saying put it out to the people put it to the states let them make the decision for themselves that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a hundred percent pro life which he's gotten some pushback on our hundred percent pro choice but he says it belongs to the communities just like we believe education should belong to communities as well as also so that's what we're doing.

So it's also a security belongs to communities let the people there is a big difference between what is happening in a state like New York and Alabama and I'm sure the same thing happens within the UK as well there is a big difference you cannot take what's going on in London and pick a Delhi circle circuit and then compared to what's going on out in the out in the country two different worlds people are living in two different perspectives Donald Trump but it is one but it is one country isn't it and surely if you have a

cohesive country that does need to be a national law on things like abortion. Why it's not in our deck it's not in our our Constitution it is not a constitutional right to have an abortion and how many women feel is there's more to women's health than just reproductive rights and it's not like we are back in the 1950s there are other ways there are more scientifically advanced safer ways to prevent pregnancies today then there was 50 60 years ago

when this debate really took strongholds in the United States so once again it goes back to the states it goes back to families it goes back to communities making the decision based on their own forcing doctors to have to perform abortions is absolutely not only unethical but it should be illegal and I think that's one of the cases that we're looking at here in the U.S.

but forcing them not to also surely is incredibly distasteful and I mean that there are plenty of cases that we read about where women have has very unfortunate experiences of having to travel out of their state to another one and suffering a lot of consequences from that and a doctor who even just run a woman's health care point of view is prevented from caring for her in the way that

well the the hypocritical that we have in this country that would force them to well sadly a lot of these stories have been misconstrued by the liberal left in the truth of not been told for them there's not a single case where a mother's life was in danger that a doctor was not able to perform a life saving procedure that might have terminated that child's life and I know the few that might have gotten across the

pond and misconstrued all of those when the truth comes out about it they'll realize that that was not the situation the left made it out to be doctors right now can still perform if a woman's life is at risk a life saving procedure and if that is abortion then that is what is between the doctor and the patient to decide nothing's changed in any state about that.

Thank you for talking to us if you're ever in London I'd love to have a longer chat with you thank you very much indeed that Scotty Nell Hughes a book is called Raw the new can that's R O A R not R A W the new conservative woman speaks out so let's return to this idea that Donald Trump is alleged to be some sort of fascist now one of the things that Scotty just said there about devolving power on laws on abortion now you can argue that both ways because

fascist leaders do not devolve power at all they're crew it to themselves so that's one example of why Donald Trump is not a fascist are there others that you can think of or what's the case for the prosecution.

This is LBC with e and a call 0345 6060973 21 minutes passed 9 on LBC this time next week the American people will be voting many of them will have already voted for the next president it will either be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris we're talking about that today because of the I think rather unfortunate public spat that's gone on between them

whether each calling the other a fascist Donald Trump makes a speech denying that he's a Nazi she didn't actually call him a Nazi but I mean those two words are often used interchangeably and I said I wanted to talk about the definition of fascism because I think when you look at the definition you will understand why it's it's not really fair it's not really right to call Donald Trump a fascist whether it is

somebody in this country doing it or whether it is indeed his opponent Kamala Harris doing it so this according to Wikipedia is the definition of fascism fascism is a far right authoritarian and ultra nationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader centralized autocracy militarism

forcible suppression of opposition belief in a natural social hierarchy subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the national race and strong regimentation of society and the economy opposed to anarchism democracy pluralism egalitarianism liberalism socialism and Marxism fascism is placed on the far right wing within the traditional left right spectrum

now there's not a lot in there where you could say that Donald Trump really fits that definition you can say well he is opposed to anarchism he's opposed to liberalism socialism and Marxism that doesn't make him a fascist it just places him on the right I think if you were opposed to all of those things and more then okay you can have an argument about it

the why is it that we now use fascist fascism as an insult to cover anybody that disagrees with us I see it on social media every single day and anybody that calls me a fascist I just I just have a right smile because I don't believe in ultra nationalist political ideologies

I don't believe in centralized autocracy I don't believe in militarism I don't believe in full suppression of opposition I mean I could go on and yet people use that word to describe anybody basically to the right of them and it's ridiculous isn't it

Billy's inventor on the other white talent Billy I even a nice speech you off the back of what you were saying I think this is partly why I actually originally saying then there are certainly elements of Donald Trump that I would describe as fascist S can I have to explain why I think that why I know that even in a moment I say but the issue is is it's become a poison word because sadly there are lots of people

regard on all sides of political spectrums that now choose to just trade insults like the word fascist I mean I listen to you every evening you are not a fascist and yet the fact that you've got people practically what is it it's lighter or liable when it's when it's written on the internet

the fact that people are effectively using such livers words to describe you it's disgusting it's not even divisive language that's not how I would describe it it's quite frankly it is uninformed language and this is why I'm disappointed because I think we can all agree that the best person that can be in that white house next week is Kamala Harris

as a safe pair of hands she is within centimeters of getting there as is Donald Trump and this is why just from a strategic point of view and from a get pretty my geeky political strategy hat on I just think it's a really terrible mistake that she's made to mirror the same language of her opponent because as you well know that is not how you win an election you win an

election by making it clear that you're the opposition and that you are different and the fact that this race is so close I honestly right now if I was in Kamala Harris's planning team here I would be concerned that this is going to backfire because in an election where every vote is literally going to matter this could potentially be the difference between her entering the white house and not

well I don't disagree with any of that I think that when when she was at the convention and she made that speech effectively saying let's bring joy back to our politics I was cheering her on I thought well good hopefully you can go through this campaign maintaining that degree of optimism unfortunately as Donald Trump has crept up in the polls and as she's slightly

slumped in the polls to to a point where they are literally neck and neck I think Trump is ahead in several of the swing states and she seems to have reverted to I say reverted she seems to have adopted a totally different strategy as if frightening the electorate is going to do anything well if that if that was the case Trump would not have won in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have become president and I think her whole demeanor has changed over the few weeks since that convention to a point where

if people thought they didn't know what she stood for before they certainly have their number wise and now and all the interviews that she's done she's been totally unconvincing in and that has left an opportunity for Donald Trump to steal a march on her in a way that she should never have allowed him to do she absolutely should not have allowed effectively it's an own goal that's what I'm receiving it as I mean look academically you can describe some of the

characteristics of Donald Trump as Victoria I mean just one thing I was saying to your producer a moment ago in 2017 of course when Donald Trump put that awful imposed ban on Muslims and refugees entering the country that was incredibly regimented and divisive to you know what is arguably one of the best countries in the world one of the best democracy in the world and the interference as well if we look at 2020 with claiming victory falsely I mean going on as recently as a few weeks ago to say

that he had every right quote unquote to intervene in that process it is shocking and the man can be described in many ways with tutorial traits but the problem is is that doesn't work in a sound bite what she's done is she is back fired she said something off the cuff that hasn't worked rather than making it really clear like you said over the last few weeks that she the

alternative different camera I've got to say and yesterday when I was listening to Simon Marx do his report on the American election I was thinking well Kamala is probably going to do it but I've got to be honest with you I mean I'm starting to get PTSD from 2016 and I sort of I'm hastened to say now whether she's actually going to do it whether she's going

to be going on to what I perceived at the time as as a victory and waiting well I think anybody that says firmly they can predict the result of this election is a full because it is too close to call it does seem as though Trump has a bit of momentum and that is important in elections but I certainly couldn't hand on heart predict what's going to happen next Tuesday.

Thank you very much indeed now here's an interesting what's that message from as a who says I wanted to call but I've decided what's up instead I remember driving home from work one day in January 2017 and listening to Trump's inauguration speech live on your then drive time show after the speech you said that was the most

interesting speech you've ever heard and it reminded you very much of Mussolini speeches and you are saying how a Paul you were by it and here you are now saying you don't understand by people are calling him a fascist have you really forgotten your own words because I remember them clearly now I remember them clearly as well but what what what I also think

is I was talking about that is demeanor rather than his actual words that the strutting I did remind me of Mussolini the style of it and I was expecting the content to be much more presidential and I can remember listening to it thinking what the hell am I going to say at the end of this

and I was I was totally appalled by that speech now I can't sit here again hand on heart and say yes I did think the content was fascist but certainly the style of it was and I don't think that conflicts with anything that I've just said this evening but I'm glad you remember that because that is when I come to write my memoirs as sort of the LBC years chapter that that will feature in it.

Because often when you're a presenter and you're listening to a political speech and you're thinking well what on earth do I say at the end of this because you're supposed to sum up what they've said and I thought well it's very difficult to sum up what he just said most of it seemed to be quite incomprehensible but the style of it really did worry me and make me think that I'd completely even though I wouldn't I didn't support him back in 2016 I did think that he would do that.

I think that he would change and after the conclusion of the campaign and after he actually sat behind the desk in the Oval Office that he would become presidential boy was I wrong. Leading Britain's conversation e and alexa send a comment to LBC.

934 Andy says the term fascist is banded about so much these days by most people who have no idea what the word means. Trump got North and South Korea talking to each other and also Israel and one of the Arab states talking for the first time in decades. The countries then allowed each other's planes to fly over the respective countries after many years.

Trump made the world a bit more peaceful not tyrannical in the slightest well look I kind of agree that his foreign policy I think there were a cheap answer in the first term. He makes great play of the fact that he didn't start a war was didn't involve American troops in a war unlike most of his immediate pre that all of his immediate predecessors.

That doesn't mean to say that the world is going to be a safer place if Donald Trump becomes president this time because if you're Ukrainian you must really fear a Donald Trump presidency given that he clearly is not going to say he's on Vladimir Putin side in the UK Ukraine war but he's signal very heavily that he will not be supporting Zelensky with any more military hardware.

Let's go to Patrick in Shen in Wyoming in the United States Patrick very good evening what would you like to say good evening here and I don't know if you recall I rang up good few months ago probably eight months ago to talk to him talk about project 2025 which you weren't aware of at the time.

And you had a little bit and any email me saying well it's just normal thing that happens in the presidential election they start preparing some stuff in advance well I think you got to admit that it's a lot more serious than just a document because they've already recruited I think is 20,000 people who got recruited so far.

So that when he can get rid of the federal federal civil servants that he wants to get rid of he's got people to put right into place well hang on a second because what the American transition is very different to in Britain I mean we don't really even have a transition that what you refer to as civil servants these are political appointments to all sorts of government departments and there are thousands of them so this happens in with every.

With every I think Patrick Patrick let me finish and then you can come back this happens in every administration whether it's Democrat or Republican on June January the 20th they all clear their desks and they're replaced by people from the new from the new administration.

That's right but they're they're going to reintroduce the legislation that allows them to dismiss civil servants who are you know life lifelong workers for the next layer down so he wants to fill the next layer down with his own people well you say that but I've seen I've seen I've seen Donald Trump.

And himself address this in an interview where he said that he has nothing to do with project 20 25 and it won't be happening under his watch Patrick if you if you keep talking over me you are not heard by the listeners so if you let me finish and then you come back that's the way it works.

I'm a bit heated about this because I see what's going to happen friend of mine is one of the top is retired now top attorneys in the state good friend of this chain and what have you and he is seriously worried and he's been explaining to me what the things you can do rather than and what he says he can do. It is really very serious and like what Trump has been Trump has been photographed numerous times with the guy who heads up project 20 25.

Yeah he's quoted in there I think 90 times in project 20 25 Trump's name is quoted in there JD fans has already written a supporting document of trip 20 25 I think he I think he wrote the preface to a book about 20 25. So you know 20 25 is what he wants to put into place as soon as he gets into power and heritage foundation built it for him.

And as I say they've got 20,000 people enrolled that we know are so far and they're aiming for a lot more than that to put into place to replace fine served civil servants that the layers beneath the normally appointed people. What do you fear what do we fear well I fear that whichever way it goes there is going to be violence probably not where I am here but certainly down in Denver certainly down in Denver and other locations around the country.

January 6 will be just merely a small event to what could happen. But why would there be violence. If he won't be violent, then he's going to state that he's won anyway whether it's one or not. No but you're talking you know but that's not what you were talking about you were talking about if he were well I understood you to mean that if he won that would be violence.

Well why no doubt about it why well there was there was a top team of former senior people from I think going back to five presidents all got together and they've made a form of. They've made a documentary about that meeting and basically they are meeting they were meeting for six hours and one side was going to plan how they were going to take control of the government and the other side were trying to work out what these people might want to do to try and take control of the government.

These were top people these are former people in the intelligence people that have worked directly previous presidents and it's what she calls war game. It's called war game that documentary and you can go on one of the any one of the streaming sites and you can probably find it there. So it basically covers what Trump would do if he won. It covers what might happen with we wins or not. Generally the six you know generally the six was nothing to what could happen now.

Seriously I mean you know I'm on the ground here I'm in the state which is 70% Trump we've already got to pick up going around with the twin flags and the. One flag is the American flag and the other flag is the black and white version of the American flag which basically says no quarter so those flags.

They're the ones that say we don't care who you are you don't agree we're going to kill you that's exactly what those flags mean and we have those people outside trying to try to break down the Congress and invade the Congress and hang like pants. Until 90 Pelosi I mean over there you've seen what was happening.

Yeah but that was a relatively small group of people I mean what you're talking about is violence all over the country even if he wins which I mean look okay you're on the ground I'm not but I find it difficult to imagine why that would happen if he won. Now if he loses and then contest it I kind of agree with you I think there is the potential for that to happen. Well particularly in democratic cities so if you look at Colorado Colorado used to go red state.

But now it's become dominant democratic because of the growth in IT sector and everything else through Denver four Collins. And all that front range the rest of the state is all strongly Republican there are sheriff's that are running that are in charge in some of these counties that turn around and the various firearms laws that have been introduced in the state.

And that's why it's used to actually enforce them like the red flag laws and a number of other things number of number of rounds you can have a magazine they don't care you know they just say we're not doing it. And that's where your friction is going to come from you know you end up in the blue state and if the Colorado will most definitely still run blue Trump wins the election. And it's going to be you know it's going to be the brown stuff in the family in Colorado.

Okay Patrick thank you very much let's move on to Martin and leads Halemarton. Good evening Ian thanks for bringing me on the show my goodness a lot of hysteria around isn't that at the moment just listening to your last. Well some of it justified some of it not.

Well I don't think much of it is personally but I was just going to comment about you talked about the nature of fascism a little bit earlier and you defined it you went into Wikipedia to find its definition and one thing you missed out though was that fascist leaders do have a habit and history has shown this.

And I think we're wanting to imprison their opponents I think we'd all probably agree that that is a characteristic of fascists and yet if you look at the United States for the last 18 months at least the Democratic party has been trying its best to send Donald Trump to jail by bringing ludicrous charges against him you know we had this.

And I think the whole American system of appointing legal officers by party is absolutely ludicrous personally and it guarantees that we're going to get this sort of. And I think that's a very important person chasing your opponents but certainly if we judge who's a fascist by who tries to jail their opponents then I'm afraid it's the Democratic party and and and and their leaders and can I say one other thing as well.

Back one of the most important speeches ever made by an American president was given by Dwight the Eisenhower on the 17th of January 1961 when it was his farewell address to the American people and you as a political historian may know this but.

Eisenhower warned very strongly in that speech and that speech should be much better know than it is against the what he called the military industrial complex extending its tentacles into the political world in other words he was warning against the influence of the arms company is the you know the the major industrial company is in the United States from from having too much influence on politics.

And yet when Joe Biden was inaugurated on the 20th of January 2021 the following day he nominated Lloyd Austin as his secretary of defense and Lloyd Austin up to that point was a director of Raytheon which is the biggest arms manufacturing company in the world.

So he brought Lloyd Austin straight into being the secretary of defense from being a director of Raytheon what an incredible conflict of interest and if you talk about fascism being you know the marching forward of the military industrial complex that was a perfect example I must say Ian I immediately bought shares in Raytheon when when he made that appointment and they've virtually doubled in values as you might expect since then because we've seen since

that day the expansion of well hang on hang on hang on as as the Americas might say hang on a cotton pick in minute because what you fail to mention there is that Lloyd Austin is a retired United States Army four star general with a stellar military career yes he did then go on to work for Raytheon and what you're suggesting is that when somebody moves from the hang on hang on hang on when somebody

moves from the private sector back into government that they automatically are going to be corrupt and I think that's a disgraceful thing to suggest about a four star general.

So I think that's a great thing is corrupt but what I'm saying is that he brings a mindset into the job that's been developed throughout his career and military man and then working as a director of the biggest arms company in the world what sort of mindset do you think is going to have I mean clearly and you don't have to be corrupt all you have to do is to follow your your instincts and that's one reason why we've had so much

to do is to do a war going on I know that's a simplification but inevitably when you put when you put people like that in in a secretary do you who would you who would you like to be who would you like to be American defense secretary I thought an x four star general was a pretty damn good choice no I don't think it would be because what we what you have to.

The whole point is that the generals should be answerable to the politicians and they are well no no when you're putting them in that position like that and you certainly shouldn't be having I mean do you do you actually disagree with what I said in in 90.

Well I haven't read I haven't read the speech I can't say one way or another can I suggest that you should do because I think I'm quite certain that you would agree with this because you're you're you're you're you're you've got a lot of very strong principles and I think we have to say that in the United States they've got a very different political system to us but one of the one of the failings of

the system is that their major you know arms companies pharmaceutical companies and the like have far too much influence over politics in a way that they don't have in this country. Oh you reckon do you.

I'll tell you what these big pharmaceutical companies that you so blindly dismiss that if they didn't produce the drugs that they do which benefit all of us I mean I think that would be a crying shame now you can say well they make too many profits or whatever but to just sort of dismiss a whole sector is sort of all that corrupt because they try and influence government and all the rest of it I'm afraid Martin is incredibly lazy thinking.

No I don't think it is as I say I think you ought to read I was speech. Okay well I'll I'll look it up on the train home tonight just for you Martin thank you very much indeed. Thank you for the meal on LBC 952 we've had some interesting calls in this hour haven't we let's go to another one all for Zin Hamburg now all you've been listening to our discussion here it does is it reflected in any of the discussions that you're seeing on

German media about the US election. Yeah I'll be referring to drama part of here we are discussing whether the AFG is a fashion party and let me let you know secret they are I mean but that's much more certain them and calling them that is not make much more sense then this discussion you're having about Donald Trump I think it takes enough boxes to be where to deserve the discussion but the most important thing is here's the end of the democracy.

We would up a bloodthirsty mob that interfered with the change of government and then they actually killed people are just nearly killed people I mean that alone should exclude him from any office forever except maybe had of the library in the prison. Well I would I would have thought that too but we live in very different democracies in Britain and Germany I think sometimes people in this country make no effort at all to understand how America works.

The different kinds of democracy that they have and they make no effort to understand why people vote for Donald Trump. Well you always want to know why people vote for for evil politicians whether they are outright fascist or something pretty close.

The secret is simple if people are for whatever reason enraged enough that they don't care about logic and decency anymore or you need somebody presents them with a scapegoat and simple answers and hey presto that person will get least 30% of the votes. And that's the game Donald Trump is playing and that is the fascist playbook he may not have in mind the creation of a state authoritarian state where everybody marches in lockstep but he certainly wants to be a leader.

He certainly wants to be dictator not just on day one and I would would hate to be on the other side of the fence once he has control of the military and law enforcement that is going to end our in a very ugly manner so he's dead with enough whether you call it a fashion should we not should we not partially judge him on what he did in his first term because he wasn't a menace in in terms of the military then he didn't get involved in foreign escapades foreign wars.

He tried to I mean it's an abortive initiative with Kim Jong Un but at least he made an attempt. He encouraged the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. I mean it's not all one way traffic with him is it on foreign policy and I think what you just said about sort of I can't remember the words that you use but you were sort of effectively saying that you thought that he would be a danger to world peace well that wasn't the case in his first term was it.

He would not be a danger to world peace he would be a danger to American democracy that's the difference yeah he got something's right I mean brutally set out of it I got something's right he still was a James Jonathan Maniac and Trump would not trigger another war he would well he's an expression of American isolation of which is something the Americans well fall into a be generation or two.

So that he wouldn't do but and he you don't have to do things to hurt people you just neglect vulnerable people you just let them live in misery he intends to create a very very very small state so that taxes can be very very low for very very retro powerful people that's his job actually and staying all into state of prison and incidentally so that would be bad enough whether that makes him an honor to go.

Or something else whether you call him fascist or not is a tactical question will it get your votes or not I don't know you shouldn't be called Hitler nobody should be called Hitler unless he's a genocide and I find that this taste for it but he's bad enough as he is I mean sorry.

A tragic greatest is a fraud he's an insurrection is isn't that bad enough well as as you say I agree with you on that but American people don't seem to or some of them anyway all thank you let's go to Dan who's in New Jersey hello Dan. Hello in how are you good thank you what would you like to say I just wanted to come and provide some ballad I mean the things I'm hearing as an Englishman it's embarrassing to listen to you guys.

I mean you agreeing with some some guy that Donald Trump is a fascist or something and I didn't I didn't agree with them. Well I think you did because you said he said he's an insurrectionist and he brought this this is an insurrection is he he supported the January the 6th protest. January the 6th protest was not an insurrection I think you need to look up the really. They they tried to take over the seat of American government that what how else would you describe it then.

Did they try to take it over I mean it was it was a rowdy mob who was invited by the police it was invited there's only one person murdered that day and it was a lady a very. Apologies my head said it's a touch so I can't actually carry on Dan because I can't hear what you're saying but I will win Corey. We attach is the lead. I'm sorry I could hear someone could ruffle in the background right I'm back I'm back in the room Dan. Okay sorry.

I thought it was me I thought you were saying I've been cut up no no no this this happened the other night as well we were making sure it doesn't happen again. I think your listeners need to know some facts and just going to give you a couple so there was one person on January this it they've heard lots of nonsense from you guys in the media but one person was killed that day and it was a lady.

No it's not okay but it's okay but let me tell you who it was who got killed it was one of the people you just called an insurrectionist and her name was actually babbit as she served her country in the military and she went peacefully that day to to the capital to protest. What she believed and we got a massive problem with facing the elected. All right and an armed policeman shot her in the neck and murdered her.

Dan I'd like you to phone in again we will be talking about the US election again between now and next Tuesday. We run out of time we've got to the end of the program I'm sorry it's my fault because of my little technical difficulty there and but thank you for calling in.